Political leadership was an important issue in the Karnataka Assembly elections. It was also a demonstration of the authority structures of the national and regional leadership. Religious, ethical, communitarian, caste and cultural affiliations were at play. The media has tended to sensationalise the tensions and conflicts that arose in the representational arena, often characterising them as part of the naked pursuit of office. While personal ambitions cannot be ignored, these tensions often reflect the serious challenges faced by political parties.
The Congress campaign positioned the party as the upholder of democracy, social justice and constitutionalism and rallied against political exclusion, authoritarianism, centralisation of power, state partisanship, and corruption. This stance had a principled tilt towards regional leadership. For this, the Congress looked to Mallikarjun Kharge, Siddaramaiah, D K Shivakumar, M B Patil, Satish Jarkiholi and many others. They pooled together large social constituencies, which had been drifting towards the BJP for a while. They employed their caste, community and personal networks to make deep forays into the support constituencies of their opponents – such as Patil did in the Lingayat belt and Shivakumar among the Vokkaligas. They missed a savvy face in the urban expanses of Bengaluru, which could have been filled in by leaders such as Krishne Baire Gowda — or Shashi Tharoor. But this was not done in adequate measure. Rahul Gandhi and Priyanka Gandhi played a major supportive role. Kharge, the All-India Congress President, repeatedly called himself a “bhoomiputra”, son of the soil, delving deep into memories of being an “untouchable”.
There is nothing surprising about the conflict between Siddaramaiah and Shivakumar for the position of the CM. Siddaramaiah, although he hails from the backward Kuruba caste, is largely a product of the farmers’ and other social movements that caused a churn in Karnataka in the 1970s and 1980s. He is a latecomer to the Congress, after a considerable stint in the Janata formations in the state. He is steeped in Karnataka’s literary and cultural lore and deploys local idioms to utmost effect. His sway runs across the social justice constituency in the state. People in the literary and cultural circles admire him greatly, although he is not the favourite of the dominant castes and ranked social orders. He has an excellent record in the management of state finances for over a dozen years and as CM (2013-2018), he has a commendable record on the human development index, social inclusion, and enablement.
However, Siddaramaiah’s capacity to insert himself into different constituencies creates apprehensions among leaders with narrower social bases. This is despite the fact that he can give a boost to their voting base. He has taken an uncompromising stand against Hindutva and, paradoxically, has many admirers even in that camp.
Shivakumar, the other contender for CM, hails from the Vokkaliga constituency and strongly identifies with it. He commands large economic assets and has organisational acumen. He is favoured by the status quo and can be trusted to focus on the state’s economic development and showcase it. However, his reach among other castes and communities is limited and social justice is clearly not his priority.
The BJP in the state attempted to marry hard Hindutva with Prime Minister Narendra Modi’s charisma – but its strategy came apart. In the process of emphasising ideology, it undercut established leaders such as B S Yeddiyurappa and Jagadish Shettar. Hindutva torchbearers brought leaders of relatively lesser stature to the centrestage and tried to use the oratory and enticement of the central leadership to bolster their flattened political space. Prime Minister Narendra Modi was showcased as a conquering hero, held in adulation by the crowds, and not a democratic leader seeking a mandate. Amit Shah was projected as “Chanakya”, the great political strategist of yore. It simply did not click.
While the vote percentage of the BJP remains intact at around 36 per cent, the disarray in its leadership is clear. However, there are many pockets of Hindutva support. It may take a while for the party to get its act together. Several of its defeated leaders, very resourceful otherwise, are not groomed in Hindutva ideology, and would not mind shifting to greener pastures.
Janata Dal (Secular)(JD-S) leader H D Kumaraswamy drew sizeable crowds, only to find that his base in the Vokkaliga heartland of Mandya and Hasan has collapsed. Much of the JD-S base has shifted to Congress and some to the BJP. The JD-S retains a few pockets of influence but its heydays seem to be over. Its survival as a political force largely depends on the approach that the Congress and BJP would embrace towards the social constituency it has commanded, the Vokkaligas of South Karnataka.
Electoral data does not adequately display the momentous shift in the social bases of political parties in this election and what it portends for their future. In terms of scale, it can be compared only to the shift that occurred under the leadership of Devaraj Urs (1972-1979). While it seems that the BJP is still holding on to urban areas, a careful look demonstrates that this grip is not firm. Much depends on how Congress resolves its inner-party leadership claims.
The writer taught at Mangalore University and Jawaharlal Nehru University.
