II

OVERVIEW: REVIEW OF KARNATAKA MPs

This is a summary of the Review of the performance and contributions of
Karnataka MPs of the 17th Lok Sabha/Parliament (2019-2024). The objectives
of this review are to provide a broad overview of the MPs’ role, contributions
and performance based on parameters identified, and use this data for the
current campaign.
Sources: For Parliament performance; PRS data base online;
Constituency Specific: Key informants from civil society, reporters, observers,
party members; newspaper reports; TV reports.

IDENTIFYING THE KEY RESPONSIBILITIES AND

ROLES OF MPs
According to the Constitution of India, the key roles and responsibilities of
Members of the Parliament are as follows:

• Legislating: MPs participate in the law-making process of the country.

• Representing constituents: MPs represent the interests and concerns of
their constituents in Parliament.
• Oversight: MPs provide oversight of the government’s policies and programs.
• Implementing laws: MPs are responsible for implementing the laws that
govern the country.
• Voting: MPs vote on matters of national importance including defence,
foreign affairs, etc

Combining the above parameters, we analyse the

performance of Karnataka’s 28 MPs by:
1. Drawing on data from their performance in the parliament (attendance,
number of debates, and questions asked)
2. Analysing the key debates that they participated in
3. Assessing their performance in their Constituency through inputs from
key members of civil society in these Constituencies
4. Assessing their activities, speeches, role and presence as reported by
key media sources.
In the 17th Lok Sabha elections (2019) 23 MPs were BJP, 1 Congress, 1
JDS and 1 Independent.

1
I.ROLE
A. Attendance in Parliament
1. LESS THAN 25 PERCENT - 0
2. 26-50 PERCENT - 02
3. 51-75 PERCENT - 14
4. 76-91PERCENT - 11
5. NA - 01

The National average for attendance is: 79 percent.

The state average for attendance is: 71 percent.
Karnataka: 9 MPs had above 79 percent attendance (B. Khuba; PC Mohan;
PC Gaddigowdar; Pratap Sim90ha; RA Naik; Shobha Karandalaje; Udasi S
Channabasappa;Umesh Jadhav, Y. Devendrappa).

B. Questions Raised
1. NO QUESTIONS ASKED - 03 *
2. 1-50 - 05
3. 51-100 - 04
4. MORE THAN 100 - 16
The following MPs did not ask any questions at all in the parliament: P.V.
Joshi (Dharwad); D.V.Sadanand Gowda (Blore North); and R.C. Jigaginagi
(Bijapur).

C. Participation in number of debates

1. O PARTICIPATION - 05 *
2. 1 TO 20 - 16#
3. 21-40 - 05
4. 41 TO 70 - 02
5. MORE THAN 70 - 00

Bache Gowda (Chikballapur) made ONLY a motion of thanks to the President

and participated in no other debate.
*Note: Anant Kumar Hegde (North Kanara), D.V. Sadanand Gowda (Blore
Central), Prahlad Venkatesh Joshi (Dharwad), Ramesh C.Jigajinagi (Bijapur)
and Srinivas Prasad (Chamarajanagar) DID NOT PARTICIPATE IN ANY OF THE
DEBATES.

2
 # Mangala Suresh Angadi (Belgaum) participated in only ONE debate and
that was to request more flights to be initiated from Belgaum airport.

II. ANALYSES OF PARLIAMENTARY DEBATES

Drawing on details from the Parliamentary Research Service’s data base
of transcriptions of all debates in the parliament, we classified all the
debates into the following categories and then analysed their content and
orientation.

We analysed the debates that the Karnataka MPs had participated in and
assessed them on the following TOPICS:
1. Issues related to their Constituency;
2. Issues related to the State/Karnataka;
3. Issues related to the Nation;
4. International Issues;
5. Demands/Requests for Infrastructure;
6. Others

Of the 23 MPs who had participated in debates, the following

details emerged as indicating their orientation and functioning as
our political representatives:

1. Constituency
Very few of the MPs attempted to initiate policies or programs to
address Constituency specific issues. Most of the debate/requests for the
Constituencies pertained to establishing infrastructure of various sorts
which included not only airports, railway stations, new rail lines but also for
linking rivers ( Muniswamy of Kolar); setting up solar parks (Devendrappa;
Bellary); reviving VISL factory (B.Y Raghavendra; Shivamogga); and there
was a request for the Defence establishment to give up land for urban
development (P.C. Mohan, Bangalore Central).
Shobha Karandalaje (Udupi-Chikmagalur) and Pratap Simha (Mysore)
raised issues about relief for coffee industry; N.K. Kateel raised the need
for providing treatment for areca nut diseases and for regulating import of
areca nuts.

