Congress high command continues to nudge Karnataka Chief Minister and Ministers on various issues
The AICC has been cautious in its remarks on the terror attack after conflicting statements were made by some of its senior leaders in the State. Hours after the attack, the party's measured response was offering unconditional backing to the government in whatever action it took against the perpetrators and their backers, while highlighting intelligence and security lapses.
Meanwhile, Mr. Siddaramaiah and Mr. Thimmapur's remarks on the terror attack have not gone well with the party's central leaders, and they distanced themselves from the remarks made by the State leaders. In a damage-control exercise, the party high command apparently told its State leaders to toe the party line, particularly that mentioned in the Congress Working Committee's resolution.
On terror attack
In his initial remarks, Mr. Siddaramaiah said there was no need for a war with Pakistan and suggested stepping up security in the border areas. Immediately, the BJP escalated its attack over the remark, shared purported reports by Pakistani media, which played Mr. Siddaramaiah's comments. Leader of the Opposition in the Assembly R. Ashok slammed the Chief Minister and went so far as to call him 'Pakistan's jewel'. The BJP also hit out at Mr. Thimmapur for his comments that 'terrorists would not have asked the name and the religion of victims'.
Apparently, after the high command's instruction, Mr. Siddaramaiah said his comments were twisted and clarified that he did not completely rule out war, but meant that it should be considered only as the nation's last option.
There have been other instances in the past when the Congress high command opposed comments/decisions taken by the State Ministers or leaders.
Leadership squabbles
In January 2025, AICC president Mallikarjun Kharge issued a stern warning to State Ministers saying that 'all should shut up and discharge duties assigned to them', after factions supporting Mr. Siddaramaiah and Deputy Chief Minister D.K. Shivakumar publicly challenged each other on the KPCC president holding multiple posts and demanded the appointment of a full-time State Congress chief.
The high command has constantly told party legislators and Ministers not to speak to the media about leadership changes, Cabinet expansion, or the change of the KPCC president.
Again in January, Randeep Singh Surjewala, AICC general secretary, in charge of Karnataka, objected to the 'dinner meeting' of SC/ST Ministers and leaders called by Home Minister G. Parameshwara. Subsequently, the meeting was cancelled.
Honey trap
In March, the high command reportedly was disappointed with the manner in which the government handled Cooperation Minister K.N. Rajanna's allegation that vested interests had honey-trapped 48 people, including legislators and central leaders. The allegations embarrassed the party at the national level when Parliament session was on.
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
New Indian Express
13 minutes ago
- New Indian Express
Tunnel vs surface road: Land needed is same, say experts
Karnataka Deputy Chief Minister DK Shivakumar's recent reply to BJP MLC CT Ravi revealed that 32.29 hectares (79.79 acres) of land will be acquired for the proposed 16.7-km Tunnel Road Project (TRP) between Hebbal and Silk Board. An expert analysis has compared this land requirement with the length of regular surface roads that could be built using the same area. Explaining the comparison, Rajkumar Dugar, founder of Citizens for Citizens, said the land to be acquired for the tunnel road could instead be used to construct 16.1 km of a two-way, two-lane road with a median and footpaths, or 11.5km of a 3+3 lane road with median and footpaths. Questioning the logic, Dugar said, 'With 80 acres to be acquired for this project, the very basis for taking it up, because land required for regular surface roads is huge, turns out to be hollow. Eight entry and 8 exit ramps of average 1.1km length each, as well as massive ventilator shafts, will need a lot of land. So, why should we opt for the 16km Tunnel Road Project, which needs land that can accommodate a 16km two-lane or an 11.5km six-lane road?' Instead, the focus must shift fully to completing infra projects languishing for years, improving drainage, footpaths and existing roads, along with quick and drastic improvements to the three modes of public transport -- bus, metro and rail, he said. Another independent mobility expert, Satya Arikutharam, highlighting what the acquired land will be used for, said, 'The land acquisition is primarily for shaft locations, which is planned to become commercial complexes after completing the tunnelling. Basically, public investment for private profits. Indeed, it is a modified Build-Own-Operate-Transfer (BOOT) model.' The proposed North-South tunnel road corridor from Hebbal to Central Silk Board, a pet project of Shivakumar, who also holds the Bengaluru Development portfolio, is aimed at easing traffic congestion in Bengaluru. The project intends to divert vehicles underground, thereby reducing the burden on surface roads. The corridor is expected to significantly cut travel time and streamline vehicular movement across the city's busiest stretches. It is positioned as a major infrastructure initiative to tackle Bengaluru's long-standing traffic woes.
