top of page

By:

Correspondent

23 August 2024 at 4:29:04 pm

Fractured Crown

Between Siddaramaiah’s grip on power and Shivakumar’s restless ambition, the Karnataka Congress is trapped in a succession spiral. Karnataka Karnataka today has two chief ministers - one by office, the other by expectation. The power tussle between Siddaramaiah and his deputy, D.K. Shivakumar, has slipped so completely into the open that the Congress’s ritual denials sound like political farce. A whispered ‘understanding’ after the 2023 victory that each would get the CM’s post after...

Fractured Crown

Between Siddaramaiah’s grip on power and Shivakumar’s restless ambition, the Karnataka Congress is trapped in a succession spiral. Karnataka Karnataka today has two chief ministers - one by office, the other by expectation. The power tussle between Siddaramaiah and his deputy, D.K. Shivakumar, has slipped so completely into the open that the Congress’s ritual denials sound like political farce. A whispered ‘understanding’ after the 2023 victory that each would get the CM’s post after two-and-a-half years has hardened into a public confrontation between a chief minister determined to finish five years and a deputy increasingly unwilling to wait. The recent breakfast meeting between the two men at Siddaramaiah’s residence was presented as a truce where the ‘high command’ was invoked as the final arbiter. “There are no differences between us,” Siddaramaiah insisted, twice for emphasis. Few were convinced and soon, Shivakumar was again hinting darkly at change. For weeks, Shivakumar’s loyalists have been holding meetings, mobilising legislators and making pilgrimages to Delhi to get the Congress high command to honour its promise. They insist that the Congress leadership agreed to a rotational chief ministership in 2023 and that November 2025 was always meant to mark Shivakumar’s ascent. The high command, for its part, has perfected the art of strategic vagueness by neither confirming nor denying the pact. This suggests that the Congress does not merely hesitate to act against Siddaramaiah, but increasingly lacks the capacity to do so. From the outset of his second innings, Siddaramaiah has given no signal of easing aside. As he approaches January 2026, poised to overtake D. Devaraj Urs as Karnataka’s longest-serving chief minister, the symbolism is unmistakable. The mantle of social justice politics that Urs once embodied now firmly sits on Siddaramaiah’s shoulders. And it is this social coalition that shields him. His fortress is AHINDA - minorities, backward classes and Dalits. Leaked figures from the unreleased caste census suggest that these groups together approach or exceed two-thirds of the state’s population. Lingayats and Vokkaligas, once electorally dominant, are rendered numerical minorities in this arithmetic. Siddaramaiah governs not merely as a Congress leader, but as the putative custodian of Karnataka’s demographic majority. That claim is reinforced through policy. Minority scholarships have been revived, contractor quotas restored, residential schools expanded. More than Rs. 42,000 crore has been earmarked for Scheduled Castes and Tribes. Kurubas, his own community, have been pitched for Scheduled Tribe status, with careful assurances that their elevation will not disadvantage others. DK Shivakumar brings organisational muscle, financial clout and control over the Vokkaliga heartland. In electoral campaigns, these are formidable assets. But in a confrontation with a leader who embodies a 60–70 percent social coalition, they are blunt instruments. The Congress high command understands this equation, even if it publicly pretends otherwise. It also remembers, uneasily, what Siddaramaiah did the last time his authority was constrained. In 2020, when the Congress–JD(S) coalition collapsed after 16 MLAs defected to Mumbai,13 of them hailed from Siddaramaiah’s camp. At the time, he held the post of coordination committee chairman. Instead, he emerged as the principal beneficiary of collapse, returning as Leader of the Opposition with a tighter grip on the party. If the Congress high command could not punish him then, it is doubtful it can coerce him now. Shivakumar’s predicament is thus more tragic than tactical. He is not battling a rival alone, but an entire political structure built to outlast him. The promised coronation looks increasingly like a mirage drifting just ahead of a man condemned to keep walking. For the Congress, the cost of this paralysis is already visible. A government elected on guarantees and governance is consumed by succession. The party’s authority is dissolving while its factions harden. The Congress returned to power in Karnataka after years in the wilderness, only to re-enact the same leadership dysfunction that has crippled it elsewhere. Regardless of whether Siddaramaiah survives this storm, it is becoming increasingly clear that the Congress cannot survive the slow corrosion of its command in one of the few states it holds today.

