​Balance is key: On the Andhra Pradesh Reorganisation (Amendment) Bill and Amaravati

As Parliament passed a law last week recognising Amaravati as the capital of Andhra Pradesh, Chief Minister N. Chandrababu Naidu scored a decisive political victory. When he broke ground for Amaravati on June 6, 2015, it was not without controversy. About 217 square kilometres of fertile farmland along the Krishna river were envisaged to be consolidated for a capital city that Mr. Naidu hoped would rival Hyderabad — a city on which he had expended considerable political and administrative capital. Trouble came early. Those lands supported thriving agrarian communities, dominated by Kammas — a powerful landholding community to which Mr. Naidu belongs and which forms a key support base of the Telugu Desam Party (TDP). The process was routed through the Land Pooling Scheme (LPS), seen by critics as a way to circumvent the 2013 land acquisition law. The LPS, however, found acceptance among landowners, who were promised annuities for 10 years and developed residential and commercial plots. But agricultural labourers received only modest monthly assistance — initially ₹2,500 — along with limited skill-development support. Environmental concerns and perceptions that Rayalaseema and north coastal Andhra were being neglected added to the resistance.

Mr. Naidu had expected that the revenue-deficit State would receive sustained financial support from the Centre, particularly since the TDP was then a key ally of the BJP. This did not materialise. The demand for Special Category Status — promised in Parliament by then Prime Minister Manmohan Singh but not incorporated into the Andhra Pradesh Reorganisation Act, 2014 — became a potent political issue that the YSR Congress Party (YSRCP), led by Y.S. Jagan Mohan Reddy, successfully leveraged in the 2019 election. Mr. Reddy’s government too faced criticism for halting Amaravati works and proposing a three-capital model, which ran into legal and political challenges. By 2024, with Mr. Naidu returning to power, the State, backed by a more accommodative Centre, had moved to revive Amaravati. The Centre has committed support for capital infrastructure largely through loans from multilateral agencies and financial institutions, with its direct contribution remaining modest. The result is a waste of public resources over a project that ought to have been substantially completed within a decade. Political brinkmanship should not exacerbate uncertainty during periods of transition. What is crucial now is balance. As Amaravati’s development regains momentum, the State must ensure that historically underdeveloped regions are not sidelined. Equally, while landowners may see gains, agricultural labourers may be left behind.