YSR gave more assets to Sharmila than Jagan

YSRCP spokesperson and former MLA Rachamallu Siva Prasad Reddy has launched a scathing attack on Sharmila, accusing her of waging a calculated and “ungrateful” campaign against her own brother, YS Jagan Mohan Reddy, despite benefiting substantially from the YSR family legacy.

Addressing the media in Proddatur, Rachamallu sought to dismantle Sharmila’s moral plank by invoking the late YS Rajasekhara Reddy’s legacy. He asserted that YSR had gone beyond convention in ensuring generous—and even preferential—distribution of family assets to his daughter. Prime properties, including a Banjara Hills residence, 51 acres in Idupulapaya, stakes in hydro projects, a share in Vijayawada’s Raj Yuvraj Theatre, and lands in Pulivendula and Chittigunta, were all handed over, he said. Yet, despite what he described as a “disproportionately large share,” Sharmila continues to publicly attack her brother, raising questions about her intent.

Rachamallu didn’t stop at inheritance. He alleged that even after YSR’s death, Jagan extended significant financial support to Sharmila “out of affection,” amounting to nearly ₹236 crore through documented bank transactions and cheques. These, he said, were reflected in official affidavits—making Sharmila’s current portrayal of Jagan as an unjust brother not just misleading, but deeply contradictory.

Taking a sharper turn, the YSRCP leader criticised Sharmila for dragging private family matters into the public and political arena. “This is no longer a personal dispute—it’s a deliberate public spectacle,” he remarked, arguing that such actions erode not just family dignity but also political credibility.

He further escalated the attack by alleging political collusion. According to Rachamallu, Sharmila and Y.S. Sunitha are acting in tandem with TDP chief N. Chandrababu Naidu, selectively leaking internal family issues to serve a larger political agenda. He claimed there is a visible pattern in the timing and tone of their statements, aligning conveniently with Naidu’s political requirements, suggesting a coordinated effort to tarnish Jagan’s image.

On the contentious Saraswati Power shares issue, Rachamallu raised legal red flags. He alleged that shares were transferred through a questionable MoU despite Enforcement Directorate attachments, potentially exposing Jagan to legal complications. This, he said, forced Jagan to seek legal recourse through the National Company Law Tribunal (NCLT).

Rachamallu also challenged the very basis of Sharmila’s demands over Jagan’s alleged “self-earned” assets. “What is the contribution? What is the investment?” he asked pointedly, questioning the legitimacy of claims being made decades after her marriage. He went a step further, suggesting that the demands appear to stretch beyond assets—possibly even into expectations of political power.

Defending Jagan’s political journey, Rachamallu asserted that the YSRCP chief built his career independently and allocated responsibilities based on merit, not lineage. “There has been no injustice,” he insisted.

Framing the controversy within a broader political context, Rachamallu alleged that the ongoing attacks are part of a diversionary tactic designed to shift focus away from controversies confronting the ruling establishment. He cited issues such as the Tirumala laddu controversy, the TTD chairman episode, and the drugs case involving MP Putta Mahesh Yadav. He also accused opponents of repeatedly invoking the Viveka case to sustain a long-term political narrative aimed at the 2029 elections.

In a warning-laced conclusion, Rachamallu made it clear that any attempt to malign Jagan’s character would be met with strong resistance. “Assets can be divided within a family,” he said, “but public trust cannot be manufactured—and that firmly rests with Jagan.”