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.

Why Are LGBTQ Rights at Risk Under Trump’s Leadership?

ree

The LGBTQ community, traditionally aligned with the Democratic Party, has voiced significant concerns over Donald Trump’s political resurgence, fearing his return could erode hard-won rights. These fears stem from political setbacks and judicial appointments during his previous term, often viewed as hostile to LGBTQ individuals.


The LGBTQ community’s ties to the Democratic Party strengthened in 1993 when President Bill Clinton sought to allow gay and lesbian individuals to serve openly in the military. The effort resulted in the controversial “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” (DADT) policy, which prohibited LGBTQ service members from revealing their identities. While intended as a compromise, it faced criticism from both sides and led to the discharge of over 13,000 service members before its repeal in 2011.


As societal understanding of gender and sexuality evolved, so did the terminology. The term "LGB," coined in 1990 to represent lesbian, gay, and bisexual individuals, expanded to "LGBTQ," encompassing transgender and queer identities. Today, approximately 8% to 10% of the U.S. population identifies as part of this diverse community. In 2015, the US Supreme Court legalised same-sex marriage nationwide in the landmark Obergefell v. Hodges decision.


Trump’s presidency sparked anxiety among LGBTQ advocates, who accused his administration of rolling back critical protections. His alignment with conservative and religious groups, many of whom opposed LGBTQ rights, further fuelled this perception.


In 2017, Trump, in this previous term, announced a ban on transgender individuals serving in the military, reversing an Obama-era policy that allowed them to serve openly. This action, targeting a group representing just 0.6% of the population, was widely condemned as discriminatory and unnecessary. Advocates saw it as part of a broader agenda to marginalise LGBTQ individuals, particularly transgender people.


Trump’s judicial appointments heightened these concerns. Hundreds of conservative judges, many with anti-LGBTQ records, were appointed to federal courts. The most significant shift occurred on the Supreme Court, where Trump secured a 6-3 conservative supermajority by appointing Neil Gorsuch, Brett Kavanaugh, and Amy Coney Barrett. The Supreme Court, whose justices hold lifetime appointments, has the power to shape the legal and political landscape for generations through its decisions. While some rulings, like Gorsuch’s opinion in Bostock v. Clayton County, supported LGBTQ rights, the overall direction of the court raised fears about the future of same-sex marriage and other protections.


These concerns escalated after the Supreme Court overturned Roe v. Wade in 2022, ending federal abortion protections. Justice Clarence Thomas, in a concurring opinion, explicitly called for revisiting rulings on same-sex relationships, marriage, and access to contraception. This sent shockwaves through the LGBTQ community, signalling a potential challenge to the foundational decisions underpinning their rights.


Adding to the community’s unease is “Project 2025,” a conservative roadmap for a future Republican presidency. Critics argue that the plan could curtail LGBTQ rights by rolling back anti-discrimination protections and limiting access to education and healthcare. Although Trump has distanced himself from the initiative, many fear he will embrace its principles once he gets into power.


Some subgroups of the LTBTQ community within the broader electorate supported his presidency. Segments of the South Asian American community, for example, rallied behind Trump for his perceived strong stance against Islamic extremism. However, this support often conflicted with LGBTQ advocacy, which viewed his policies as hostile to equality and inclusion.


Advocates of the LGBTQ community are focused on safeguarding gains like marriage equality, workplace protections, and anti-discrimination laws, which are now at risk due to judicial shifts and conservative political strategies. Simultaneously, grassroots organisations, legal advocacy groups, and individual activists are mobilising for further progress, including advocating for the Equality Act to expand federal anti-discrimination protections.


Amid these challenges, advocates focus on safeguarding gains like marriage equality and anti-discrimination laws while pushing for progress through initiatives like the Equality Act. The community’s vigilance remains crucial as the fight for justice continues under shifting political tides.


(The author is a resident of Washington DC, US. Views personal.)

Comments

bottom of page