3
2. State/Karnataka related debates
Three MPs (Bhagwant Khuba; Bidar), G.S. Basavaraj (Tumkur) and S.
Muniswamy (Kolar) raised issues pertaining to extending SC/ST category
status to various caste groups of the state (Kurubas, Kadugolla, Kunchitiga)
or for Tulu to be recognised as a language (Shobha Karandalaje, Udupi-
Chikmaglur).
Only two MPs sought relief for floods (Guddi Gowdar (Bagalkot) and A.S.
Jolle (Chikkodi) for Karnataka.
D.K. Suresh raised concern about the Hijab issue and the imposition of
Hindi in Karnataka.
Other than these, none of the MPs debated the need for Karnataka to
receive its fair share of central funds, especially in the times of floods and
droughts, or for sustaining MNREGA work.

3. National Issues
A primary responsibility of MPs is to initiate policies, legislations for the
nation. However, while questions were raised and some MPs did participate
in debates related to national issues, none of Karnataka’s MPs initiated
any key policy; or facilitated the implementation of any major policy or
program.
MPs seem to have engaged most in debates pertaining to the national
budgets, infrastructure, and in matters related to pricing and regulation.

4. International:
Only Udasi S. Chennabasava (Haveri) raised a question pertaining to the
war in Ukraine.

5. Infrastructure:
Most of the debates pertained to various kinds of infrastructure, primarily
for ‘big infrastructure’ projects that were centred in their Constituency or
were to link their constituency to the state capital or to Delhi.

6. Other:
14 of the 28 MPs made a motion of thanks to the president.

4
 SOME HIGHLIGHTS OF THE DEBATES
Who emphasised what?
1. B.Y. Raghavendra (Shivamogga) endorsed the Three Farm Bills
of 2020 and said that these were a ‘gift from Shri Narendra Modi to the
farmers of the country on his 70th birthday”.
2. K. S. Amarappa (Koppal) requested that a new train be started
from “Anegundi, the birthplace of Hanuman, to Ayodhya”.
3. Tejaswi Surya (South Bangalore) endorsed the call for initiating
the ‘One Nation, One Election’ process; requested that the NRC be
implemented in Karnataka to address the influx of Bangladeshis in
Bangalore; and to ban organisations spreading terror in the country.
4. Prajwal Revanna (Hassan) questioned the relevance of the
Farm Bills and said that they were not supportive of farmers.
5. Shobha Karandalaje (Udupi-Chikmaglur) called for the
government to take action against AAP for its role in the Shaheen Bagh
protests (05/02/2020)

6. Udasi S. Channabasava (Haveri); called for providing employment

to youth by setting up civil defence units; sought protection for tribal
population from Bangladeshi Muslims (08/02/2024); suggested that
reservations for SC and ST be discontinued if they converted to Christianity
or Muslim (Islam) (11/02/2022); endorsed the calls to implement Uniform
Civil Code (01/12/2021); called for controlling the CPI for misusing
political power; Called for action against AAP for supporting Shaheen Bagh
protests; requested that NRC be implemented in Karnataka (10/07/2019);
and requested that the film ‘Panipat’ be censored for portraying Maharaj
Surajmal in a negative light (10/12/2019).

7. Sumalatha Ambareesh (Mandya); In endorsing the 128th

Amendment to the Constitution (Reservation for Women), she indicates
this recognition to women’s power as being part of the ‘Sanatana Dharma’
which she also upholds.

5
III. ASSESSMENT OF THE MPs by CONSTITUENTS
The following are the over-all impressions and assessments of the MPs by
members of their Constituency. This is not based on a survey but on soliciting
review comments and assessments from key members of civil societies in each
of the Constituencies.

A. OFFICE IN CONSTITUENCY AND ACCESSIBLE TO

CONSTITUENTS
1. NO OFFICE AND NOT ACCESSIBLE - 03
2. HAS OFFICE BUT NOT ACCESSIBLE - 10
3. HAS OFFICE AND IS ACCESSIBLE TO ALL - 15

B. SUPPORT DURING COVID EMERGENCY

1. PROVIDED SUBSTANTIAL SUPPORT - 02
2. PROVIDED LIMITED SUPPORT - 11
3. WAS INDIFFERENT - 13
4. WAS DISRUPTIVE - 02

Only D.K. Suresh (South Blore; Congress) and Prahlad Joshi (Dharwad, BJP)
were considered to have provided substantial support during covid. Eleven
of the MPs provided limited support by way of directing funds or attending
meetings. A majority (15) of them were considered to be ‘indifferent’ and two
(Tejaswi Surya and V Srinivas Prasad) are reported to have played negative
roles. One MP (Suresh Angadi) defied Covid safety norms, contracted the virus,
delayed treatment and died in Delhi. His wife, Mangala, was elected on a
sympathy wave.