India Today
13 minutes ago
- India Today
BJP desperate after vote theft expose: MK Stalin hits out at ministers removal bill
Tamil Nadu Chief Minister MK Stalin strongly condemned the 130th Constitutional Amendment, calling it a 'Black Bill' and a 'Black Day' for democracy. He alleged that the bill strikes at the very root of democratic principles and amounts to a diktat by the Union BJP said the amendment allows political opponents in power across states to be removed merely on the basis of a 30-day arrest, without conviction or arrest = Removal of an elected CM. No trial, no conviction — just BJP's DIKTAT,' he wrote on X. 'This is how dictatorships begin: steal votes, silence rivals, and crush states,' he said, warning that the Bill is a 'sinister attempt to intimidate regional parties in the NDA.'The Chief Minister also linked the amendment to the recent expose of the alleged vote theft, claiming that the BJP's mandate is now in serious question.'Having stolen the mandate of the people through fraud, the BJP is desperate to distract public attention from this expos by pushing the 130th Constitutional Amendment Bill,' he called upon all democratic forces to unite against the Bill, which he said is an attempt to turn India into a dictatorship. Stalin added that the amendment is unconstitutional and would likely be struck down by the courts, emphasising that guilt can only be determined after trial, not merely by the registration of a comes after Home Minister Amit Shah on Wednesday introduced three contentious bills in the Lok Sabha under which the Prime Minister and chief ministers could be removed if they have been arrested for 30 consecutive days. The bills were later sent to a joint committee of Parliament for scrutiny.- EndsMust Watch IN THIS STORY#Tamil Nadu
India Today
13 minutes ago
- India Today
As Modi govt tables bills to prevent ‘rule from jail', why Opposition smells a ploy
With barely two days left before adjournment of the monsoon session of Parliament, Union home minister Amit Shah walked into Lok Sabha on August 20 carrying three slender bills whose implications have ignited a massive political the Constitution (130th Amendment) Bill, 2025, the Government of Union Territories (Amendment) Bill, 2025, and the Jammu and Kashmir Reorganisation (Amendment) Bill, 2025, propose a seismic shift: any Union minister, chief minister or even the prime minister could be forced to vacate office if held in custody for 30 consecutive days on charges punishable with at least five years in On paper, these bills seek to codify a mechanism that ensures that top leaders in India—a country long haunted by criminalisation of politics—cannot govern from prison cells. In spirit, the legislation borrows from service rules for civil servants, who are suspended upon arrest. Extending that logic to elected representatives, the government insists, is a matter of constitutional Constitution (130th Amendment) Bill, along with companion legislation for Union territories and Jammu and Kashmir, establishes an automatic removal mechanism. Any minister arrested and detained for 30 consecutive days on charges carrying a minimum five-year sentence would be removed from office on the 31st day, regardless of whether they have been convicted or even faced regular ministers, the removal requires either advice from the prime minister or chief minister by the 31st day, or automatic cessation if no such advice is given. For prime ministers and chief ministers themselves, the bills mandate resignation by the 31st day or automatic removal thereafter. While the removed officials can theoretically be reappointed upon release, the political damage would likely prove RATIONALEThe bills are not arriving in a vacuum. Over the past two years, India has witnessed two high-profile sagas that underscored the absence of such a mechanism. Arvind Kejriwal, while he was the chief minister of Delhi, spent more than five months in jail in 2024 on charges related to the capital's liquor policy. Despite his incarceration, he refused to resign, forcing the Delhi government into an unprecedented arrangement: governance by proxy from a prison ward. He quit only after being granted interim bail, and even then, under Supreme Court conditions that barred him from entering the Secretariat.V. Senthil Balaji, a Tamil Nadu minister, was arrested in 2023 in a money-laundering case. Chief minister M.K. Stalin kept him in the cabinet without portfolio, igniting a bitter standoff with governor R.N. Ravi. Balaji was reinstated when the Supreme Court granted him bail, only to resign months later after the court insisted that his presence undermined constitutional the BJP, these cases are proof that without a clear constitutional remedy, governance risks paralysis and public trust corrodes. From the BJP's vantage point, the legislation is an extension of Prime Minister Narendra Modi's oft-repeated mantra of 'zero tolerance' for corruption. The Statement of Objects and Reasons attached to each bill echoes that tone. Ministers, it says, embody 'the hopes and aspirations of the people' and their conduct should be 'beyond any ray of suspicion'. A minister in custody, it warns, risks thwarting 'the canons of constitutional morality' and diminishing the