Shivakumar to be Karnataka CM? Congress MLA's big 2-3 months claim; hints at major government rejig
File photo of Karnataka chief minister Siddaramaiah and deputy CM D K Shivakumar (Pic credit: PTI)
NEW DELHI: Congress MLA H A Iqbal Hussain on Sunday hinted at a leadership change in Karnataka, saying that
D K Shivakumar
can get the chief minister post within the next two or three months.
His remark came amid renewed speculation about a major political development in Karnataka soon.
Speculation reignites over rotational CM formula
Earlier, cooperation minister K N Rajanna hinted at "revolutionary" political developments after September.
When asked if
Shivakumar
had a chance to become CM, Hussain told reporters, "You all know what our (Congress's) strength was before this government came to power. Everyone knows who put in the struggle, sweat, effort and interest to achieve this victory. His (Shivakumar's) strategy and programmes are history now."
"I don't believe in speculation. We have full confidence that the high command is aware of the situation and will take an appropriate decision at the right time to give him an opportunity," he added.
He emphasised that the big decision will be made within two to three months, when asked if Shivakumar will get the position this year.
"Yes, I'm saying it. The date some leaders are hinting at for revolutionary political developments after September—this is what they are talking about.
by Taboola
by Taboola
Sponsored Links
Sponsored Links
Promoted Links
Promoted Links
You May Like
5 Books Warren Buffett Wants You to Read In 2025
Blinkist: Warren Buffett's Reading List
Undo
A decision will be made within two to three months," Hussain said.
"That's what I'm saying. I'm not beating around the bush; I'm speaking directly," he asserted.
High command holds the cards
When asked about
Siddaramaiah
's son and MLC Yathindra Siddaramaiah brushing off the leadership change as mere speculation, Hussain said that Congress high command had decided on government formation after the 2023 assembly polls.
"We were all together in Delhi then. Sonia Gandhi,
Rahul Gandhi
, and Mallikarjun Kharge made the decision.
Everyone knows that. They will take the next decision too—we'll have to wait and watch," he said.
Hussain also took the sting out of Rajanna's "revolution" comment, saying that allowing a deserving person cannot be called a revolution.
"What does revolution mean? Changes are common in politics. When the time comes, the high command will decide who should be given the responsibility. A suitable person, capable of providing good administration in today's circumstances, will get the opportunity and do their duty.
There is an expectation for change, but it cannot be called a revolution," he said.
No revolt, no split, just transition
Highlighting that Congress is in power in the state, he said, "if another party were overthrowing this government, that could be called a revolution. But nothing like that is happening—the government is strong and has a clear majority."
Hussain further dismissed Rajanna's claims about multiple power centres within the Congress, saying, "There is only one power centre—the party high command."
"There is discipline and commitment in the Congress, and everyone follows it. People from different communities have worked for the party, and they have sacrificed and fought for it. In today's situation, there is an expectation for change, and that change will happen—but it cannot be called a revolution," he claimed.
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Hindustan Times
6 minutes ago
- Hindustan Times
Akhilesh Yadav's 'under the table' dig at Dhirendra Shastri amid kathavachak row
Samajwadi Party chief Akhilesh Yadav on Sunday took potshots at self-styled godman Dhirendra Shastri, saying he takes money "under the table" when called over to read a katha at people's homes. Samajwadi Party chief Akhilesh Yadav jabbed Dhirendra Shastri.(File photo) Akhilesh Yadav's remarks came amid an ongoing uproar over the alleged humiliation of two Bhagavat 'kathavachaks' (religious storyteller) of the Yadav community in Uttar Pradesh's Etawah district. "There are many Kathavachaks who charge ₹ 50 lakh. Can anyone invite Dhirendra Shastri to their home for a katha? That baba will take money under the table. Please find out if he does or not. I'm sure he doesn't do it for free," Akhilesh Yadav can be heard saying in a video going viral. Dhirendra Shastri is a self-styled spiritual preacher who became a sensation over the past years. Until the time of writing this report, there has been no reaction from Dhirendra Shastri on Akhilesh Yadav's remarks. Row over kathavachaks Violence erupted in Etawah's Dandarpur village last week after two kathavachaks were allegedly humiliated, tonsured and forced to rub their noses at the feet of women, after villagers found out that they were not Brahmins. However, villagers alleged that the kathavachaks had concealed their identity when discussions were underway for their discourse in the area. According to an organiser who filed an FIR against the two kathavachaks, had their caste identity been disclosed earlier, they would not have been engaged. Reacting to the incident, Akhilesh Yadav had lashed out at the BJP, saying the party was attempting to divide Uttar Pradesh along caste lines. "The BJP is deploying its 'planted people' with strategic surnames from neighbouring states to carry out its infiltrative politics and disturb social harmony in Uttar Pradesh," Yadav was quoted as saying by news agency PTI. The incident had triggered widespread protests by members of the 'Ahir Regiment', a socio-cultural body. Violence erupted after members of the body protested outside the Bakewar police station and shouted slogans. While some were dispersed by the cops, others engaged in a heated exchange with security personnel, leading to violence. 'The force acted with restraint and reinforcement was called in,' said circle officer Atul Pradhan. Six people were detained in connection with the case.
