As Nara Chandrababu Naidu marked his 75th birthday on April 20, 2025, his five-decade political career, including multiple tenures as Chief Minister of united and residual Andhra Pradesh, warrants critical reassessment. Lauded for transforming Hyderabad into “Cyberabad” through technological innovation and economic liberalisation, Naidu’s legacy is complex. Viewed through the Hindu philosophical lens of “Saraswati unites, Lakshmi divides,” his policies prioritised Lakshmi (wealth) over Saraswati (knowledge and cultural unity), fostering inequality, fuelling the Telangana movement, and culminating in his 2004 defeat, the state bifurcation in 2014 and his 2019 electoral defeat. This article argues that Naidu’s pursuit of modernity, untethered from tradition, fractured Telugu identity and undermined the progress he sought.
Early Life and Political Ascent: Roots and Ambition
Born on April 20, 1950, in Naravaripalle, Chittoor district, Naidu was steeped in Telugu agrarian traditions. After earning a master’s in economics from Sri Venkateswara University, he entered politics in the 1970s with the Indian National Congress. His marriage to Bhuvaneswari, daughter of Telugu Desam Party (TDP) founder N.T. Rama Rao (NTR), tied him to a family that once championed Telugu pride.
NTR founded the TDP in 1982 to champion Telugu identity, avenging a perceived insult to Telugu self-respect. The party’s 1983 landslide victory, securing 202 of 294 assembly seats, united Telugus under a shared cultural identity (Saraswati). Naidu’s rise to Chief Minister in 1995, however, came through a controversial coup against his father-in-law, NTR, prompted by concerns over the growing influence of NTR’s second wife, Lakshmi Parvathi. While Naidu justified the move as necessary to preserve TDP unity, it prioritised power and ambition (Lakshmi) over familial loyalty and the party’s cultural ethos (Saraswati). This set the tone for Naidu’s governance, marked by a relentless drive for material progress that often sidelined cultural cohesion.
The Cyberabad Paradigm: Wealth Over Culture
Naidu’s first two terms (1995–2004) aimed to position united Andhra Pradesh as a global technology hub. HITEC City, Genome Valley, and the International Airport transformed Hyderabad into “Cyberabad,” attracting companies like Microsoft and Oracle. His development diplomacy—engaging Bill Gates, hosting U.S. President Bill Clinton in 2000, and attending the World Economic Forum—earned him the moniker “CEO of Andhra Pradesh Inc”, and Time magazine’s 1999 “South Asian of the Year.” Initiatives like securing a World Bank loan (a first for an Indian state) and launching e-Seva for digitised services bolstered Andhra Pradesh’s reputation in liberalisation and e-governance.
This modernisation delivered material gains: united Andhra Pradesh ranked 51 on the Global Competitiveness Index (ahead of India’s 56) and led in Ease of Doing Business. However, Naidu’s focus on Lakshmi marginalised Saraswati. His promotion of English as the medium of instruction and communication, aligning with global markets, sidelined Telugu, the linguistic bedrock of Andhra Pradesh’s 1956 formation. He largely ignored the Andhra Pradesh Official Language Act of 1966, which mandated Telugu in governance and education, and patronised English domination.
This linguistic shift alienated rural Telugus, while urban elites profited from real estate and corporate ventures. Agriculture, employing 60% of the population, was neglected, deepening the urban-rural divide. The Telangana movement, gaining traction in the 2000s, capitalised on this cultural and economic alienation, framing Naidu’s policies as exploitative and elitist. His 2004 election loss to Congress reflected rural voters’ rejection of his urban-centric vision, underscoring Lakshmi’s divisive impact.
Bifurcation Betrayal: Fracturing Telugu Unity
The 2014 bifurcation of Andhra Pradesh into Telangana and residual Andhra Pradesh is Naidu’s gravest failure, rooted in his betrayal of Telugu pride. Formed in 1956 through linguistic reorganisation, united Andhra Pradesh was a Saraswati-driven union of Telugu speakers. NTR’s TDP championed to preserve this identity. Naidu’s English-centric policies and neglect of Telugu alienated rural masses, who felt marginalised by Hyderabad’s globalised Anglophonic elite. The Telangana movement, gaining traction in the 2000s, was both a cultural and economic revolt against Naidu’s modernisation.
In 2008, as opposition leader, Naidu endorsed Andhra Pradesh’s bifurcation in a letter to the central government, a politically expedient decision that betrayed the TDP’s commitment to Telugu unity. His opportunistic alliance in 2009 elections with the Telangana Rashtra Samithi (TRS), which sought Telangana’s creation, legitimised their cause and was widely condemned as sacrificing Telugu interests for power. Critics decried this as dismantling Andhra Pradesh to govern its ruins. By favouring short-term political gains (Lakshmi) over cultural cohesion (Saraswati), Naidu’s actions paved the way for the 2014 state split. Championing Telugu as medium of education and governance could have eased regional tensions and preserved Telugu unity. The 2008 letter stands as a profound betrayal, fragmenting Telugu identity, diminishing Telugu political clout, and weakening the global Telugu diaspora.
