“Old habits die hard” is not just a cliché—it is a political warning. Andhra Pradesh Chief Minister N. Chandrababu Naidu seems determined to prove it right, yet again.
A series of viral videos now circulating on social media has reignited an uncomfortable question: has the Telugu Desam Party (TDP), now an ally in the BJP-led NDA, slipped back into its old template of selective minority appeasement? More importantly, has Naidu learnt anything from his political near-extinction?
Let’s get one thing straight. No rational observer would object to welfare schemes for minorities, including Muslims. A democratic state must care for all sections. But governance crosses into appeasement when it becomes selective, exclusionary, and politically calculated.
The viral video in question features a woman asking a simple, uncomfortable, and entirely legitimate question: if the government can extend benefits to one religious group, why not ensure parity across all faiths—including the Hindu majority? Why should a state that derives substantial revenues from Hindu temples hesitate to extend similar welfare considerations to Hindus?
I, as a professional media practitioner for the past four decades, feel the question is unreasonable. Or is it inconvenient?
This is precisely where Naidu’s political instincts appear stuck in the past. The same pattern of calibrated outreach to specific vote banks, ignoring broader social balance, is what contributed to the downfall of the YSR Congress Party in the last Assembly elections. Voters rejected perceived bias. They punished selective governance. The message was loud and clear.
Yet, here we are again.
Naidu’s political resurrection itself is not a solo achievement. It is widely acknowledged within political circles that his return to the NDA fold was neither automatic nor entirely welcome. It required intervention—most notably from Pawan Kalyan, whose political capital and credibility helped smooth TDP’s re-entry.
Would the BJP have opened its doors so easily otherwise? Unlikely.
In fact, the 2024 election campaign offers a telling episode. Before the alliance was formally sealed, Prime Minister Narendra Modi chose to address a massive rally in Vijayawada at the request of Pawan Kalyan. Naidu, in a symbolic moment, stood beside Modi—not as an equal partner, but as a translator of his speech.
That visual mattered. It reflected political reality.
But what followed was politically reckless.
During a subsequent visit to Chittoor, Naidu’s native—when questioned by members of the Muslim community about his return to the NDA—reportedly claimed that it was the BJP that had “pleaded” with him, not the other way around. The remark, captured and amplified through viral videos, was widely perceived as a blatant distortion.
The fallout was swift and serious.
The comment reportedly did not go down well with either Modi or Home Minister Amit Shah. Signals from New Delhi suggested a potential withdrawal of top campaign support for TDP. Had that happened, the political consequences would have been catastrophic.
Let’s not mince words—without the BJP’s backing, the TDP’s electoral prospects would have been severely compromised. The possibility of the YSRCP returning to power was very real.
And once again, it was Pawan Kalyan who stepped in—reportedly rushing to New Delhi to defuse the situation and salvage the alliance.
That intervention did not go unnoticed.
In fact, Modi publicly acknowledged Pawan Kalyan during election rallies, calling him “our man” in Andhra Pradesh. That single statement carried more weight than any formal alliance document. It was a subtle but clear signal about where trust truly lies within the NDA framework in the state.
Naidu would do well to read that signal correctly.
Because politics today is not what it was two decades ago. The BJP is no longer a marginal player dependent on regional allies. It is the dominant pole in national politics. Allies are partners—but not power centres.
If Naidu believes he can outmaneuver or outsmart the BJP while simultaneously relying on its support, he is misreading the ground reality—dangerously so.
A parallel can be drawn with Nitish Kumar in Bihar. The Janata Dal (United) leader has, over time, recalibrated his approach, recognizing that in today’s political ecosystem, no regional ally can afford to project itself as bigger than the BJP while remaining within the NDA.
The lesson is simple: humility sustains alliances; overconfidence destroys them.
Back in Andhra Pradesh, another silence is raising eyebrows—that of Deputy Chief Minister Pawan Kalyan. For a leader who played a role in shaping the current political arrangement, his apparent reluctance to publicly question or counterbalance Naidu’s moves is puzzling.
Is it strategic restraint? Or uneasy compromise?
Either way, the optics matter.
Naidu’s critics have long accused him of a “use-and-throw” political style—leveraging alliances when convenient and discarding them when expedient. If recent actions are any indication, that perception is only getting reinforced.
But here’s the hard truth: power is never permanent.
Voters evolve. Sentiments shift. And communities—particularly the Hindu majority—are increasingly vocal about perceived imbalances in policy and governance. The days of silent acceptance are over.
Even in neighbouring Telangana, Chief Minister A. Revanth Reddy has made overt ideological assertions aligning Congress with Muslim support. But that is consistent with Congress’s long-standing political positioning.
The TDP, however, is not Congress. It cannot afford ideological ambiguity—especially when it is aligned with the BJP. Otherwise, it has to face the same fate, sooner or later.
Naidu’s current trajectory risks reviving old fault lines at a time when political stability depends on careful balance. If these signals continue, they will not go unnoticed in New Delhi.
And if the BJP decides to respond with its own brand of power politics, the consequences for TDP could be severe.
An old Urdu is saying goes: “Zyada hoshiyari, jaan ko khatra”—being overly clever can be fatal.
Naidu would do well to remember it.
Because in politics, as in life, repeating old mistakes rarely ends differently.
