CPI(M) Criticizes Modi for Divisive, Majoritarian Policies

Swift Summary

• Tribute Event: CPI(M) leaders paid tributes to the party’s former General Secretary, sitaram Yechury, on his first death anniversary in Vijayawada.
• Criticism of PM Modi: CPI(M) Polit Bureau member B.V. Raghavulu accused Prime Minister Narendra Modi of adopting “divisive and majoritarian” policies, arguing that accountability is essential for India’s progress.
• Concerns About AP Governance: Raghavulu criticized the Andhra Pradesh government for TDP’s alignment with BJP, claiming it threatens state autonomy and could harm its political identity.
• Impact of Tariffs: He highlighted issues stemming from U.S. tariffs on Indian exports, emphasizing their adverse effects on aquaculture and dryland farming in Andhra Pradesh.
• RushiKonda Progress Concerns: He argued that Visakhapatnam’s heritage structures like RushiKonda should be converted into museums rather than commercial venues such as resorts or marriage halls.
• Development Projects Proposals: Called for botanical gardens and zoological facilities in Amaravati and Rayalaseema to focus on public utility and youth engagement with science.
• Land Acquisition Criticism: Condemned forced land consolidations under profit-driven schemes; advocated for consent-based acquisitions adhering to the Land Acquisition Act (2013) with proper compensation.

Indian Opinion Analysis

The remarks from CPI(M)’s B.V. raghavulu highlight multi-dimensional concerns regarding governance at both national and state levels. His critique emphasizes a perceived erosion of autonomy in Andhra Pradesh due to TDP’s association with BJP, raising questions about regional priorities versus central influence-a recurring theme across various states in India.

His observations about U.S.-imposed tariffs shed light on foreign policy repercussions affecting local economies like aquaculture-a significant sector for Andhra Pradesh-suggesting potential gaps in trade negotiations at the national level.

On development matters, his position reflects broader debates around balancing commercialization with preservation of heritage assets such as RushiKonda. Similarly, his advocacy against forced land acquisitions aligns closely with grassroots movements demanding participatory approaches under laws guaranteeing farmer empowerment.

These comments encapsulate ideological divides within India’s political landscape while surfacing tangible concerns about economic strategy,state-center relations,sustainable development projects,and farmers’ rights-all topics requiring nuanced policymaking solutions moving forward.

Read more: Link.