Time of India
26 minutes ago
- Time of India
New regional power bloc? Pakistan, China planning to replace SAARC; what report said
Flags of Afghanistan, Bangladesh, Bhutan, India, Maldives, Nepal, Pakistan and Sri Lanka - Left to rght Pakistan and China are developing a proposal for a new regional organisation, which seems to be planning to replace the South Asian Association for Regional Cooperation ( SAARC ), according to the Express Tribune, citing diplomatic sources. The regional grouping comprises Afghanistan, Bangladesh, Bhutan, India, the Maldives, Nepal, Pakistan and Sri Lanka. According to the news report, both nations have progressed significantly in their discussions, recognising the urgent requirement for a new platform to facilitate regional integration and connectivity. The recent three-way meeting between Pakistan, China and Bangladesh in Kunming, China, was a strategic step in this direction. The Kunming meeting on June 19 aimed to extend invitations to other former SAARC member countries to join this new alliance. According to the report, China and Pakistan are planning to invite India for this proposal. Other nations, including Sri Lanka, Maldives, and Afghanistan, are also likely to receive the invitation to participate in this new grouping. The initiative focuses on fostering regional engagement through improved trade and connectivity. by Taboola by Taboola Sponsored Links Sponsored Links Promoted Links Promoted Links You May Like Perdagangkan CFD Emas dengan Broker Tepercaya IC Markets Mendaftar Undo The last Summit took place in Kathmandu, 2014 as the 2016 Summit was dropped after a terrorist attack on an Indian Army camp in Uri in Jammu and Kashmir on September 18 that year. India expressed its inability to participate in the summit due to "prevailing circumstances". And later, the summit was called off after Bangladesh, Bhutan and Afghanistan also declined to participate in the Islamabad meet.
India Today
27 minutes ago
- India Today
Why framers of India's Constitution didn't include secular in it
Speaking on the 50th anniversary of the declaration of the Emergency, RSS general secretary, Dattatreya Hosabale, questioned the inclusion of the terms 'secular' and 'socialist' in the Preamble by the 42nd Amendment to the Constitution. While the Congress attacked the RSS and BJP after Hosabale's remarks, Vice President Jagdeep Dhankhar and Union Ministers Shivraj Singh Chouhan and Jitendra Singh backed the idea that the inclusion of the two words needs to be said the inclusion of the terms in the Preamble during the Indira Gandhi-imposed Emergency was a "travesty of justice" and "sacrilege to the spirit of Sanatana".Interestingly, the argument that Hosabale made of the term not being in the original draft of the Indian Constitution is not lone use of the term 'secular' in the original Constitution was in Article 25-2A. Here it was used to refer to "political or other secular activity which may be associated with religious practice", and not to describe the nature of the said, "Yes, the ideas of socialism and secularism existed through the rules and policies of the government, but that is different. However, it must be questioned whether 'secular' and 'socialist' should remain in the Constitution or not because the makers of the Constitution did not originally include this.""This was not added by Babasaheb but during the Emergency when democratic rights and the legislature were dysfunctional. Hence, such questions must be addressed today," the RSS functionary a political ideology, secularism is the absolute separation of the state from religion, but in the Indian context, it has meant equal respect to all religions. The Indian state is neither anti-religion nor strictly as the Constitution is secular in its spirit, both BR Ambedkar and Pandit Jawaharlal Nehru did not believe that it adhered to the dictionary understanding of the term Constituent Assembly agreed that while it was required in spirit, the official inclusion of the term 'secular' would have impeded the necessitated interventions towards ending discrimination and affirmative THE CONSTITUENT ASSEMBLY DEBATESKT Shah, an eminent economist, advocate and socialist, proposed to add to clause (1) of Article 1 that read, "India shall be a", the words – secular, federal and regard to the secular character of the Indian State, he said, "We have been told time and again from every platform, that ours is a secular state. If that is true, if that holds well, I do not see why the term could not be added or inserted in the constitution itself, once again, to guard against any possibility of misunderstanding or misapprehension."However, he added, "The term secular, I agree, does not find place necessarily in constitutions on which ours seems to have been modelled."To this, the Chairperson of the Drafting Committee, Dr BR Ambedkar, expressed his inability to accept such a justified it by stating, "The Constitution is merely a mechanism for the purpose of regulating the work of the various organs of the State."For him, the Constitution was not a mechanism for deciding the policy of the state. Rather, the people themselves should actively shape the Constitution in accordance to their social and economic did not see the need to, as he said, "tie down the people to live in a particular form and not leave it to the people themselves to decide it for themselves".He also called the proposed amendment "superfluous" as there are other provisions in the Constitution, rather than fundamental rights that obligate the State to be secular, social, and federal