Telugu Desam Party president and Andhra Pradesh Chief Minister N Chandrababu Naidu has been announcing ambitious programmes without fully accounting for ground realities, leading to growing concern among various sections of the public.
While Naidu appears to believe he is launching visionary and idealistic schemes, critics argue that the public is struggling to connect with his vision — largely because they are not consulted or taken into confidence before such announcements are made.
A prime example is the recently launched P4 initiative, introduced a few months ago as part of Naidu’s Swarnandhra 2047 vision.
The programme aims to eliminate poverty by 2029 by encouraging the wealthiest 10% of the population to support the bottom 20% of the poorest families, promoting inclusive growth.
The P4 model — short for Public-Private-People Partnership — designates wealthy contributors as Margadarsis (mentors) and identifies the underprivileged families as Bangaru Kutumbams (Golden Families).
The government’s role is that of a facilitator, ensuring real-time tracking of progress through digital dashboards.
While the concept appears noble and ambitious, its implementation has sparked controversy. Authorities have been given aggressive targets, leading to pressure for rapid execution.
In a surprising move, even teachers and village/ward secretariat staff are being assigned targets under the programme, leaving many frustrated.
The government has begun seeking support from individuals willing to sponsor and uplift poor families. Though some industrialists and wealthy individuals have responded positively, similar appeals to lower-income government employees have drawn criticism.
Reports suggest that secretariat employees, teachers, and other staff earning modest salaries — often around ₹30,000 or less — are being pressured to adopt poor families under the scheme, a burden many say is beyond their financial capacity.
Employees already struggling with delayed payments and lack of benefits like Dearness Allowance (DA), Pay Revision Commission (PRC), and Interim Relief (IR) are now fearing job repercussions if they refuse to comply. As a result, many are turning to employee unions for support.
Union leaders argue that forcing financially strained employees to participate in such schemes is unjust. They have condemned the government’s approach, stating that participation in the P4 initiative should be entirely voluntary and not tied to administrative pressure.
In response, employee unions are now calling for a boycott of the scheme and have declared that they will not accept any forced involvement.
The issue is quickly evolving into a major point of contention between the government and its workforce.
