Telangana Chief Minister Revanth Reddy’s sharp attack on KCR may have drawn criticism for its language, but the more important issue is the questions he raised. BRS leaders, including Harish Rao, objected to the tone of the attack and said such language was inappropriate, yet they have largely avoided addressing the substance of the questions. The central issue is KCR’s continued absence from active public and legislative politics despite being elected as an MLA and expected to serve as the Opposition’s leading voice.
The debate also focuses on the expenditure associated with KCR’s position. The argument being raised is not simply about his salary or security costs, but about the larger question of accountability. If an elected representative remains largely away from the Assembly and public life, voters can reasonably ask why he continues in that position. The criticism is that KCR has not fully embraced the responsibility that came with the people’s verdict, which rejected his government but still gave him a mandate to function as an Opposition leader.
The political question, therefore, goes beyond whether KCR is attending the Assembly regularly. If he believes he cannot effectively perform as an MLA or Opposition leader, critics argue that he could consider resigning and continue political activity outside the legislature. He could still lead the BRS, campaign on public issues and remain connected with people. Instead, prolonged political distance risks creating the perception that public engagement matters only when power is within reach. For an opposition party trying to regain relevance, that is a serious political disadvantage.
The contrast with Andhra Pradesh also offers a different perspective. YS Jagan Mohan Reddy, despite facing his own political challenges, continues to make periodic efforts to remain visible among the public. In Telangana, the BRS faces competition from the BJP as well as the Congress government, leaving KCR with little room for political complacency. Critics argue that staying connected with voters over the past few years could have strengthened the BRS’s position. Ultimately, the issue is not whether KCR deserves criticism for his expenses or political choices—it is whether an elected leader should honour the mandate by actively performing the role voters entrusted to him. If that responsibility cannot be fulfilled, the demand for resignation becomes a question of political accountability, not personal rivalry.
