Congress, power and the erosion of civility in Karnataka

 A troubling pattern is taking root in Karnataka’s ruling Congress: a steady erosion of civility marked by public abuse, intimidation, and even physical aggression by its own legislators. What were once dismissed as isolated lapses now point to a deeper malaise—one driven by entitlement, weak internal discipline, and tolerance from the party leadership.

The expulsion of Shidlaghatta MLA Rajiv Gowda briefly forced this issue into the open. Gowda was accused of abusing and threatening the woman chief officer of the Shidlaghatta municipality, triggering sustained public outrage. With criticism mounting, the Karnataka Pradesh Congress Committee (KPCC) had little option but to act. Yet his removal stands out precisely because such action is exceptional.

Gowda is not an isolated case. D. Ravishankar, Congress MLA from K.R. Nagar, was caught on video physically assaulting a party worker during a public interaction. S. N. Subbareddy faced criticism for browbeating toll plaza staff and demanding VIP treatment, reinforcing perceptions of entitlement. Senior leader R. V. Deshpande drew public condemnation for making inappropriate and derogatory remarks to a journalist on camera. Each incident entered the public domain and embarrassed the party. Yet, barring Gowda, none resulted in serious disciplinary consequences.

This selective accountability lies at the heart of the problem.

The Congress returned to power in Karnataka after years in opposition, and power has brought excess. Many party functionaries appear to believe that electoral victory confers license rather than responsibility. The belief that Congress leaders are “born to rule” has bred arrogance, not restraint.

Leadership tone matters. As KPCC president, D. K. Shivakumar is formally responsible for overseeing party discipline. When the very person expected to enforce boundaries is himself perceived as frequently pushing limits in public conduct and rhetoric, the signal to the cadre is unmistakable: rules are negotiable and power shields behaviour. The aggressive conduct of some of his supporters only reinforces this message.

Equally problematic is the role of the KPCC disciplinary committee. Its mandate is to take note of misconduct, issue censures, and act before damage becomes irreversible. Instead, it appears reactive and selective—intervening only when public outrage becomes impossible to ignore. Discipline has been reduced to crisis control, not institutional correction.

This is not merely a Karnataka-specific failing. It reflects a structural weakness within the Congress, where authority is personality-driven and accountability is contingent on political convenience. Rajiv Gowda’s expulsion, far from signalling reform, underlines how rare decisive action has become.

The Congress often invokes its historic role in India’s freedom struggle to claim moral superiority. But history cannot serve as a permanent shield for misconduct. Parties are judged not by past glory, but by present behaviour. Unless the Congress restores consistent internal discipline, the growing culture of uncivility will continue to erode both its credibility and the institutions it governs.