trust reposed in elected OBJECTIONSIn India's fractious democracy, the timing and manner of the bills' introduction have only deepened mistrust. Critics argue they mark an extraordinary expansion of executive authority, one that risks turning investigative agencies into weapons against political rivals. The choice of timing, they say, is no the BJP and the Election Commission (EC) already under fire over contentious revisions of electoral rolls, the government is accused of trying to divert political attention. Many in the Opposition believe the BJP itself knows that the bills stand little chance of clearing the formidable hurdles of constitutional change—passage by a two-thirds majority in both Houses of Parliament, with at least half the states ratifying them. That, they insist, explains why the bills were rushed in at the fag end of the session, leaving no room for meaningful debate or the three bills were introduced, Opposition benches erupted in protest. When Amit Shah moved to have the legislation referred to a joint committee for scrutiny, several Opposition leaders tore up copies of the bills and flung them towards the Treasury benches, some landing directly before the home MP and senior advocate Abhishek Manu Singhvi called the move 'the best way to destabilise Opposition governments'. 'No ruling party chief minister is ever touched. But unleash biased agencies, arrest an Opposition CM, and by the 31st day, he is gone, without a vote, without a trial,' he India Majlis-e-Ittehadul Muslimeen (AIMIM) chief Asaduddin Owaisi, in a formal notice to the Lok Sabha secretary general, argued that the legislation violates principles of federalism, separation of powers and due process. 'This amendment would allow the executive agencies a free run to become the judge, jury and executioner,' Owaisi stated, noting that in a parliamentary democracy, ministers can only be removed through loss of legislative confidence or recommendation by the head of deepest unease stems not from the text of the bills but from India's investigative reality. Over the past decade, the Enforcement Directorate (ED), Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) and other agencies, which report to the central government, have been accused by courts and Opposition parties of selective zeal. In July, chief justice of India B.R. Gavai rebuked the ED for being used in 'political battles'. Earlier this month, another court bench told the agency it was 'crossing all limits' and warned it not to act 'like a crook'.advertisementEven inclusion of provisions for removing prime ministers, which government defenders cite as evidence of even-handedness, rings hollow to critics, who note the impossibility of central agencies arresting a sitting prime minister who controls manner of the bills' introduction has further fuelled Opposition anger. Shah's letter to the Lok Sabha secretary general requesting inclusion of these bills came on the evening of August 19, with the session scheduled to conclude on August 21. The home minister explicitly sought relaxation of Rule 19(A) and 19(B), which require prior notice and circulation of bills to members before Sabha speaker Om Birla accommodated Shah's request, with the understanding that the bills would be referred to a joint parliamentary committee for scrutiny. For critics, the last-minute manoeuvre smacks of opportunism, a way to table a politically potent law without adequate debate, and to force the Opposition into defensive posturing just as the monsoon session wraps PATH TO PASSAGEThe path to passage is complex. Unlike ordinary bills, the Constitution (130th Amendment) Bill alters the federal balance by touching Articles 75 and 164. It therefore requires:1. Approval by a two-thirds majority in both Houses of Parliament, with at least 50 per cent of members present and voting.2. Ratification by at least half the contrast, the Union territories and J&K bills are ordinary amendments requiring only a simple majority. But politically, the three are being bundled as a single reform package, amplifying both their symbolic weight and the resistance they are likely to National Democratic Alliance (NDA) currently lacks a two-thirds majority in either House. For the bills to pass, a significant number of Opposition MPs would have to abstain on voting day. Without the support of Opposition parties, the chances of passage remain slim. Even NDA allies, such as the Telugu Desam Party, Janata Dal (United) and smaller partners, may hesitate to back the proposals. As expected, the bills have now been referred to a joint parliamentary if passed, constitutional challenges are almost inevitable. Lawyers argue the bills may clash with the 'basic structure doctrine' established by the Supreme Court, which safeguards federalism and separation of powers from parliamentary India watches this constitutional drama unfold, the central question remains whether these bills represent necessary reform to combat corruption or, as the Congress's Singhvi posted on social media, 'the best way to destabilise the Opposition' through 'arbitrary arrests' when unable to defeat them electorally. The answer may well determine the trajectory of Indian democracy for years to to India Today Magazine- EndsMust Watch