C. USE OF MPLAD (MP Local Araa Development Funds)

AND OTHER FUNDS
How did the MPs use their eligibility/access to MPLAD
funds? (combined/multiple options)
1. BIG INFRASTRUCTURE - 21
2. BASIC INFRASTRUCTURE - 11
3. COMMUNITY INFRASTRUCTURE - 13
4. Not Available - 01

6
 The tenure of the 17th Lok Sabha MPs and their work is marked by the extent
to which their support for and integration into the ‘Big Infrastructure’ economy
has been significant. Big infrastructure includes highways (via NHAI funds),
bridges, railways, airports, bypasses etc. In addition, reviewers noted that in
five cities (Bengaluru, Mangaluru, Dharwad, Tumkur, and Shivamogga) MPs cited
bringing the ‘Smart City’ funds as their contribution to the Constituencies.
However, in reality, these were again infrastructure schemes which did not
help ease of living in these cities and there were no visible improvements
in public facilities, especially for the working class. Big infrastructure is
also cited by candidates as evidence of their work and contribution to the
Constituencies and to the state. However, as is evident in the case of the
Bengaluru-Mysuru highway project (estimated cost of Rs. 10,000 crores), it has
served inter-city and inter-state travellers but has been disruptive of local,
village and inter-village connectivity. These multi-crore projects enable MPs
and elected members to enrich themselves, form clients around themselves,
and consolidate their position as patrons in their constituencies. Such large
infrastructure projects are represented as symbolic of the success of elected
representatives. Such enterprises feed into the political and accumulation
economies as they are used to garner support from various interest groups and
to forge large client groups.
On the other hand, contributions to ‘basic infrastructure (drinking water,
toilets, houses, rural connectivity) has been limited and many regions
continue to suffer from the lack of such basic infrastructure. Contributions
to ‘community infrastructure’ (community halls, schools, colleges, hospitals)
also received less attention.

D. CONTRIBUTIONS TO POLICIES/LEGISLATIONS/
LAWS IN PARLIAMENT
Reviewers were not positive about the contributions of MPs to policy making
and to legislations.

1. DID CONTRIBUTE TO SPECIFIC ISSUES : 01

2. NONE AT ALL : 27

Only Udasi Channabasappa (Haveri) was recognised for contributing to

finance related policies as he was a member of the finance committee. Most
of the MPs are not on record for facilitating or bringing about positive changes
or initiating progressive legislations that are inclusive or pro-working class.

7
 For details of oversight of even those who were ministers see section on the
four Karnataka MPs who were union or ministers of state.

E. CONTRIBUTIONS TO KARNATAKA’S POLICIES/

PROGRAMS (multiple options)
1. CONTRIBUTED TO SPECIFIC ISSUES : 02
2. NONE AT ALL : 26
3. SUPPORTED BJP AGENDA FROM CENTRE : 07

Only D.K.Suresh (South Blore; on issues related to GST contributions and

the state’s share ) and Sadananda Gowda (Central Blore; on promoting Jan
Aushadi outlets in the state) are considered to have made any contributions
to Karnataka’s policies and programs. According to the reviewers most MPs
(26) did not contribute to any of Karnataka’s concerns. Many cited that most
MPs did not support Karnataka’s demand for fair financial allocation, did not
facilitate release of MNREGA funds to the state, failed to get drought and flood
relief, and did not intervene when the Centre denied Karnataka’s request for
additional allocations of rice for the PDS. Instead, MPs did not object when
UAPA and Anti-terrorism Acts were misused by the central BJP government
(as in the arrest of Disha Ravi), and are cited as examples of how most MPs
submitted to the BJP agenda and did not uphold Karnataka’s interests.
While most of the MPs are criticised for not doing enough for or neglecting
the state, 7 MPs (all BJP) were identified as focusing only on the RSS-BJP agendas
in their constituencies and in the state. Such activities included mobilising
funds and support for Ram Mandir; facilitating processions and celebrations
related to reviving religious centres and local caste icons; facilitating RSS-BJP
leaders’ visits; facilitating mass booking on trains to Ayodhya; and fostering
communal tensions in different ways.

