VIJAYAWADA: After Municipal Administration Minister Botcha Satyanarayana’s remarks on Amaravati that sparked controversy, it was the turn of BJP MP TG Venkatesh to open a Pandora’s box.
Even as the YSRC government has been sending mixed signals with respect to capital development, TG Venkatesh claimed that Jagan indicated to the Centre that he might not continue the development of Amaravati. The remarks came just a few hours after minister Botcha Satyanarayana stood by his assertion that Amaravati was in a flood-prone zone.
“After winning the polls with a thumping majority, Jagan met BJP central leadership and clearly informed them that he might not go ahead with Amaravati as the State capital,” Venkatesh said. He claimed that the information was given to him by a national leader, whose name he refused to reveal. Further, he said, “I think he (Jagan) would use the existing buildings in Amaravati as regional offices. Jagan plans to scrap the State Planning Board and proposed four regional boards. That is why there are multiple Deputy Chief Ministers, like nowhere in the country. The centres where these boards are headquartered could be called regional secretariats or capitals. But, there would be no centralised capital at Amaravati,” he told the media in Kurnool on Sunday. He defended his argument that Jagan had always been against the turning of fertile lands into a concrete jungle.
“That was what he promised during his padayatra and as an Opposition leader,” TG added. His comments contradict those of his party colleagues Kanna Lakshminarayana and YS Chowdary (Sujana Chowdary), who openly opposed relocation of the capital city.
Stating that he would welcome Jagan’s decision, if implemented, the former Union minister, who recently joined the saffron party from the TDP, cautioned centralisation of administration would lead to unrest in other regions. “We requested that Amaravati be made a free zone, but it did not happen. A lot of investments came to Amaravati, but look at the poor state of affairs in Kurnool. Rayalaseema and North Andhra may demand separation from the State if there is centralisation. We will welcome Jagan’s decision of decentralisation, which will help all regions flourish,” he said.
Just ahead of TG Venkatesh’s revelation, Municipal Administration and Urban Development Minister Botcha Satyanarayana said he would stick to the remarks he made a few days ago that Amaravati was a flood-prone zone and would cost double the cost to construct a capital there. He reiterated that the TDP government ignored the recommendations of Sivaramakrishnan Committee, which cautioned that the area between Vijayawada and Guntur was prone to floods.
Stating that the issue of capital construction was under the government’s examination, Botcha said, “All I said was the capital area was prone to floods. It was inundated when eight lakh cusecs reached Prakasam Barrage. What would happen if the water level rose to 11 lakh cusecs? The construction of the capital does not concern a particular person or a community, it belongs to all the people of the State,” he said, speaking on the sidelines of village and ward volunteer awareness programme in Vizianagaram.
On the comments made by Jana Sena chief Pawan Kalyan on the capital, the minister said that the statement of the actor-turned-politician was ambiguous. Hours after Botcha’s remarks on Amaravati, farmers of the capital region staged a protest at Velagapudi on Sunday evening alleging that the minister was misleading the State through his comments. Hundreds of farmers took to the streets, raising slogans that Amaravati was not a submergence zone. “What the minister said was a lie. Amaravati is not a submergence area. If they don’t believe so, why don’t any of the ministers come and look at it for themselves? The YSRC is just trying to mislead people in a bid to defend their plans of capital relocation,” the farmers said.
The farmers further demanded to know why the government was trying to cheat the farmers, who voluntarily gave their lands. “We had given lands to the previous State government, but not a party. How can they relocate a capital on flimsy and unscientific grounds?” they questioned.