The Man Behind KCR’s Telangana Defeat Is KCR Himself | Explained

New Delhi: In the 40-year political journey so far, 69-year-old Kalvakuntla Chandrasekhar Rao, often referred to as KCR, has lost only twice, the latest being the drubbing in Telangana’s Kamareddy; he stood second to Katipally Venkata Ramana Reddy from the Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) with 59,911 votes. The first time he faced election defeat was in 1983 when he lost as an independent candidate in Siddipet. KCR, however, defeated his nearest BJP rival Eatala Rajender, by a margin of 45,031 votes in Gajwel constituency, the other seat that he contested from. KCR’s party - Bharat Rashtra Samithi (BRS), which ruled the state since its inception in 2014, lost to the Congress that bagged 64 seats in the 119-member assembly with BRS settling in for 39 seats.

KCR not only missed out on his dreams of becoming the first 'hat-trick' CM in south India but the defeat is seen by experts as a dent to his unmatched career.

What led to KCR losing on his turf? If reports are to be believed, it was K Chandrasekhar Rao himself.

One of the glaring missteps attributed to KCR was his decision to stick to over 90 per cent of his incumbent MLAs, most of whom were carrying the weight of substantial anti-incumbency. Despite the palpable dissatisfaction, KCR being KCR exuded an unwavering confidence, seemingly banking on the belief that voters would cast their ballots in his name, overlooking the individual credentials of the candidates. "When you go to vote, think that there are 119 KCRs," he often said in election rallies. There were allegations of corruption against several MLAs, coupled with claims of their inaccessibility. Despite this, KCR replaced only a handful of sitting MLAs in the party's candidate list this time, which is a move that may have cost him the state.

The Congress capitalised on “inaccessibility” alleging "arrogance" on part of KCR and his MLAs, which may have struck a chord with the people of Telangana – who had led the movement for separate statehood against the "arrogance" of Andhra Pradesh leaders. The grand old party went on to promise a ‘Praja Darbar’ to counter this.

A few months before the state elections, KCR’s son Kalvakuntla Taraka Rama Rao aka KTR, who was also the IT minister in the BRS government, had reportedly advised his father to bring in fresh faces and not give tickets to nearly 30 MLAs, against whom anti-incumbency seemed to be building. KCR, however, chose to let them off by simply warning them to improve their performance but chose to field the same set of MLAs, and the result was - a massive drubbing in his own fiefdom.

Interestingly, nine out of the 10 new faces put up by BRS won. A clear miscalculation?

Poll strategist, known for grabbing victories for national parties, Prashant Kishor, when working for BRS had reportedly suggested the same to change some 30-odd MLA's, who were facing a huge anti-incumbency. As for the CM face, KCR was shown as the most popular choice by exit polls, but he possibly lost because he chose to not listen to the ‘fresh ideas’.

His son, KTR had accepted in one of the interviews given to ABN Telugu news channel that KCR refused to change the candidates, citing the loyalty of party members.

The other factor that could have contributed to KCR’s defeat was the 'Telangana sentiment', riding on which he looked invincible. With KCR focusing more on the national ambitions, seemingly cut off from Telangana and its welfare may have taken a backseat, at least in the minds of the voters. The party, looking to make an entry in Maharashtra and other parts of the country, had even changed its name of Telangana Rashtra Samithi to Bharat Rashtra Samithi in 2022.

Capitalizing on the situation, the Congress seized an opportunity to garner sympathy by emphasizing its role in the establishment of Telangana. The message conveyed was that the credit for the creation of the state should not be solely attributed to KCR.

KCR may have miscalculated the move in the 2023 elections but Congress cannot sit back and relax because the grassroots leader may have faced a failure but hasn’t failed.