It is surprising that even after the formation of Telangana state, some political leaders still continue to speak dismissively about the Telangana movement without trying to understand its historical background. Particularly, whenever Pawan Kalyan speaks about Telangana, controversy seems to follow. The Telangana movement was not an emotional outburst born in a single day. It was the result of decades of accumulated pain over injustices related to “water, funds, and jobs” faced by the people of Telangana after the formation of Andhra Pradesh in 1956, along with attacks on their language and culture. As early as 1969, around 365 students lost their lives during the movement under the regimes of Kasu Brahmananda Reddy and Jalagam Vengala Rao, and thousands of youth came onto the streets demanding a separate Telangana. Ignoring that history and portraying the formation of Telangana as some kind of political disaster is highly irresponsible.

No single party or leader alone was responsible for the formation of Telangana state. It was the result of a prolonged united struggle by activists, students, employees, farmers, artists, intellectuals, writers, and singers. The “Sakala Janula Samme” and other collective struggles laid the foundation for statehood. K. Chandrashekar Rao (KCR) provided political direction to the movement. On the other hand, Maoists, and later even the BJP, declared their support for smaller states, especially Telangana. Congress president Sonia Gandhi promised the formation of Telangana. The Telugu Desam Party too eventually gave its approval. In fact, many political parties across the country submitted letters supporting Telangana to the central government. Amidst all these developments, KCR’s indefinite fast pushed the second phase of the Telangana movement to its peak. Ultimately, Telangana was formed as the long-cherished aspiration of its people. In other words, it was not a personal gift given by someone; it was the political recognition of the collective aspirations of the people.

Without understanding this historical process, making comments such as “I did not eat food for 13 days when Telangana was formed” or “I bought a car for Gaddar” does not reflect political maturity. By reducing a mass movement to the level of personal emotions, one ends up belittling the sacrifices of millions of people. The people of Telangana did not fight out of hatred toward anyone; they fought bravely for self-respect and self-governance and finally achieved their own state. If Pawan Kalyan still fails to understand this, it only reflects his lack of awareness.

Critics often point out that Pawan Kalyan’s political journey lacks ideological clarity. One day he says Che Guevara is his inspiration. Another day he claims to be a protector of Sanatana Dharma. At times he praises communists, while on other occasions he speaks the language of Hindutva politics even more aggressively than the BJP and RSS. Like newly converted believers who become overenthusiastic, he says “I am Christian, my wife is Christian, my children are Christian,” yet dramatically washes temple steps in devotional fervor. These contradictions in his personality and inconsistency in his words strengthen the perception that he lacks stability in thought. People expect clarity, commitment, and consistency from a leader. But playing different roles on every stage, swinging emotionally as though possessed, and delivering film-style dialogues may work in cinema, but such theatrics cannot survive for long in politics. At best, movie fans may enjoy it as free entertainment and applaud. That is all.

No one can deny that Pawan Kalyan gained recognition in the film industry largely because of Chiranjeevi’s influence. But political leadership cannot survive merely on cinematic image. It requires understanding of public issues, administrative knowledge, party-building skills, and cadre strength. Even after years since the formation of the Jana Sena Party, critics argue that the party still lacks strong grassroots organizational structure. Apart from loud speeches, dramatic gestures, whistles, and cheers from film fans, the party has failed to establish itself as an independent political force in elections. Even if Pawan Kalyan has forgotten it, the people have not forgotten how he suffered humiliating defeats while contesting from two constituencies in Andhra Pradesh, even failing to secure deposits. The widespread perception today is that his current position as Deputy Chief Minister of Andhra Pradesh did not come through his own political strength, but as a result of the political arrangements between Chandrababu Naidu and the BJP.

Considering the harsh criticisms Pawan Kalyan once made against Chandrababu Naidu, Narendra Modi, and the BJP, and comparing them with his present political alignment, questions naturally arise about his opportunistic politics. Likewise, Chandrababu too had once severely criticized Modi, and Modi had made sharp remarks against Chandrababu. Today, they appear united for mutual political benefit. Such alliances may be common in politics, but people see these electoral partnerships more as political convenience than ideological unity. In this context, Pawan Kalyan giving moral lectures to others only weakens his own credibility. People see such behavior as childish acts lacking maturity and political wisdom.

The reality is that after the formation of Telangana, the people from Andhra and Rayalaseema living in Hyderabad and other parts of Telangana have not suffered any harm. Businesses, industries, the film sector, and employment opportunities in Hyderabad continue normally and peacefully. People from both regions are living together harmoniously. In such a healthy atmosphere, making provocative remarks about Telangana and inflaming regional hatred is neither beneficial for him nor for the people of Andhra and Rayalaseema. Using regional emotions involving Andhra, Telangana, and Rayalaseema for personal ego or political gain will ultimately harm ordinary people.

Telangana is a land with a rich history of struggles. The people here believe more in movements than in mere words. It is not easy to influence them with movie dialogues and emotional speeches alone. A political leader must take responsibility for his words. Especially when speaking about the honor, history, and movements of another state, greater caution is necessary. Criticism is natural in a democracy. But distorting historical facts and undermining the sacrifices made in movements is not acceptable.

The real challenge before Pawan Kalyan today is not commenting on Telangana. Instead, he should remind himself of the promises he made to the people of Andhra Pradesh when he founded the Jana Sena Party and when he contested elections there, and explain how many of those promises he has actually fulfilled. He should answer the people regarding unemployment, farmers’ issues, and the promises he made to farmers who gave away their lands cheaply for the Amaravati capital project, assuring them that he would ensure proper market compensation. He should also fulfill his earlier promise that he would fight at any cost to prevent the privatization of the Visakhapatnam Steel Plant. He should explain what he has achieved for the people in sectors such as education and healthcare in his capacity as Deputy Chief Minister. The post of Deputy Chief Minister is merely an honorific position unless it genuinely benefits the people. In politics, it is a stable personality, clear ideology, and responsibility toward the people that sustain a leader. Otherwise, no matter how grand the movie-style dialogues or hollow words may sound, they eventually disappear with time.

Moreover, Pawan Kalyan and the Jana Sena Party are now saying they will contest elections in Telangana, and that he himself will campaign there. No one objects to that. It is his democratic right. But if he expects to even save his election deposit, he will need genuine public support. For that, it would be better for him to stop making these reckless and immature remarks. Even his own supporters may not like seeing him throw into confusion the Deputy Chief Minister position that has come his way, much like the disorder already visible in his personal life because of his own words and actions.