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.

Is America Following Stalin’s Post-WWII Salami Tactics?

ree

Moldova’s path to European Union (EU) membership could dramatically alter the dynamics of the conflict in Ukraine. The strengthening Western influence in Eastern Europe and increasing pressure on Russia’s geopolitical ambitions draws a comparison between the Western support for Eastern Europe today and the Soviet Sphere of influence that existed under Stalin’s regime Post World War II. At the heart of the debate lies the question: How far is America’s role in Eastern Europe today like Stalin’s efforts of establishing a Soviet- Sphere of influence in the 1940’s?


After World War II, Stalin through his salami (bit by bit) tactics occupied Eastern Europe in the hope to create a Soviet Sphere of influence. He forcefully installed Communist regimes in Eastern Europe to create a buffer zone of the Soviet-controlled states. The occupation of Eastern European nations, such as Poland, Hungary, and Czechoslovakia, was framed under the guise of safeguarding them from Nazi resurgence, but it had the ultimate goal of transforming them into satellite states of the Soviet Union. Stalin’s political manoeuvring and military pressure led to the installation of totalitarian regimes loyal to Moscow, solidifying Soviet control across much of Eastern Europe by the late 1940s.


However, in contrast to Stalin’s tactics, Moldova, a country that Shares 1,200 kilometres with Ukraine is actively seeking EU membership with a hope to create democratic reforms and economic stability.


Moldova holds strategic importance within this region. As a part of the former Soviet republic and one of Europe’s poorest nations, Moldova has faced its own challenges under Russian influence, particularly in the breakaway region of Transnistria. Moldova’s membership into the EU would thus likely lead to an increased Western presence within the region, enhancing both its security and its alignment with Ukraine’s resistance to Russian aggression. Since its independence in 1991, Moldova has struggled with Russian influence, particularly in the breakaway region of Transnistria, where pro-Russian forces maintain control.


If Moldova becomes a part of the EU, it will potentially serve as a logistical and strategic support point for Ukraine. It would gain access to significant economic and military support which would possibly allow Moldova to facilitate supply lines and humanitarian aid into Ukraine. This could increase Ukraine’s resilience, particularly in the Odessa region, which has close access to the Black Sea.


Additionally, the EU and NATO support within Moldova could help fortify its borders against the potential Russian incursions or Russia’s destabilisation efforts, limiting Russia’s ability to use Moldova as a foothold to launch operations. Moldova’s entry into the EU would not automatically extend NATO’s Article 5 protection but could open doors for enhanced security partnerships and sharing intelligence that could significantly control Russian actions in both Moldova and Ukraine. The EU is working to create a region of self-sustaining, democratic states that can work collaboratively to address common challenges. This model relies on voluntary partnerships and shared governance rather than enforced ideology or military occupation.


Many feel that America’s role reflects a response to security challenges rather than an expansionist agenda. “What the West is doing is fundamentally about supporting sovereignty and self-determination,” said a senior analyst at the Atlantic Council. “The U.S. and EU are investing in resilience and not occupation.”


Russia has expressed its concerns that Moldova’s EU alignment undermines its regional influence. Moscow views the Western support to Moldova as a part of a broader effort to contain Russia’s power near its borders. Kremlin officials see this move as an encroachment into a sphere where Russia has historically held control. While Russia often employs tactics like cyber operations, misinformation and political pressure in Eastern Europe, Western support for Moldova emphasises transparency and democratic governance.


For Moldova, EU membership offers a chance to escape the economic and political challenges that have hampered its development since Soviet times. For the EU, integrating Moldova represents a commitment to fostering a stable, democratic region. For the U.S., a Europe fortified by economic and political resilience in Eastern Europe stands as a counterweight to Russia’s regional influence.


As Moldova advances toward its membership to the EU, the differences between Stalin-era expansion and today’s Western support highlight a fundamental change in approach. This membership could help consolidate the EU’s eastern border, establishing a fortified boundary against potential Russian aggression. As Moldova’s membership gains traction, it could become a pivotal player in shaping a new European order, one in which the EU’s influence stretches to the edges of the post-Soviet space, recreating the balance of power and underscoring the importance of a united Europe in the face of aggression.


As Moldova’s membership gains traction, it could become a pivotal player in shaping a new European order, one in which the EU’s influence stretches to the edges of the post-Soviet space, recalibrating the balance of power and underscoring the importance of a united Europe in the face of aggression.


(The author is an educationalist. Views personal.)

Comments

bottom of page