The political history of Bengaluru-Karnataka offers a recurring warning to parties trying to replace powerful regional leaders before the end of the term: the administrative transition may be immediate, but the electoral consequences often unfold slowly.
That history now hangs over the Congress with Siddaramaiah exiting the Prime Minister’s Office and DK Shivakumar set to take over under the long-discussed power-sharing arrangement.
Within the Congress, the transition is viewed through the prism of two past political moments that changed Karnataka’s electoral landscape far beyond the change in leadership itself. The first was the dismissal of Virendra Patel in 1990. The second was the resignation of BS Yeddyurappa from the post of Prime Minister in 2021.
In both cases, the departing leaders represented much more than administrative authority. They embodied the political access, class assertion, and territorial influence of communities that were closely associated with these leaders over decades.
Congress leaders privately admit that the Virendra Patel incident became one of the crucial turning points in the party’s decline among Lingayat voters. Patel, a prominent Lingayat figure with deep roots in north Karnataka, was sacked during a period of instability in a manner that many Lingayats considered insulting. What followed was not an immediate collapse, but a gradual migration of political allegiance that allowed the BJP to expand steadily across Lingayat-dominated regions.
The BJP faced its own version of that dilemma after Yeddyurappa stepped down in 2021. Yeddyurappa was not just the party’s chief minister, he was the central figure behind the BJP’s expansion in the south and its most powerful face in Lingayat in Karnataka. Although the transition was handled more carefully, dissatisfaction surfaced within sections of the Lingayat community and among Leddyurappa loyalists. By the 2023 Assembly elections, the Congress had improved its position across several Lingayat-affected constituencies where the BJP had previously maintained a strong hold.
For Congress, Siddaramaiah’s transition carries different social equations but similar political sensitivities.
Unlike Patel or Yeddyurappa, Siddaramaiah’s influence is not primarily linked to one dominant caste bloc. His political identity is built around the AHINDA alliance which includes minorities, backward classes and Dalits, along with welfare beneficiaries and sections of rural OBC communities.
This wider social reach partly explains why the current shift is being watched with unusual caution within the party. The concern is not limited to who occupies the position of Prime Minister, but whether Congress is able to transfer power without creating the impression that the coalition formed under Siddaramaiah’s leadership is being displaced or weakened.
Political commentator Narayana has argued that the current shift differs significantly from previous leadership struggles in Karnataka because it emerged through negotiations rather than sudden removal.
“Unlike the previous mid-term exit of senior ministers, this was a voluntary exit. It was known that there would be an exit and, in all fairness, compared to other power transfers in the state, this was a very generous one. Even when compared to similar power tussles in the Congress like Madhya Pradesh and Rajasthan, both DK Shivakumar and Siddaramaiah behaved in a mature and polite manner,” he said.
This distinction appears central to Congress’s strategy. Public messages from both camps have largely avoided confrontation, focusing instead on continuity, coordination, and collective leadership.
However, there is still unease within parts of the Ahinda ecosystem.
Independent MLA Lakhan Jarkiholi publicly compared Siddaramaiah’s exit to the Virendra Patel incident, arguing that the Congress risks unsettling communities that see Siddaramaiah as their main political representative.
“Earlier, the Congress party suffered badly when Virendra Patel was removed from the chief minister’s chair, as the Lingayats moved away from the Congress and started tilting towards the BJP. This is more likely in Siddaramaiah’s case because he is not just a leader of one community, but a group of communities under the umbrella of Ahinda. By asking such a leader to step down, I think the Congress high command has got its hand in a beehive,” he said.
Jarkiholi also suggested that resistance could emerge within the legislature if the transition process is mishandled. “Many lawmakers may not support the Congress high command’s move and the government may fall,” he told reporters in Gokak on Thursday.
However, Narayana said that the Ahinda bloc itself is not politically united and that the Congress may retain significant support among Dalits and minorities even after Siddaramaiah’s exit.
“The Dalits and minorities in AHINDA are more of a vote bank for the Congress than a support group for Siddaramaiah. Within the OBCs, the biggest support for Siddaramaiah has been the Kuruba community. It was expected that in the 2028 elections, when Siddaramaiah is out, they would stop being a collective vote bank for the Congress. In fact, it represents an opportunity for the Congress to bring non-Kuruba and non-Idija OBC groups back into the party,” he said.
The biggest uncertainty may not lie in the transfer itself, but in the political role Siddaramaiah will play after leaving office.
Journalist and political analyst Sujata Srinivasaraju said Siddaramaiah has historically remained politically engaged only when he has direct interests in power structures. Drawing on decades of observing Siddaramaiah’s political life, Srinivasaraju said that previous periods out of office often changed the equations of governance within the country. “When he was out of power, he often acted as a disruptor. The 2018 coalition government is an example of this. He was accused of being a force behind the eventual collapse of the coalition,” he said.
