Karnataka: Bangarappa at it again!

| Last updated less than one minute ago

Submit :

News Photos Just In Debate Topic Latest News Articles Local News Blog Posts Pictures Reviews Recipes

Home > India > Article

Karnataka: Bangarappa at it again!

If Karunanidhi implied that the people of Karnataka who recently voted the BJP to power are communal, Karnataka��s own Bangarappa has implied that public opinion in Karnataka can be moulded with money. He has commoditised the Karnataka electorate.

CJ: S Shivakumar

Sun, Jun 22, 2008 14:07:03 IST

Views:
1127
Comments:
1

Rate:

2.0 / 5 votes

BJP in karnataka :

IF TAMILNADU has a Karunanidhi to take up the cudgels on behalf of the secular parties, Karnataka has Bangarappa – or so it seems. He said in Bangalore on Saturday (June 21)) that all secular parties at the national level and state level should come together for the ensuing Lok Sabha elections. He also hinted at the possibility of his party joining hands with the Congress and the JD(S) in Karnataka. He was in favour of seat adjustment amongst all the secular parties to defeat the BJP-led National Democratic Alliance (NDA). He welcomed Deve Gowda’s stand that JD(S) had an open mind on entering into an alliance with the Congress for the Lok Sabha elections.

While welcoming the understanding that obtained between the Congress and the JD(S) while fielding candidates for the Rajya Sabha and Legislative Council elections, he saw nothing wrong if the Samajwadi Party (to which he belongs , as of writing) extended support to the UPA government in case the Left withdrew its support to the latter.

He attributed his Shikaripur loss [where he lost to the present chief minister of Karnataka, Yeddyurappa (BSY)] to BJP’s money power. The latter spent around Rs 50 crores in Shikaripur alone to ensure victory. In forty years of his political career, he had never seen money being so blatantly spent during the elections. While he respected the people’s verdict, one needed to analyse what moulded public opinion.

He came out with the astounding revelation that there was no ‘BJP wave’ during the elections. The party was able to win 110 seats by spending around Rs 500 crores, which was mainly funded by mine owners who had now made it to the ministry. But for the money spent, the BJP would have ended up with around 60 seats, according to him.

As for the state’s fertiliser and seeds crisis, he held the previous JD(S)-BJP government responsible. The governor alone could not be blamed for the problem. When BSY was the leader of the opposition in the assembly, he demanded the resignation of the then chief minister N Dharam Singh in the wake of farmers committing suicide. BSY should now introspect if he had the moral right to continue as chief minister with several farmers committing suicide for want of fertilisers and seeds. Instead of ensuring adequate supply of fertilisers and seeds, BSY was busy visiting the houses of farmers who committed suicide and releasing compensation to their families. According to him, the government failed to handle the situation because there were no experienced persons in the cabinet.

What Bangarappa conveniently forgets is that Deve Gowda has an open mind on entering into an alliance with only the Congress party for the Lok Sabha elections. Gowda’s statement applies only to the Congress. It does not apply the Bangarappa’s Samajwadi Party. If Karunanidhi implied that the people of Karnataka who recently voted the BJP to power were communal, Karnataka’s own Bangarappa has implied that public opinion in Karnataka can be moulded with money power. In other words, he has commoditised the Karnataka electorate.

Although none denies that part of the blame for the fertiliser shortage / seed shortage should lie with the JD(S)-BJP government, which ruled the state before the governor took over the reins, one is at a loss to understand why leaders like Bangarappa, who are quite experienced, did not meet the governor well in advance and prevail on him to stock up fertilisers and seeds. Is it necessary that only the government of the day (in this case, the governor-led government) should be entrusted with the task?

The ‘experienced’ Bangarappa should have known that the governor cannot be expected to be as sensitive to fertiliser / seed requirements as a popular government. In the circumstances, was it not the duty of the ‘experienced’ Bangarappa to take up the matter with the governor? Had he done so, the unfortunate suicides could have been avoided. Or did he want these unfortunate incidents to occur so it would give him an opportunity to malign the government, notwithstanding the fact that a few lives would have to be sacrificed along the way?

E-mail |

Print | Post comment