F. MPs’ CONTRIBUTIONS TO CONSTITUENCY ISSUES/

ADDRESSAL OF LOCAL PROBLEMS
1. SIGNIFICANT CONTRIBUTIONS - 00
2. PARTIAL CONTRIBUTIONS - 23
3. NOTHING AT ALL - 05
None of the MPs were considered to have addressed or contributed to
resolving significant local problems. While D.K. Suresh was appreciated for

8
being accessible to all and providing personalised relief and support, his
involvement in extractive economies (both locally and elsewhere) and the
creation of new problems in the Constituency (South Blore; Anekal; where
gang wars for spoils and tensions among youth and drug use have become
problems) are cited as negative trends.
The period 2019-2024 is associated with the promotion of ‘big infrastructure’
and ‘development schemes’ via the BJP at the centre. Hence, many assign partial
contributions of these MPs to local development via these central schemes.
New railway connections, airports and highways were most cited as cases of
local development although these have served the interest of upper middle
and business classes and not that of the working classes. Several reviewers
cited how the new fast trains that were celebrated by the BJP did not provide
intra-regional connectivity but were used to connect district headquarters
with the state capital or with Delhi.

G. BEHAVIOUR WITH REFERENCE TO KEY ISSUES

Reviewers were asked to assess the MPs on the bases of their history of
either inciting communal violence (directly or indirectly), engaging in hate
speech, making remarks against the Constitution, or remarking against women.
The following were the results: (multiple options)

1. INCITED COMMUNAL VIOLENCE; DIRECTLY - 06

2. INCITED COMMUNAL TENSIONS; INDIRECTLY - 08
3. ENGAGED IN HATE SPEECH - 07
4. ANTI-CONSTITUTION SPEECH - 01
5. MADE STATEMENTS AGAINST WOMEN - 01

An issue of concern is the extent to which BJP MPs have indulged in either
directly (6) or indirectly (8) abetting communal violence in their regions or in
the state. For details of this see individual review section for the following
MPs; Tejaswi Surya; Pratap Simha; Shobha Karandlaje; Anant Kumar Hegde;
Prahlad Joshi; Nalin Kumar Kateel; S. Muniswamy.
Anant Kumar Hegde has called for the abolition of the Constitution.
Tejaswi Surya is associated with making anti-women comments.

9
 IV. KEY CONTRIBUTIONS/FAILURES OF
KARNATAKA’S CENTRAL MINISTERS
1. PRAHLAD JOSHI (Dharwad):
Union Minister for Parliamentary Affairs and Union Minister for Coal and
Mines
A man wielding considerable clout in the RSS-BJP circles; his tenure is
associated with the sharp decline in the functioning of the parliament. It is
not clear what role he had in the overall poor functioning of the parliament
where opposition party members were either side-lined, debarred or
suspended (as in the Mahua Moitra case) and for the passage of several bills
through little or no discussion or via Ordinances.
Joshi’s role in the coal allocations and in the case of the decreasing
environmental regulations and by-passing of local administration in mining
activities etc are not clear. More clarification required about these issues.

2. SHOBHA KARANDLAJE (Udupi-Chikmaglur) :

Minister of State for Agriculture and Farmers’ Welfare
Despite being the State Minister for Agriculture and Farmers’ welfare
she has taken a hostile and unsympathetic stand on farmers’ issues. She
has called farmers agents of international vested interests and called the
Delhi Farmers’ movement as merely political. Did not address agricultural
issues such as ‘yellow disease’ in areca nut in her constituency or other
issues related to farmers’ distress. The withdrawal of APMCs in Karnataka
and the problem of inadequate prices for agricultural commodities were
not addressed. Overall seen as indifferent to farmers’ concerns and as
representing only the RSS agenda in both the Constituency and across the
country.

3. BHAGWANT KHUBA (Bidar):

Minister of State for Fertilisers and Renewable Energy
Seen as an unreliable MP who did nothing for the Constituency or the
nation. Did not promulgate policies to halt price rise in fertilisers. Did
not do enough to promote decentralised renewable energy policies and
programs. Details of possible kick-backs associated with large solar project
and the adverse ecological impact need to be documented.

10
4. A. NARAYANSWAMY (Chitradurga):
Minister of State for Social Justice
A. Narayanswamy came to power on the platform of demand for
internal reservations among SCs (esp. for Madigas). However, once he
was MP and a Minister he did not pursue these matters and the issue of
internal reservation is unresolved. Overall, seen as not being supportive of
disadvantaged groups and therefore as a failure as an MP and a minister.

Contact
A.R Vasavi : 9448360215
Janaki Nair : 9013140492

11
12