NEW DELHI: The bitter falling out between BJP and JD(U) was evident with the saffron party releasing Bihar chief minister Nitish Kumar's 2003 speech in which he praised Gujarat CM Narendra Modi as a leader with a future outside the state.
The BJP move to embarrass Kumar - who has made opposition to Modi a cornerstone of his "secular" politics - is intended to argue that the Bihar CM was not always opposed to the saffron strongman.
As the speech delivered at the inauguration of a railway project is well after the 2002 riots, the BJP's intent is obvious. "I am certain that Narendrabhai will not be confined to Gujarat for long and the country will get the benefit of his services," Kumar is quoted as saying.
JD(U) sources were, however, quick to argue that the BJP move smacked of its desperation after the breakup of the alliance and amounted to trying to shoot a messenger who bears bad news. "This won't take away from the fact that Modi is a deeply divisive and polarizing leader," a senior JD(U) leader said.
Meanwhile, BJP president Rajnath Singh said he was "saddened" by the "unfortunate" walking out of JD(U) from NDA and maintained that it would weaken the fight against Congress.
However, Singh also got a taste of continuing rumblings in BJP with veteran leader L K Advani reported to have brought up Modi's elevation as head of the party's campaign committee as a reason for the breakup of the alliance with JD(U).
Advani and leader of opposition in Lok Sabha Sushma Swaraj see the end of the alliance as a highly unfortunate development although the mood of other leaders, including those from Bihar, has turned more aggressive. "The breakup of NDA is sad and unfortunate," Swaraj said on Twitter.
Rajnath, however, had a different take on the events and said, "We always treated JD(U) as a younger brother and our relationship of 17 years was not a political but an emotional one. It was never made under pressure."
Singh was speaking at a programme organised by the BJP's youth wing. "When a coalition is formed, it is based on trust and mutual understanding. When that goes, it is really sad. We can be betrayed but we will never betray," he said.
He said if Modi was being considered communal because of the 2002 post-Godhra riots, there have been thousands of riots in 24 years of Congress rule since independence.
Singh pointed out that in 2000, BJP was a bigger party than JD(U) in Bihar as it had 60 seats while JD(U) won only "36-37 seats". But still, BJP chose a JD(U) leader to become chief minister, he said.
He warned JD(U) that a party which does not care for the feelings of the people in a democratic country cannot survive for long.
Nitish Kumar risks all by dumping BJP
Nitish Kumar has made an extraordinarily risky political move by saying good bye to the BJP and thereby the strong upper caste lobby in Bihar.
Despite belonging to a numerically insignificant caste Kurmi, Nitish Kumar navigated the state's politics with such skill that from 2005, he maintained a social coalition of extremely divergent groups - ranging from the lowest Dalits to the upper castes. His alliance with the BJP was crucial to this.
Speaking at the JD(U) national executive in Delhi in April this year, Nitish Kumar had outlined his philosophy regarding alliances. Alliances necessitate some compromises in the party's programmes and politics, he had said. "But compromises cannot be made with our fundamental articles of faith.
related story
If we are asked to make such compromises, we will not do it, regardless of the consequences involved," he had said. He also said that in the event of being pushed to make such choices, electoral calculations would be irrelevant, and what matters would be one's beliefs. He counted secularism among such fundamentals of his principles.
Though he did not say it publicly, it has been made clear that if the BJP projects Narendra Modi as prime minister, he would read it as an act incompatible with his fundamental faith.
Many view the secular rhetoric of Bihar's politicians - Lalu Prasad Yadav included - with the scepticism that it is merely a ploy to get some Muslim votes. But what cannot be denied is the fact that Bihar - which has a bloody history of communal tensions - has not had a single riot since 1989. Many other states that often get feted for good governance, like Orissa, Karnataka, Gujarat, even Kerala have seen serious sectarian violence.
The rush to interpret Nitish Kumar's decision to part with the BJP as a shrewd political move to win Muslims is devoid of understanding. On the contrary, Nitish is entering an uncharted territory where the risks far outweigh the potential rewards. And he is not a political novice to miss the lurking dangers involved.
The disapproval among the upper castes for his autonomous political move has been demonstrated in the recent by-election in Maharajganj lok sabha constituency.
His administrative measures that helped the poorest and the most disempowered among the backward castes and Dalits may not reap him political dividends as these are small fragmented communities still threatened by the upper castes and Yadavs. Overall, his losses and risks are real; his potential gains are distant and hazy.
