Telangana Minister Konda Surekha found herself in the midst of a political storm after her comments regarding actress Samantha Ruth Prabhu’s divorce sparked outrage. Surekha linked the divorce to Bharat Rashtra Samiti (BRS) working President KT Rama Rao, alleging that he used to blackmail actresses, including Samantha.
In a series of posts on X, Surekha initially claimed that her remarks were aimed at questioning Rama Rao’s alleged mistreatment of women and not intended to hurt Samantha’s feelings. She even went so far as to offer an “unconditional retraction” of her comments if Samantha or her fans were offended. However, her initial statement did little to quell the growing controversy.
Surekha’s accusations against Rama Rao were serious, claiming that he used his political influence to tap the phones of actresses and exploit their weaknesses for blackmail. She alleged that he also coerced them into drug addiction. “It is KT Rama Rao because of whom [actress] Samantha’s divorce happened… He was a minister at that time and used to tap the phones of the actresses and then find their weaknesses to blackmail them… ” she said.
Samantha Ruth Prabhu swiftly responded to the Telangana Minister’s remarks, emphasizing that her divorce was a “personal matter” resulting from “mutual consent and amicable” terms. She took to Instagram to clarify that there was no political conspiracy involved in her separation from Naga Chaitanya and urged people to stop speculating about her personal life.
Nagarjuna Akkineni, Samantha’s father-in-law and a prominent actor himself, also condemned Surekha’s remarks. He urged her to refrain from using the lives of movie stars to attack her political opponents and to respect the privacy of individuals.
Meanwhile, KT Rama Rao, the subject of Surekha’s accusations, issued a defamation notice against her. The legal notice alleged that Surekha’s comments were intended to damage Rama Rao’s reputation and demanded an immediate withdrawal of the statements.
The controversy has thrust the Telangana political landscape into the spotlight, highlighting the delicate balance between personal lives, political maneuvering, and the power of public opinion. The fallout from this incident remains to be seen, but one thing is clear: the use of personal matters for political gain has ignited a firestorm of criticism and legal action.
