Telangana Chief Minister Revanth Reddy has triggered a fierce political backlash after accusing the previous Bharat Rashtra Samithi administration of inflicting “greater injustice” on the state through irrigation decisions and declaring that it would not be wrong even if former chief minister K Chandrasekhar Rao and his nephew T Harish Rao were “hanged” for their role in those projects.
The comment, delivered during a public address while defending his government’s irrigation review, drew immediate condemnation across party lines and sharpened an already tense debate over water-sharing, project prioritisation and fiscal choices made during a decade of BRS rule. Opposition leaders described the language as incendiary and unbecoming of a constitutional office, while members of the ruling Congress sought to contextualise the remarks as an expression of anger over alleged long-term damage to the state’s agrarian economy.
Revanth Reddy’s attack centred on large irrigation schemes initiated or expanded under the previous government, including projects linked to the Krishna and Godavari river basins. He argued that design choices, cost escalations and inter-state negotiations under the BRS weakened Telangana’s water claims and burdened the exchequer, leaving farmers vulnerable to erratic supply. The chief minister has ordered a technical and financial review of several schemes, insisting that accountability is essential where public funds and inter-state river agreements are involved.
The former chief minister, who led the state from its formation until last year, rejected the allegations and accused the Congress government of politicising water management to divert attention from its own administrative challenges. K Chandrasekhar Rao maintained that the projects in question expanded storage capacity, improved lift irrigation and transformed drought-prone districts, asserting that his administration acted within legal and technical frameworks approved at the time.
T Harish Rao, a senior figure in the BRS and former minister handling irrigation portfolios at different points, also denied wrongdoing. He said the chief minister’s language trivialised constitutional norms and attempted to criminalise policy decisions taken after expert consultations. Party leaders warned that such rhetoric could inflame public sentiment and undermine investor confidence in long-gestation infrastructure.
Legal experts noted that while sharp political criticism is common, references to capital punishment in a political speech cross a line, particularly when directed at named individuals. Several senior advocates pointed out that policy disagreements and alleged administrative lapses must be addressed through audits, legislative scrutiny and courts, not through calls that could be read as endorsing violence. Human rights groups echoed those concerns, urging restraint and adherence to democratic discourse.
The controversy has also reopened a broader policy debate on irrigation governance in Telangana. Analysts say disputes over project sequencing, lift versus gravity systems, and cost-benefit assessments have dogged the sector since statehood. Inter-state river boards and tribunals have repeatedly flagged the need for coordinated planning to avoid litigation and duplication. Within Telangana, farmers’ unions remain divided, with some backing the Congress government’s promise of course correction and others crediting earlier projects with tangible gains.
BMC election race jolted by mass nomination rejections 