Shocking: Chiranjeevi’s Contradictory Statements on Politics

Tollywood megastar Chiranjeevi has once again found himself at the center of political discussions after his recent remarks at two separate film events. The veteran actor, who once established the Praja Rajyam Party and later merged it with the Congress Party before stepping away from politics, is now facing scrutiny for his seemingly contradictory statements.

At the pre-release event of Laila, Chiranjeevi surprised many by openly endorsing his brother Pawan Kalyan’s political outfit, Janasena. His enthusiastic chant of “Jai Janasena” and assertion that his former political party had evolved into Janasena left the audience and netizens in shock. This unexpected political stance quickly became a topic of heated debate across social media platforms.

However, just a day later, at the pre-release event of Brahma Anandam, Chiranjeevi took a completely different stand, stating that he has distanced himself from politics and is solely focused on his acting career. This sudden shift in narrative has led to widespread trolling, with netizens questioning his credibility and consistency. Many argue that if he truly wanted to remain apolitical, his endorsement of Janasena the previous day was unnecessary. Others pointed out the irony of claiming neutrality while simultaneously making political statements.

The lack of coherence in Chiranjeevi’s statements has raised eyebrows, with some critics suggesting that he altered his stance due to the backlash he faced online. His remarks have only fueled speculation that he still harbors political aspirations or wishes to send out subtle political signals. Some also argue that using a film stage to promote political ideologies is inappropriate, especially for someone with a turbulent political past.

The entire episode highlights the challenges of balancing stardom and political affiliations. While Chiranjeevi enjoys immense respect as an actor, his foray into politics was largely unsuccessful. Many believe that maintaining a neutral stance would have been a wiser approach, as contradictory statements only invite criticism and damage his reputation. As debates continue, one thing is clear—Chiranjeevi’s words have once again ignited political chatter, whether intentional or not.