‘Deep State’ and Donald Trump

Updated: Nov 7, 2024

Donald Trump

If Donald Trump wins a second term as U.S. President, his primary target will likely be what he describes as “the Deep State” in America. According to him, the Deep State comprises the Justice Department, the CIA, and the FBI. Last week, American magazine ‘Politico’ noted that “regaining control of the Justice Department is most vital to his [Trump’s] agenda, both political and personal.”


The U.S. Justice Department has a unique history, as it can be considered even older than the fully ratified U.S. Constitution. Although the Constitution was initially signed by 39 of the 55 delegates on September 17, 1787, it took an additional two years and seven months for all states to ratify it, with the final ratification occurring on May 29, 1790. Meanwhile, Congress passed the Judiciary Act on September 24, 1789, recognizing the importance of establishing a judicial system for peace and security. This was technically possible as the Confederation Congress, established on March 9, 1789, marked the start of the Constitution’s operation.


The final clause of the Judiciary Act addressed the appointment of the Attorney General, stating that they “shall prosecute and conduct all suits in the Supreme Court in which the United States shall be concerned, and give advice and opinion upon questions of law when required by the President of the United States.”

Following the Civil War (1861–1865), the need for a full-fledged department became apparent. In 1870, the Department of Justice (DOJ) was established, with the Attorney General designated as the Federal Government’s chief law enforcement officer.


The Attorney General serves a dual role, acting as the legal representative of the executive branch to the Supreme Court and advising the President and heads of executive departments.


Over time, more powers have been delegated to the Attorney General. Under the Independent Counsel Act, the Attorney General is responsible for conducting preliminary inquiries whenever they receive sufficient information to justify investigating potential federal law violations, including those involving the President and Vice President.


This was the process that led to President Bill Clinton’s impeachment in 1994. Janet Reno, whom President Clinton appointed as Attorney General in 1993, selected Robert Fiske as an independent counsel in January 1994 to investigate the Whitewater controversy, which scrutinized Bill and Hillary Clinton’s real estate investments. Fiske was later replaced by Ken Starr.


This suggests that Trump, even if re-elected, would face limitations in reshaping the Justice Department to serve his personal needs. While he may have the power to dismiss the current Attorney General and appoint new personnel, Senate approval would be required for certain key positions. Furthermore, any new appointees would find it challenging to alter existing evidence, as the DOJ operates under rigorous judicial and Congressional oversight.


The next two entities within Trump’s ‘Deep State’ are the FBI and CIA. Established in 1908 under Title 28 U.S. Code 533, the FBI, like the Attorney General, is supervised by the DOJ and other federal law enforcement agencies, operating independently of any president’s personal preferences. While the President requires Senate concurrence for high-level appointments such as the Attorney General and FBI Director, other appointments are within presidential purview. However, all must operate within the law and remain accountable to the courts.


The CIA, created under the Central Intelligence Act of 1949, also requires Senate confirmation for its Director. With a Democratic majority currently in the Senate, Trump may encounter challenges in appointing his preferred candidate if this composition remains unchanged.


Historically, presidents attempting to install their own choice of CIA Director to “teach a lesson” to the agency have often met with limited success. Despite Senate approval, these directors have found it challenging to implement reforms inconsistent with the agency’s statutory mandates under Congressional Intelligence Committee oversight. A New York Times report dated December 22, 1974, noted that James R. Schlesinger, brought in by President Richard Nixon, struggled to enact reforms within the CIA and served only six months.


Conversely, Admiral Stansfield Turner, whom President Jimmy Carter appointed to “sanitize” the CIA, fired 820 agents from the CIA’s Clandestine Service in the so-called “Halloween Massacre.” Reflecting in 2005, Turner admitted he might have overreached in taking such a drastic step.


In fact, Turner’s actions inadvertently fostered cooperation between the CIA and Chinese intelligence services against the Soviet Union, which, as French investigative journalist Roger Falligot detailed in ‘Chinese Spies,’ opened opportunities for Chinese penetration into the Western world—a story I reviewed for Indian readers in 2019.


For the American electorate, the upcoming election will not just be a referendum on Trump’s leadership but a pivotal moment in defining the nation’s commitment to democratic norms and the independence of its institutions. In a time of escalating division, the resilience of these pillars of democracy may be the most crucial battleground of all.

(The writer is a former Special Secretary, Cabinet Secretariat. Views are personal)

Comments

bottom of page