When a Home Minister talks too much

 When silence matters more than sound bites

…………..

A home minister is defined not by how often he speaks, but by when he chooses not to. The office demands restraint, clarity, and a steady public presence that reassures citizens without revealing uncertainty. In Karnataka, Home Minister G. Parameshwara has struggled to strike that balance, often speaking more than the moment requires and less than the situation demands.

Parameshwara frequently insists that he is not a weak home minister and lists achievements to underline his effectiveness. But authority in matters of law and order is not established through repeated assertions. It is built through consistent action and measured communication. On this front, his public conduct has raised doubts.

The Dharmasthala killings exposed this weakness sharply. Instead of controlled, minimal statements, the home minister offered a stream of remarks that were, at times, contradictory. On some occasions, he appeared to accept the seriousness of the matter; on others, he seemed to soften it. This wavering did not convey sensitivity or openness. It projected confusion and a lack of grip over a serious law-and-order issue. For a home minister, that is a costly impression.

What made matters worse was that Dharmasthala became the dominant lens through which his performance was judged—not because it was the only crisis, but because it was the one he spoke about the most. This creates a distorted picture. Karnataka’s law-and-order challenges are far broader. In parts of north Karnataka, including Hubballi, tensions and incidents have repeatedly tested public confidence. Yet, on these issues, the home minister has been largely silent. There has been little effort to directly address the people of these regions, to clearly spell out the government’s intent, or to reassure them about firm and fair enforcement of the law.

Even the state capital is not free of concern. Bengaluru’s recurring issues—ranging from crime to public safety—demand a visible, credible home ministerial presence. Here too, communication has been sporadic and reactive rather than steady and confidence-building.

Parameshwara’s tendency to comment on issues beyond his core responsibility, seemingly to remain politically relevant, adds to the problem. Over time, this has shaped an image of a minister who talks readily but exercises limited discretion. His public articulation of chief ministerial aspirations, including invoking his Dalit identity as a reminder that he cannot be ignored, further blurs the line between institutional duty and personal positioning.

A home minister cannot afford to be a constant voice and a selective listener. Law and order requires firmness, silence when necessary, and reassurance where it matters most. When words begin to overshadow action, authority weakens—and public confidence follows.