A fresh controversy has added fuel to ongoing speculation about a leadership tussle in Karnataka, after seer Pranavananda Swamiji alleged that mutts supporting Deputy Chief Minister DK Shivakumar were deliberately denied funding in the state budget presented by Chief Minister Siddaramaiah.
According to the seer, institutions linked to swamijis who had backed Shivakumar’s bid for the chief minister’s post did not receive any allocation in the recent budget. He claimed this amounted to political discrimination and suggested that support for Shivakumar had led to these mutts being sidelined. He also alleged that even land allocations were withheld from such institutions, reinforcing his charge of bias.
The issue has gained traction amid recent discontent voiced by Congress MLA Iqbal Hussain, considered close to Shivakumar, who criticised the government for inadequate funding to his Ramanagara constituency. His remarks triggered renewed discussion about factional divisions within the state Congress unit.
Pranavananda Swamiji further claimed that during his recent padayatra to Bengaluru, where he submitted community demands, there were indications that those backing Shivakumar would not receive support from the government. Despite this, he reiterated his firm backing for Shivakumar, stating that his position would not change regardless of the treatment received.
The controversy has once again brought attention to long-standing rumours of a power-sharing arrangement within the Congress in Karnataka. Following the party’s 2023 election victory, there had been claims from Shivakumar’s supporters of a “rotational chief minister” formula, under which he would assume the top post after 2.5 years. However, Siddaramaiah and his camp have consistently denied the existence of any such agreement.
Speculation intensified when Siddaramaiah completed 2.5 years in office in November last year, though he has repeatedly asserted that he will continue as Chief Minister for the full term. Shivakumar has also publicly supported this stance, even as internal differences have periodically surfaced.
Senior party leadership has previously intervened to manage the situation, with both leaders holding multiple meetings to resolve differences. Despite recurring tensions and political signalling, the party leadership continues to maintain that the organisation remains united and focused on future electoral goals.
