Karnataka CM Siddaramaiah, D K Shivakumar and party leader Randeep Singh Surjewala
Credit: DH File Photo
Bagalkot: Chief Minister Siddaramaiah has said that the support of MLAs is crucial for anyone aspiring to become the Chief Minister. “The high command has its importance, but ultimately, it is the MLAs who have to give their consent. Therefore, both the support of MLAs and the blessings of the high command are essential to become the Chief Minister,” he stated.
The statement came amid speculation about a change of guard and cabinet reshuffle in the state when the Congress government reaches the halfway mark of its five-year term in November, which is being referred to by some as "November revolution".
Speaking to reporters in Bagalkot on Monday, Siddaramaiah dismissed the so-called ‘November Revolution’ claims, terming them baseless. “No such ‘kranti’ will ever happen,” he remarked.
There has been speculation within state's political circles, especially within the ruling Congress, for some time now about the chief minister change later this year, citing alleged power-sharing agreement involving Siddaramaiah and D K Shivakumar.
Clarifying reports about dinner meetings, the Chief Minister said, “I have been hosting dinner parties regularly, and they all have a common menu. There was nothing special about the recent one,” he said categorically.
Responding to a question on RDPR Minister Priyank Kharge’s letter seeking a ban on RSS activities on government premises, Siddaramaiah said he had received the letter and instructed the Chief Secretary to examine the issue. “The Tamil Nadu government has already banned RSS activities on government premises. I have asked the Chief Secretary to study the procedure followed by the Stalin government, and we will take a decision based on his report,” he added.
Later, speaking at an all-religion convention for world peace held at Bandigani village in Rabkavi-Banhatti, the chief minister referred to the recent shoe-hurling incident targeting the Chief Justice of India. He noted that “an advocate belonging to Sanatana Dharma” was involved in the act and questioned whether such behaviour should be tolerated. He strongly condemned the incident, asserting that such actions must be denounced unequivocally.