Therefore, one cannot explain Nitish's actions in terms of real politics. It can either be an act of obstinacy and defiance or be an act of faith. Probably, and refreshingly, it is the second. It is actually a leap of faith.
The BJP move to embarrass Kumar - who has made opposition to Modi a cornerstone of his "secular" politics - is intended to argue that the Bihar CM was not always opposed to the saffron strongman.
As the speech delivered at the inauguration of a railway project is well after the 2002 riots, the BJP's intent is obvious. "I am certain that Narendrabhai will not be confined to Gujarat for long and the country will get the benefit of his services," Kumar is quoted as saying.
JD(U) sources were, however, quick to argue that the BJP move smacked of its desperation after the breakup of the alliance and amounted to trying to shoot a messenger who bears bad news. "This won't take away from the fact that Modi is a deeply divisive and polarizing leader," a senior JD(U) leader said.
Meanwhile, BJP president Rajnath Singh said he was "saddened" by the "unfortunate" walking out of JD(U) from NDA and maintained that it would weaken the fight against Congress.
However, Singh also got a taste of continuing rumblings in BJP with veteran leader L K Advani reported to have brought up Modi's elevation as head of the party's campaign committee as a reason for the breakup of the alliance with JD(U).
Advani and leader of opposition in Lok Sabha Sushma Swaraj see the end of the alliance as a highly unfortunate development although the mood of other leaders, including those from Bihar, has turned more aggressive. "The breakup of NDA is sad and unfortunate," Swaraj said on Twitter.
Rajnath, however, had a different take on the events and said, "We always treated JD(U) as a younger brother and our relationship of 17 years was not a political but an emotional one. It was never made under pressure."
Singh was speaking at a programme organised by the BJP's youth wing. "When a coalition is formed, it is based on trust and mutual understanding. When that goes, it is really sad. We can be betrayed but we will never betray," he said.
He said if Modi was being considered communal because of the 2002 post-Godhra riots, there have been thousands of riots in 24 years of Congress rule since independence.
Singh pointed out that in 2000, BJP was a bigger party than JD(U) in Bihar as it had 60 seats while JD(U) won only "36-37 seats". But still, BJP chose a JD(U) leader to become chief minister, he said.
He warned JD(U) that a party which does not care for the feelings of the people in a democratic country cannot survive for long.
Nitish Kumar risks all by dumping BJP
Nitish Kumar has made an extraordinarily risky political move by saying good bye to the BJP and thereby the strong upper caste lobby in Bihar.
Despite belonging to a numerically insignificant caste Kurmi, Nitish Kumar navigated the state's politics with such skill that from 2005, he maintained a social coalition of extremely divergent groups - ranging from the lowest Dalits to the upper castes. His alliance with the BJP was crucial to this.
Speaking at the JD(U) national executive in Delhi in April this year, Nitish Kumar had outlined his philosophy regarding alliances. Alliances necessitate some compromises in the party's programmes and politics, he had said. "But compromises cannot be made with our fundamental articles of faith.
related story
If we are asked to make such compromises, we will not do it, regardless of the consequences involved," he had said. He also said that in the event of being pushed to make such choices, electoral calculations would be irrelevant, and what matters would be one's beliefs. He counted secularism among such fundamentals of his principles.
Though he did not say it publicly, it has been made clear that if the BJP projects Narendra Modi as prime minister, he would read it as an act incompatible with his fundamental faith.
Many view the secular rhetoric of Bihar's politicians - Lalu Prasad Yadav included - with the scepticism that it is merely a ploy to get some Muslim votes. But what cannot be denied is the fact that Bihar - which has a bloody history of communal tensions - has not had a single riot since 1989. Many other states that often get feted for good governance, like Orissa, Karnataka, Gujarat, even Kerala have seen serious sectarian violence.
The rush to interpret Nitish Kumar's decision to part with the BJP as a shrewd political move to win Muslims is devoid of understanding. On the contrary, Nitish is entering an uncharted territory where the risks far outweigh the potential rewards. And he is not a political novice to miss the lurking dangers involved.
The disapproval among the upper castes for his autonomous political move has been demonstrated in the recent by-election in Maharajganj lok sabha constituency.
His administrative measures that helped the poorest and the most disempowered among the backward castes and Dalits may not reap him political dividends as these are small fragmented communities still threatened by the upper castes and Yadavs. Overall, his losses and risks are real; his potential gains are distant and hazy.
Therefore, one cannot explain Nitish's actions in terms of real politics. It can either be an act of obstinacy and defiance or be an act of faith. Probably, and refreshingly, it is the second. It is actually a leap of faith.
