Change of YSRCP stand on Amaravati

Has the YSR Congress Party (YSRCP) finally abandoned its controversial three-capital plan? Did the party read the verdict of the 2024 Assembly elections as a rejection of its policy on the state capital? When senior leader Sajjala Ramakrishna Reddy recently declared that any future YSRCP government would rule from Amaravati, it sounded like an unmistakable admission that the party’s earlier decision was a political misstep.

The causes of the YSRCP’s defeat are many, but the capital question towers above the rest. After the bifurcation of undivided Andhra Pradesh, the new state was left without a capital. Following wide consultations, the then ruling Telugu Desam Party (TDP) declared Amaravati as the permanent seat of governance. Back in the Assembly, opposition leader Y.S. Jagan Mohan Reddy not only welcomed the decision but even stated so on record. Construction of key government buildings, including a temporary Secretariat and High Court, began at a brisk pace, and the public gradually accepted Amaravati as the natural capital of the residuary state.

The 2019 election changed everything. TDP suffered a crushing defeat, attributed in part to its slow pace of permanent construction and the perception that “temporary buildings” might drag on for years. With Jagan’s own residence in Tadepalli, few expected a radical shift. Yet only months into power, Jagan stunned the Assembly by proposing a three-capital model: Visakhapatnam as the administrative capital, Amaravati as the legislative seat, and Kurnool as the judicial hub. The stated aim was “decentralised development,” but the announcement ignited a political firestorm.

From that day, Andhra Pradesh was thrown into turmoil. Farmers of Amaravati, who had parted with fertile land for the capital project, launched an intense and sustained agitation. Women joined in large numbers, villages around the designated zone fell into an eerie silence, and construction activity froze. Despite the protests, the YSRCP government stuck to its stand, repeatedly asserting that three capitals were inevitable. Jagan even announced several times that administration from Visakhapatnam would begin “within six months,” and reports of a chief ministerial residence coming up on the coast added to the belief.

Yet, five years passed without meaningful progress—neither in Amaravati, nor in Visakhapatnam, nor in Kurnool. The partially built capital area remained in limbo, farmland lay fallow and unproductive, and the Union government itself refrained from recognising any official capital. Across India, Andhra Pradesh gained the unenviable tag of a state without a capital. Even in neighbouring Telangana, where anti-Andhra sentiments once ran high, people expressed sympathy for the peculiar plight of their southern neighbour.

Political analysts now widely agree that this capital confusion became a decisive factor in the YSRCP’s 2024 defeat. Supporters who had backed Jagan through thick and thin could not digest his handling of the issue. Meanwhile, TDP chief N. Chandrababu Naidu and Jana Sena leader Pawan Kalyan seized the opportunity, promising to restore Amaravati as the sole capital and resuming construction if voted to power. Their alliance with the BJP only strengthened the narrative of stability.

After the coalition’s victory, Amaravati has again come alive with construction activity. While public opinion on the new government’s pace remains to be seen, there is little doubt that the three-capital proposal failed to gain traction. It is against this backdrop that the YSRCP has begun to recalibrate. Sajjala Ramakrishna Reddy now openly concedes that Amaravati will remain the seat of governance if the party returns to power, adding that Jagan has no intention of shifting to Visakhapatnam. He even revealed that financial constraints partly drove the earlier idea and suggested that development along the Guntur–Vijayawada corridor, extending up to Machilipatnam, could create a “mega city.”

This turnabout is significant. It signals that the YSRCP recognises the political cost of persisting with the three-capital experiment. Yet, it also raises questions of credibility. Between 2014 and 2019, Jagan supported Amaravati. Between 2019 and 2024, he championed decentralisation. Now he once again accepts Amaravati. If the YSRCP were to regain power, would it remain committed to a single capital, or would the story take another twist?

Equally uncertain is how voters will respond to this new posture. The people of Andhra Pradesh have witnessed a decade of shifting promises, stalled projects, and wasted resources. Their frustration runs deeper than party loyalties. Whether the YSRCP’s late recognition of public sentiment can rebuild trust is far from clear.

For now, the political lesson appears unmistakable: tinkering with the state’s capital is a perilous gamble. Amaravati may still be a work in progress, but in the hearts of the electorate, it remains the only name that resonates as the capital of Andhra Pradesh.