Section of Congress divided over action against 2 minority leaders

E-PaperSubscribeSubscribeEnjoy unlimited accessSubscribe Now! Get features like The Congress in Karnataka is facing an uncomfortable question that extends beyond a single by-election: how to enforce discipline within its ranks without unsettling the coalition of voters that helped deliver it a decisive mandate in 2023. Section of Congress divided over action against 2 minority leadersThe immediate controversy is the result of the action taken against MLC K Abdul Jabbar, who was suspended, and Naseer Ahmed, who was removed as political secretary to chief minister Siddaramaiah. Both decisions were linked to allegations of anti-party activity during the April 9 bypolls in Davanagere South. Yet the reaction they have provoked suggests the issue is not confined to alleged indiscipline, but to how different sections of the party interpret fairness, representation and political obligation. Within the party, the episode has produced two sharply divergent readings. One harps on the necessity of enforcing organisational discipline in the face of alleged internal sabotage. The other views the action as politically mistimed and unevenly applied, particularly given the Congress’s reliance on minority voters. Public works minister and Karnataka Pradesh Congress Committee working president Satish Jarkiholi has articulated the latter concern, focusing less on the charges themselves and more on their implications. “I believe the party’s action against minority leaders for their alleged role in the bypolls to be inappropriate, and I have conveyed this to KPCC president and deputy chief Minister DK Shivakumar,” Jarkiholi said on Monday. “He listened patiently and has promised remedial action in this regard.” His critique centres on timing. “Initiating action against minority leaders in the midst of the election process, for their reported action or inaction is not right,” he said, indicating that even justified action can carry political costs if taken at a sensitive moment. Jarkiholi’s observation that minorities are the “bulwark of the Congress” highlights the stakes. The party’s electoral arithmetic in Karnataka has depended significantly on consolidated Muslim support, making any perception of alienation politically consequential. That perception has been clearly articulated by Muslim organisations, which have framed the disciplinary action as part of a broader pattern. In a letter addressed to senior Congress leaders, including Mallikarjun Kharge, Rahul Gandhi, Siddaramaiah and DK Shivakumar, the groups link their current dissatisfaction to the expectations generated during the 2023 assembly elections. “The Muslims of Karnataka made a decision in 2023 and gave unconditional support to the Congress. As a result, the party came to power with a massive majority. But since then, we have been ignored,” the letter stated. The Davanagere South ticket allocation appears to have intensified these concerns. According to the letter, a Muslim aspirant was overlooked despite prior assurances. “The fair demands of the community were completely ignored,” it states, adding that those seeking tickets were treated “as though asking for a ticket was a crime.” Equally significant is the charge of selective enforcement. “It appears that the Congress’s disciplinary rules apply only to one community,” the letter said, suggesting that similar allegations against leaders from other groups have not led to comparable action. Yet this interpretation is not uncontested within the party. A separate group of Muslim Congress leaders has defended the leadership’s decisions and called for stricter accountability, arguing that the real threat lies in internal divisions rather than disciplinary action. In their joint statement -- Karnataka Congress vice-presidents Obaidullah Shariff, Y Sayeed Ahmed, Guarantee Implementation Authority vice-chairperson Mehroz Khan and others -- alleged that certain factions worked to undermine the party’s official candidate in the bypoll. “These factions contributed to division within the Muslim vote base, deliberately creating confusion and misleading Congress supporters, thereby helping smaller parties and independent candidates, and ultimately benefiting the BJP in the election,” the statement said. The handling of Naseer Ahmed’s removal illustrates the party’s attempt to manage these competing narratives. By describing the decision as administrative -- “the position of Political Secretary is not a party-appointed role but one that rests entirely at the discretion of the chief minister” -- leaders have sought to separate it from the disciplinary framework applied to Jabbar. This distinction allows the party to argue that not all actions should be read through the same political lens, even as critics continue to interpret them collectively. At the same time, calls for broader accountability suggest that the controversy cannot be contained by procedural explanations alone. Some leaders have demanded action against “whoever is guilty, irrespective of position,” implicitly widening the scope of scrutiny to include figures such as housing minister B.Z. Zameer Ahmed Khan, whose role during the bypoll has come under question. The allegation that there was a campaign urging Muslims not to vote for the Congress candidate adds another layer. If substantiated, it would strengthen the case for disciplinary action. If not, it risks reinforcing claims that the party is acting on incomplete or contested information. Whether the leadership chooses to review its decisions or stand by them, the political implications will extend beyond the individuals involved. The episode has already reshaped how sections of the party’s support base interpret its actions, not just in terms of discipline, but in terms of recognition and inclusion. Arun Dev is an Assistant Editor with the Karnataka bureau of Hindustan Times. A journalist for over 10 years, he has written extensively on crime and politics.