in members, such as HV Kamath, argued that, if at all, the term can be added to the Preamble but not to the Constitution, especially within the first article, which talks about 'Union and its Territories and Jurisdictions'.Ambedkar strongly argued, "It cannot be laid down in the Constitution itself, because that is destroying democracy altogether," and the motion was negated by the Vice Jawaharlal Nehru asked the members of the constituent assembly demanding the inclusion of the term 'secular' to consult the by how this debate had been brought up numerous times, he said, 'It has a great deal of importance, no doubt. But it is brought in all contexts, as if by saying that we are a secular state we have done something amazingly generous, given something out of our pocket to the rest of the world, something which we ought not to have done."For him, the inclusion of the word would be a superficial assertion of having done something 'mighty'.ANCIENT CULTURE OF INDIA WAS NOT SECULARIndia has practised the "principled equidistance" model of secularism, which is engaging with all religions without favouring one over the assembly member, HV Kamath, distinguished the Indian model of secularism by saying, 'When I say that a State should not identify itself with any particular religion, I do not mean to say that a State should be anti-religious or irreligious."Propagating 'dharma' or duty to be the religion of the State, he said, 'A secular state is neither a God-less State nor an irreligious nor an anti-religious State."Another member, Loknath Misra, mentioned India's history to argue that religion cannot be divorced from life and the term 'Secular State' cannot be "a device to bypass the ancient culture of the land". For him, the inclusion of the term 'secular' would require all the rights related to religion in the Constitution to be strongest argument against the inclusion of 'secular' in the Constitution was that it would negate the various religious Ian Copland justified the exclusion of the term on two grounds in his book, 'A History of State and Religion in India'. One, the Protestant concept of 'enlightened secularism' did not suit a country where the rulers and religious public have since times immemorial interacted with each other. Two, adding the term might make the public think that the government 'had religion in its sight'.So, while the future of India was rooted in the idea of secularism, it was not the European model but a contextualised Indian model taking into account by the framers of the DEMOCRACY IS AN IDEAL TO BE AIMED FORThe Articles such as 15(4), 16(5), 17, 25, and 45 already laid down rules as to how, even with the right to religion enshrined as a fundamental right, certain practices within religions are unconstitutional and even the then Prime Minister, Indira Gandhi, enacted the 42nd Amendment Act in1976 while the country was in a state of national emergency and added the term 'secular' to the Preamble to the Indian Constitution.A member argued, 'What is the use of calling India a secular State if you allow religious instruction to be imparted to young boys and girls?', while another questioned the validity of legislating through private laws.A long debate was then held over the need for a uniform civil code, the meaning of religious instruction, apprehension over the freedom to propagate religion and the future of minority rights in a secular this, Nehru evoked the idea of a "secular democracy" and stated, "It is an ideal to be aimed at and every one of us whether we are Hindus or Muslims, Sikhs or Christians, whatever we are, none of us can say in his heart of hearts that he has no prejudice and no taint of communalism in his mind or heart."'SECULAR' AN ATTACK ON SPIRIT OF CONSTITUTIONSpeaking at the book release of 'Ambekar's Messages', the Vice President of India, Jagdeep Dhankar called the addition of the words to the Preamble a 'betrayal' and 'sacrilege to the spirit of Sanatana'.He said, "The Preamble of the Indian Constitution is unique. Except Bharat (no other) Constitution's Preamble has undergone change, and why? Preamble is not changeable'.Hence, what Hosabale said is not untrue, and he has been joined by others in his criticism of the 42nd Amendment, which added 'secular' to the Congress leaders and the larger opposition have called this an attack on the Constitution, Union Ministers Shivraj Singh Chouhan and Jitendra Singh backed a review of the inclusion of the terms 'socialist' and 'secular'.Chouhan said that the core of Indian Culture is 'Sarva Dharma Sambhav' (equal respect to all) and not 'dharma nirpeksh' (secular). With this he demanded the removal of the supported Hosabale by saying that Ambedkar crafted 'one of the best Constitutions in the world and if it was not his thinking, then with what thought did someone add these terms'.Chief Minister of Kerala Pinarayi Vijayan called this uproar by the RSS 'sheer hypocrisy and political opportunism'.He said, 'Invoking the Emergency to discredit these principles (secularism and socialism) is a deceitful move, especially when the RSS itself colluded with the Indira Gandhi government during the time for its own survival'.There was consensus among the framers of the Indian Constitution that India should not be a theocratic state and there was also debate about 'secular' was the right term to define otherwise. Though a decision was made, the debate continues, 75 years on, because Indira Gandhi included the term during the Emergency when most opposition leaders were hounded underground or packed into jails.- Ends advertisement