Brain Drain: The Exodus of Telugu Talent
Naidu’s focus on technology-driven globalisation and English education triggered a significant brain drain, with many Telugus emigrating to tech hubs like Silicon Valley. His policies produced a skilled, English-fluent workforce, but local opportunities lagged, driving lakhs of engineers and professionals abroad. Reports suggest nearly a quarter of Silicon Valley’s tech workforce is Telugu.
This exodus depleted Andhra’s human capital and economic potential. Driven by Naidu’s Lakshmi-focused policies, the brain drain undermined Saraswati’s unifying potential, as the diaspora’s contributions enriched foreign economies rather than Andhra Pradesh. Naidu’s vision aimed to globalise Andhra Pradesh but inadvertently exported its talent, stunting local development and widening the urban-rural divide. Modernity is about filtering what is good for us. Naidu’s unfiltered adoption of global models failed to retain talent, leaving Andhra Pradesh “modern” yet diminished.
Post-Bifurcation Policies: Continued Neglect of Culture and Heritage
As Chief Minister of residual Andhra Pradesh (2014–2019), Naidu intensified his Lakshmi-driven agenda, prioritising material progress over the lessons of the 2014 bifurcation. The Amaravati project, a planned world-class capital designed with Singapore’s expertise, aimed for cutting-edge infrastructure but stalled due to its ₹51,687 crore cost and local opposition. This initiative exemplified Naidu’s focus on global-scale ambition over local needs.
Naidu’s Vision 2020 and Vision 2047 promoted digital reforms, such as the Real-Time Governance Society, showcasing technological innovation. However, these policies sidelined cultural preservation, neglecting Telugu-medium education and cultural heritage. By favouring English and IT-driven growth, Naidu alienated rural Andhra Pradesh, where agrarian communities felt marginalised. Privatisation and wealth concentration enriched corporates and elites while rural regions lagged, deepening economic disparities.
This disconnect culminated in Naidu’s 2019 electoral defeat, as voters rejected his tech-centric, globalised, and inequality-driven vision. The loss highlighted Naidu’s failure to harness Saraswati’s unifying potential, alienating the TDP’s core constituencies.
Sovereignty, understood as a society’s focus on its identity and priorities, was undermined by Naidu’s global orientation. While his international engagements attracted investment, they aligned Andhra’s policies with neoliberal agendas, diverting attention from rural crises to urban sectors serving global markets. The Amaravati project and Vision 2047, though framed as self-reliant, prioritised international benchmarks over Andhra’s cultural and agrarian identity, risking further alienation. The 2019 defeat underscored this erosion of local sovereignty.
Cultural Preservation: A Missed Opportunity
Naidu’s engagement with culture was superficial, prioritising material progress over cultural preservation. Unlike NTR, who leveraged Telugu identity to unify people, Naidu invested minimally in cultural institutions or Telugu-medium education. His promotion of English eroded the linguistic unity that defined united Andhra Pradesh. Post-bifurcation, Naidu had a chance to revive Telugu as a unifying force but continued his focus instead on globalised sectors. Modernity is about filtering what is good for us. Naidu’s unfiltered adoption of global models has been consistently weakening Telugus’ cultural identity and social cohesion.
Legacy: A Tragic Betrayal
Naidu’s legacy is a cautionary tale of modernity’s promise and peril. His transformation of Hyderabad, pioneering e-governance, and global outreach earned accolades like the Golden Peacock and Transformative Chief Minister Award. Yet, his prioritisation of Lakshmi over Saraswati—neglecting Telugu, agreeing to bifurcation in 2008, alliance with TRS in 2009, and fostering wealth concentration, brain drain, and disparities—precipitated Andhra Pradesh’s division, fractured Telugu identity, and eroded Telugu influence. Post-bifurcation, his deracinating policies deepened urban-rural divides, leading to his 2019 defeat.
Progress untethered from tradition leaves societies ‘modern’ but adrift. Naidu’s vision rendered Andhra Pradesh advanced yet culturally fragmented, divided by economic disparities and linguistic alienation. Sovereignty, as attention, was compromised as Naidu prioritised global scale over local priorities, ceding Telugu identity to external forces.
Conclusion: A Call for Redemption
Naidu’s 75th birthday prompts reflection on balancing modernity with tradition. True progress integrates material gains with cultural unity. Naidu’s neglect of Telugu language and identity fractured Andhra Pradesh, undermining its progress and sovereignty. His resilience offers hope for redemption, but Vision 2047 must embrace Saraswati—reviving Telugu, supporting agrarian communities, fostering cultural continuity and investing in preservation and intergenerational transmission of heritage. Naidu must also address wealth concentration and disparities, corporate exploitation, and urban-rural inequalities to ensure modernity serves all, not just the elite.
A wise ruler preserves a people’s identity, religion, culture, and heritage by enacting policies that protect cultural institutions, support religious freedoms, and promote historical education. Neglecting these risks deepening societal disconnection, while prioritising them fosters belonging and meaning, balancing material progress with intangible wealth. Naidu’s legacy challenges us to rethink progress in a deracinating world.
Happy 75th Birthday, Shri Nara Chandrababu Naidu—a leader whose journey urges us to harmonise material and cultural wealth.
