It has become fashionable to irresponsibly dismiss and comment on ‘ambitious or visionary governance efforts’ irrespective of the initiation by any Chief Minister, often at the hands of opportunistic and untrustworthy fly-by-night operators, who become ‘powerful metaphors’ in political and administrative treatise.

Public discourse is increasingly erasing the line between genuine ideological disagreement and accusations of betrayal.

The paradox of Indian parliamentary democracy functioning is that every move by a Chief Minister or the Prime Minister, comes under political scrutiny, moral and sometimes immoral judgment, often without grasping the deeper compulsions at play. For those steering the wheels of governance, the world becomes a ‘battlefield of competing ideas’ weighed down by expectations, and frequently judged before being understood. The urge to delegitimize relentlessly corrodes the very space needed for thoughtful and democratic governance.

This battlefield is habitually infested by fleeting disruptors, not genuine stakeholders or the fly-by-night operators, whose voices grow loudest in moments of visibility, only to vanish later.

They neither bring alternative vision, nor policy depth, nor intent to endure the long, thankless chore of governance. Their interest is not to build, but to bait. They flourish on spectacle, distortion, and algorithms, but not on responsibility or accountability. Their favourite role is nicknamed as ‘Opposition: Loud in critique, light on responsibility.’

In such a climate, a Chief Minister (or Prime Minister) must fulfil not only ‘constitutional responsibilities’ but also obligatory burdens with dignity, vision, and the patience to endure those ‘nicknamed individuals and groups’ whose democratic contribution is ‘little.’ Such unethical critics, unwilling to grasp the compulsions or unable to understand the obligations behind a Chief Minister’s decision to initiate a program that they dislike, oppose it completely.

For instance, the Telangana Chief Minister A Revanth Reddy and his government faced scathing and deliberate criticism for successfully hosting the 'Miss World contest' overlooking its benefits. The critics dismissed it as extravagance, ignoring its potential for boosting tourism, generating employment and enhancing branding.

Before engaging in such criticism, one must reasonably and appropriately understand the ‘compulsions versus choices’ inherent in governance. Not every action by a political leader stems from free will.

The Prime Minister’s foreign visits are often dismissed as PR exercises, overlooking the subsequent tangible FDI inflows and diplomatic gains.

Andhra Pradesh Chief Minister N Chandrababu Naidu’s Amaravati project has been vilified for its ambition, though visionary in design. Similarly, K Chandrasekhar Rao’s Kaleshwaram multipurpose, multi-stage lift irrigation project, once praised for its engineering brilliance and global ambition, is being increasingly criticised for placing a massive financial burden on the state’s exchequer!

The culture of political critique in democratic India, especially in the Telugu states, is often marked by ‘knee-jerk, indiscriminate opposition’ that values ‘optics over outcomes.’

Optics refer to how actions appear in the short term, shaped by emotion or media visibility. Outcomes reflect the real, measurable impact of policies over time. Unfortunately, much of the opposition is preoccupied with what seems appealing or popular, rather than what truly works or delivers results. The media, lacking depth, and informed scrutiny, frequently amplifies this superficial narrative, reinforcing a culture that prioritises perception over substance in a democratic engagement.

A culture of holistic evaluation, the one that distinguishes between short-term costs and long-term gains, direct and indirect effects, and local perceptions versus national implications is essential. Real-time challenges like balancing public sentiment with administrative responsibility, managing international diplomacy, sustaining investor confidence, competing with other states, and advancing tourism or development goals are rarely acknowledged purely to derive political gains.

The critics must pause before drawing conclusions or passing judgments.

Governance should be evaluated through a lens that considers context, compulsion, and consequence, not merely political convenience. In a federal, multi-party, high-stakes democracy, like India, governance is rarely linear. When a Chief Minister takes a decision, it is often grounded in strategic compulsions and should not be hastily dismissed as mere extravagance.

Critics of the ‘Miss World contest’ may dismiss it as frivolity amid poverty, overlooking its role in building global visibility, tourism, soft power, job creation, and asserting Telangana’s cosmopolitan identity.

It is worthwhile to recall Rudyard Kipling’s Great IF poem: ‘If you can bear to hear the truth you have spoken; Twisted by knaves to make a trap for fools.’ Opposition, the lifeblood of democracy, must question, probe, and challenge responsibly. However, there is a fine line between critique and character assassination, between healthy scepticism and destructive sabotage.

As Kipling wrote, ‘If you can trust yourself when all men doubt you, But make allowance for their doubting too’ exploitation by critics holds little weight. Governance does not mean pleasing everyone; it is about enduring criticism, managing compulsion, and pushing boundaries in the pursuit of progress. Kipling further contends: ‘If you can fill the unforgiving minute, with sixty seconds’ worth of distance run, Yours is the Earth and everything that’s in it.’

Governance in India and its states often walks a tightrope between intent and interpretation. The dynamic role of a Chief Minister can turn even well-structured efforts into flashpoints of controversy. Critics seize on these moments, narratives get hijacked, and the true essence of governance is obscured.

As a Chief Public Relations Officer to two highly knowledgeable Chief Ministers during 1989–90 and 2014–23, who led the first and second phases of Separate Telangana Agitations, I saw first-hand, the unseen strain, meticulous preparation, and strategic coordination behind routine looking, but mandatory official tasks, not to mention complex decision-making. Nothing was ever done casually.

Crafting the Governor speech delivered on Republic Day, the Governor’s address to the Joint Session of the Legislature, Budget speech of the Finance Minister, Chief Minister's response to the Motion of Thanks on the Governor’s address, CM’s speech on the Appropriation Bill or statements made in Legislature and the CM’s Independence Day speech requires that every sentence has to undergo multiple layers of consultation, discussion, legal scrutiny, and data validation. I had the privilege of being a part of this intricate process.

These are not mere political monologues but sincere statements of intent, responsibility, and direction. Yet, public discourse often reduces them to selective sound bites or dismisses them with populist criticism. Well-backed development initiatives, supported by thorough reports and feasibility studies, are labelled as vanity projects or corruption avenues, perhaps including showcasing ‘Telangana Rising 2047 Vision’ at NITI Aayog meet

Events like the 72nd Miss World contest, with significant potential on many fronts, are often dismissed without balanced consideration. The critics conveniently overlook the tourism potential, hospitality growth, international branding, and the city infrastructure development. It is easier to mock a runway walk than to assess its downstream economic impact. Why not afford the benefit of doubt to decisions whose returns may not be immediate or clearly visible?

Intellectual honesty to distinguish necessary evils, strategic compulsions, and political missteps is crucial. Political leadership is rarely a simple choice between right and wrong; it involves navigating conflicting demands, pressures, fiscal constraints, bureaucratic inertia, and legal tightropes at every turn.

Every Chief Minister undoubtedly is aware of these realities. The wisdom in Rudyard Kipling’s IF feels almost prophetic: ‘If you can wait and not be tired by waiting, or being lied about, don’t deal in lies, or being hated, don’t give way to hating...’

In essence: Be patient. Stay honest. Do not answer hate with hate. These lines could well be the silent prayer of every Chief Minister at the end of a long, taxing day, torn between duty and doubt, legacy, and backlash, treading wisely, holding spirit firmly, and surging ahead with renewed strength.