Karnataka’s political landscape is abuzz with fresh speculation following a significant remark from Chief Minister Siddaramaiah’s son, Yathindra Siddaramaiah. The Congress MLC suggested that Public Works Minister Satish Jarkiholi, a prominent ST leader, could step into a leadership role as his father approaches the end of his political career. This statement has ignited another round of controversy, adding fuel to the long-standing talks of a ‘November revolution’ within the state’s ruling, faction-divided Congress party.
During a gathering in Belagavi on Wednesday, Dr. Yathindra praised Mr. Jarkiholi, expressing his hope that the minister would embrace greater responsibility. He lauded Jarkiholi as a committed leader who embodies progressive ideological and philosophical values, stating, “It is difficult to find leaders who are committed to principles, but Mr Jarkiholi is doing his job with commitment. He should continue to do so.”
This endorsement from Dr. Yathindra holds considerable weight, especially coming just days after Deputy Chief Minister D.K. Shivakumar asserted that the choice of Chief Minister rests solely with the party’s high command, not with the backing of MLAs. Shivakumar’s statement was largely seen as him positioning himself for a potential succession as the Congress government nears its halfway mark in power.
Observers widely interpret Dr. Yathindra’s remarks as an indirect message from Chief Minister Siddaramaiah himself. It’s perceived as a strategic move to promote Mr. Jarkiholi, a powerful figure from Belagavi, as a chief ministerial candidate if the party’s central leadership decides to initiate a leadership transition after the Bihar elections this November.
The proposal of Mr. Jarkiholi’s name is viewed as a calculated maneuver to curb Mr. Shivakumar’s strong ambitions for the top post. Furthermore, it’s a clear signal to the party’s high command, which is expected to approach this delicate matter with extreme caution. The central leadership is keen to avoid a repeat of the political instability seen between 1989 and 1994, when Karnataka witnessed three different Chief Ministers—Veerendra Patil, S. Bangarappa, and M. Veerappa Moily—in quick succession.
‘What Can I Say?’
When reporters pressed Deputy Chief Minister Shivakumar for his reaction to Dr. Yathindra’s comments, he retorted sharply, “You (media) ask him (Mr. Yathindra) about what he has said. What can I say?” Shivakumar, a leading contender for the Chief Minister’s chair, has recently been observed undertaking a series of temple visits, including a pilgrimage to Mantralayam following his visit to the Hasaanamba temple in Hassan.
Mr. Shivakumar reiterated his earlier stance, stating, “As Siddaramaiah and I have said, we will go by what the party’s high command asks us to do.”
Amidst the growing discussion sparked by Dr. Yathindra’s remark, Mr. Jarkiholi offered his perspective, stating, “The party has to decide who will be the successor. He (Mr. Yathindra) has expressed his personal opinion. Ultimately, it’s the party and the MLAs who will decide. There’s still time; let’s wait and see what happens.” He also emphasized the necessity of AHINDA leadership within the Congress, adding, “I can’t do politics without the AHINDA support.”
Meanwhile, senior party MLA T.B. Jayachandra commented that the high command would base its decision on a leadership change on the support of MLAs, clarifying, “As of now, the Chief Minister’s chair is not vacant.”
Minister M.B. Patil defended Dr. Yathindra, stating that he merely praised Mr. Jarkiholi’s leadership qualities and said nothing amiss. Home Minister G. Parameshwara also weighed in, asserting, “Discussion about the Chief Minister’s post is nowhere. The party’s high command and the CLP will decide leadership matters at the appropriate time.”
‘No Substance’
However, H.A. Iqbal Hussain, the Ramanagara MLA and a staunch loyalist of the KPCC chief, dismissed the remarks, stating, “There is no substance or weight in his statement.”
This internal conflict within the Congress is likely to further tarnish the government’s image, especially at a time when a contractors’ association has already leveled serious allegations of widespread corruption against the administration.