Naidu Silent Over BJP Stand On Amaravati!

TDP president N Chandrababu Naidu has been consistently attacking the Y S Jagan government on its decision to form three capitals for the state, but has surprisingly been silent over the stand taken by the BJP.

Naidu has been accusing Jagan of going back on his stand during the TDP regime when Amaravati was announced as the capital of Andhra Pradesh.

He pointed out that Jagan had then insisted on the location of capital city be in the centre of the state and even demanded that at 30,000 acres were required for the capital. 

“Now, Jagan has backtracked on his stand and is going ahead with three capitals plan in the name of decentralisation of administration and inclusive development of all the three regions,” the TDP chief criticised. Readmore!

But surprisingly, Naidu has not been questioning the BJP which has also changed its stand.

When Kanna Lakshminarayana was the state BJP president, the party took a firm stand on Amaravati as the capital city. 

When Jagan announced the three capitals plan, the BJP leaders including Kanna and even present BJP president Somu Veerraju raised a hue and cry.

The BJP workers under the leadership of Kanna even staged a day-long hunger strike at the place where Prime Minister Narendra Modi laid foundation stone for Amaravati capital city.

But in the changed circumstances, the BJP also changed its stand.

While the Centre has declared both in court and outside that it has no role to play in the location of the state capital, the BJP leadership in the state has gone silent.

What is more, Veerraju even suspended a few party leaders who raised their voice in support of Amaravati.

He is now saying the party will fight for the fulfilment of promises made to Amaravati farmers including development of their plots.

Yet, Naidu has not uttered a word against the BJP, while he continues to blame the Jagan government.

It is obvious that he does not want to antagonise the BJP once again, as he is making every effort to get closer to the BJP national leadership.

That is hypocrisy!

Show comments