The political remark that Chandrababu Naidu once described agriculture as “a waste of time” is now being juxtaposed with his growing projection as a “Waterman” and champion of irrigation projects. Political circles and irrigation experts are questioning whether this is one of the biggest political ironies of the decade.
Critics allege that whenever Chandrababu Naidu’s image among the public faces a decline, favourable stories are published in English newspapers, which are subsequently circulated widely as part of a political public-relations strategy. Opposition parties claim that a similar PR exercise is currently underway over the Polavaram and Veligonda projects.
Questions Over Naidu’s Earlier Views on Agriculture and Irrigation
Critics have also revived references to Naidu’s book Manasulo Mata, in which he discussed the gap between government expenditure on irrigation systems and the revenue generated from them.
According to his critics, Naidu had advocated collecting user charges from beneficiaries for the maintenance of irrigation systems. They argue that such views had contributed to his being portrayed in the past as a leader who was not sufficiently sympathetic to farmers and the agricultural sector.
Against this backdrop, his present-day projection as a “Waterman” is drawing questions, particularly with regard to the Polavaram and Veligonda projects.
Polavaram: Questions Over Naidu’s Earlier Role
Critics allege that despite having nine years as Chief Minister, Chandrababu Naidu did not take the initiative to lay the foundation for the Polavaram project.
They point to the role of then-TDP MLA Vaddi Veerabhadra Rao, who is said to have urged Naidu to take steps towards the project. However, critics claim that Naidu showed little interest in even performing the foundation-laying ceremony for Polavaram at the time.
The opposition argues that this raises questions about the contrast between Naidu’s earlier position and his present projection as one of the principal architects of the project.
YSR’s Initiative and Naidu’s Opposition
Critics further point to the developments after Y.S. Rajasekhar Reddy became Chief Minister in 2004. They say YSR laid the foundation for the Polavaram project and began efforts to secure the necessary clearances.
According to the criticism, Naidu’s approach towards the project at that time was not supportive. His critics allege that cases were filed in courts seeking to prevent the project works from proceeding until the necessary approvals were obtained.
They also recall allegations that Naidu adopted different positions on the project in Telangana and Andhra Pradesh. His earlier criticism of canal works under the Jalayagnam programme, describing them as “Dhanayagnam” rather than “Jalayagnam”, is also being brought back into the political debate.
Pattiseema and Purushothapatnam: Credit for Irrigation Works
After Chandrababu Naidu returned to power in 2014, his government installed motors on the right canal and constructed the Pattiseema lift irrigation project.
Critics argue that Naidu subsequently projected Pattiseema as a major achievement of his government, despite the substantial progress already made on the Polavaram canal system during Y.S. Rajasekhar Reddy’s tenure.
Similarly, the Purushothapatnam lift irrigation project was taken up on the left side, and critics allege that these interconnected works were subsequently projected as part of Naidu’s own irrigation legacy.
The opposition further questions whether conducting programmes around works that were already substantially completed and presenting the overall project as an achievement of the current government amounts to a political PR exercise.
Veligonda Project: Questions Over Earlier Statements
Similar questions are being raised over the Veligonda project.
Critics recall a statement allegedly made by Chandrababu Naidu during his visit to Kanigiri on April 29, 2003. According to them, Naidu had said that spending a large amount of money on the Veligonda project was not feasible.
They point to reports published in The Hindu at the time, stating that the project was expected to cost around ₹1,700 crore and that, considering the financial condition of the state, spending such a large amount was not possible.
Critics are now using these earlier remarks to question the present-day portrayal of Naidu as a major architect of the Veligonda project.
Foundation Stone in 1996 and the Question of Funding
Opposition leaders also allege that the foundation stone for the Veligonda project was laid in 1996 primarily with an eye on electoral gains, but that adequate interest was not subsequently shown in allocating the funds required for the project.
They now question how the same project can be projected as an achievement personally delivered by Naidu.
Irrigation experts and political opponents are asking whether the extensive promotion of such narratives through English newspapers and their subsequent circulation through political channels amounts to a deliberate PR strategy.
Debate Over Chandrababu Naidu’s Agricultural Legacy
Opposition parties also argue that agriculture and farmers’ issues did not receive adequate priority during Chandrababu Naidu’s political career.
They claim that the agricultural sector was not given substantial importance in budgetary allocations during his earlier administrations and that his policies were frequently viewed as being focused more on economic and administrative reforms than on direct agricultural support.
Against this background, the current effort to present Naidu as a “Waterman” and as the principal architect of irrigation projects is being strongly criticised by his political opponents.
Political PR or Changing the Historical Narrative?
The opposition argues that presenting Chandrababu Naidu to future generations as the primary architect of major irrigation projects such as Polavaram and Veligonda ignores the complex history of these projects and the contributions made by previous governments.
According to the critics, the current narrative is less about the complete history of irrigation development in Andhra Pradesh and more about building a favourable political image.
They allege that the attempt to project Naidu as a “Waterman” is essentially a political PR exercise aimed at reshaping public perception and rewriting the historical narrative surrounding major irrigation projects.
The controversy therefore goes beyond the question of who deserves credit for Polavaram and Veligonda. It has also triggered a wider political debate over Chandrababu Naidu’s past statements on agriculture and irrigation, his governments’ earlier positions on major water projects, and the manner in which political achievements are presented to the public.
