Bengaluru Metro Mess: Cong Trapped in Its Own Claims

The Bengaluru Metro fare controversy has exposed not the cruelty of ticket prices but the **carelessness of Congress politics**. What should have been a straightforward administrative issue has been turned into a maze of contradictions, half-truths, and convenient amnesia — all designed to claim credit without accepting responsibility.

Only days ago, the Congress government in Karnataka spoke the language of law. Chief Minister Siddaramaiah explained that Metro fares are fixed by the Centre through the Fare Fixation Committee under the Metro Railways Act. The state, he said, cannot dictate rates; at best, it can request relief. This position was legally sound, constitutionally accurate, and politically inconvenient.

Then came Deputy Chief Minister D.K. Shivakumar, who decided that legality was optional. According to him, the Karnataka government alone stopped the fare hike and the Centre has no role whatsoever. Delhi, in this version of reality, is powerless; the state is supreme; and Congress is the sole protector of the commuter.

Both positions cannot coexist. Either the Centre fixes fares or it does not. Either the state has authority or it merely has influence. Congress cannot have it both ways — except, of course, in Indian politics, where consistency is often sacrificed at the altar of optics.

The BJP was quick to exploit this confusion, but it did not invent it. MP Tejasvi Surya pointed out that the Fare Fixation Committee acts on requests from the state government — a reminder that Karnataka is neither helpless nor all-powerful. Senior leader R. Ashoka went a step further, challenging Siddaramaiah to write formally to the Centre seeking a fare reduction. The challenge stung precisely because it exposed the gap between Congress rhetoric and action.

If the Centre truly has no role, why the need for letters? If the Centre does fix fares, why the public claim that the state alone stopped the hike? Congress wants applause for decisiveness while hiding behind legality when questioned. It wants to appear bold without being bound.

This is not governance; it is narrative management. Shivakumar’s assertion is not meant to withstand legal scrutiny — it is meant to survive a news cycle. Siddaramaiah’s earlier explanation was meant for the record, not the rally. Between the two, commuters are left confused, and confusion is politically useful. A confused voter is less likely to ask who actually failed.

The truth is simpler and less flattering. Congress does not want to admit that it must negotiate with the Centre, nor does it want to be seen as powerless. So it chooses contradiction. One leader speaks law, another speaks bravado, and the party hopes the noise will drown out the inconsistency.

The Metro fare issue has thus become a case study in Congress governance: talk tough against Delhi, quietly rely on Delhi, and blame Delhi if things go wrong. In the process, public trust becomes collateral damage.

In politics, hypocrisy is common. What is rarer — and more dangerous — is when a ruling party assumes that the public will not notice.