BRS and Left parties staged a protest outside the Khammam district collectorate, alleging irregularities in the selection of beneficiaries under Telangana’s Indiramma housing scheme and demanding greater transparency in the process.
Members of the BRS, CPM, CPI, CPI(ML) Mass Line and CPI(ML) Prajapantha took part in the dharna, carrying party flags and raising slogans over the way beneficiaries were selected. The protest was reported by Deccan Chronicle.
Tata Madhusudhan, Khammam district BRS president and a member of the Legislative Council, alleged that welfare schemes were being made accessible only to people who had joined the Congress or pledged allegiance to the ruling party. He described the alleged use of welfare benefits for political purposes as inappropriate.
The allegations have not been independently established in the material available for this report. The protestors’ claims concern the administration of the Indiramma housing scheme, including the identification of eligible applicants and the role of local committees involved in the process.
Madhusudhan claimed that the previous BRS government had selected beneficiaries for welfare schemes without considering their political affiliations. His statement was made in the context of the current dispute over the second phase of the Indiramma housing scheme and did not include documentary evidence in the report.
He urged the Telangana government to select beneficiaries for the second phase through gram sabhas. Gram sabhas are village-level public meetings, and the demand would place the selection process in a more publicly visible forum, according to the protest leader’s proposal.
Madhusudhan also demanded the dissolution of the Indiramma committees, alleging that they consisted only of members or supporters of the ruling party. The report did not provide a response from the Telangana government, the Khammam district administration or the committees to the allegations.
The dispute highlights the administrative importance of beneficiary selection in housing schemes, where eligibility decisions determine which households can access public support for home construction. In this case, the protesting parties have made transparency and political neutrality their central demands, but the available report does not establish the number of beneficiaries affected, the criteria used in the selection process or whether any official review has been ordered.
The next step sought by the protestors is a change in the process for the second phase, including the use of gram sabhas and the dissolution of the existing Indiramma committees. Any official response from the state government or district administration would clarify whether the allegations will be examined and whether the beneficiary-selection process will be revised.
