Telangana Chief Minister A. Revanth Reddy launched a blistering attack on Modi, stating that the Prime Minister is “acting as a Gujarati, not as the Prime Minister of India” and behaving like a “brand ambassador for Gujarat”.
When an Indian state goes abroad to seek investment, should the colour of its government decide how far it may travel? That is the question Telangana Chief Minister A. Revanth Reddy has forced onto the national stage. His US programme was cancelled after the Ministry of External Affairs denied political clearance, calling it inappropriate “to the office held and the purpose of the visit.”
The UK leg had been approved. Gujarat’s overseas outreach under Vibrant Gujarat was not stopped. Reddy called the decision an insult to Telangana and accused Narendra Modi of acting “as a Gujarati, not as the Prime Minister of India.”
Telangana is not Reddy’s company. Gujarat is not Modi’s. Both are constitutional units whose people expect jobs, campuses and capital. Factories do not hire by party. Investors do not ask who won the last assembly election. If the Centre had a real objection, wrong meetings, wrong protocol, a diplomatic risk, it should name it. “Not appropriate” is not an answer. It is a vacuum, and vacuums fill with suspicion.
Foreign policy belongs to the Union while investment promotion does not. Telangana Chief Minister A. Revanth Reddy did not mince words. After the Centre denied political clearance for his planned United States visit to pitch investments under the Telangana Rising 2047 initiative, he launched a direct attack on Prime Minister Narendra Modi. The Prime Minister, Reddy said, is “acting as a Gujarati, not as the Prime Minister of India” and functioning like a “brand ambassador for Gujarat.”
The timing made the charge sting. Gujarat Chief Minister Bhupendra Patel had just completed an eight-day tour of the United States and Canada promoting Vibrant Gujarat. Reddy’s proposed US itinerary, focused on education, sports, university partnerships including Harvard, and investment roadshows, was rejected on “political angle” grounds even though a UK leg of similar purpose had been cleared. Reddy called the denial an insult not to him personally but to Telangana’s four crore people and a violation of the federal spirit.
The political contrast he drew was blunt: Modi is BJP and Gujarati; Revanth Reddy is Congress and Telangana. In his telling, that was the entire “political angle.” He alleged the Centre feared Telangana would compete with Gujarat for capital and therefore blocked the tour. “They don’t want any other state to develop beyond a point,” he said. “It is a case of Gujarat domination.”
This is not a one-off outburst. Reddy has repeatedly accused the Prime Minister’s Office of steering investors toward Gujarat, of treating opposition-ruled states as afterthoughts, and of running a national government that still thinks like a state government from Ahmedabad. He has contrasted the support Modi received from the UPA when he was Gujarat’s chief minister with what he claims opposition states receive now.
The latest episode simply gave him a concrete, recent example.The accusation lands in a larger debate about Indian federalism. Chief ministers from opposition states have long complained that foreign travel clearances, project approvals, and investment facilitation tilt toward politically aligned or personally favored states.
Whether every claim of “diversion” is proven is another matter; the perception of unequal treatment is real and politically potent. When a sitting chief minister says the Prime Minister of India is acting as a state-level brand ambassador, he is questioning the very idea of a national office that is supposed to rise above regional loyalty.
Modi’s government will likely dismiss the remarks as partisan theatre. Reddy has himself praised aspects of the Gujarat model in the past and engaged the Prime Minister on development platforms. That history does not erase the current charge.
When a large, growing southern state feels its chief minister is being stopped from doing the same job Patel was allowed to do, the language of “Gujarati first” will keep returning. Reddy has promised his MPs will raise the issue in Parliament. The larger question will not be settled in one press conference. It is whether the Centre treats every state’s investment pitch as India’s pitch, or whether some states still believe they must fight the Prime Minister’s home turf for a fair hearing. Reddy’s words were raw. They were also a reminder that federalism in India is not only a constitutional doctrine. It is a daily political contest over whose growth story the country is willing to champion.
A semiconductor plant in Telangana is an Indian win. So is a renewable park in Gujarat. Yet Telangana was denied development. Until Delhi answers that with facts, not a sentence, the charge of political gatekeeping will stand.
JANPATH NEWS NETWORK (JNN)
Independent. Fearless. On the People’s Path.
