Jaya Jaitly : Wed Jun 19 2013, 23:28 hrs
Nitish Kumar should reveal the real reasons for his walkout from the NDA
For those tuned to reading smoke signals in politics, it has been clear for some months now that Nitish Kumar was willing to play footsie with the Congress. It posed no threat to him in Bihar and could bring him benefits from the UPA. The rationalisation given for his decision to break a 17-year-old, assiduously built, strategic, political partnership with the BJP, in which no ideological hiccups were ever allowed to reach a breaking point when Atal Bihari Vajpayee-L.K. Advani and George Fernandes were at the helm, has stretched his credibility. However, his action has not caused much surprise among those who know him well and have walked along the political road with him for almost two decades.
As Kumar is someone who has treated party bodies and procedures as a nuisance, or at most as a fig leaf to carry out his own plans, we may discount that the "party" wanted the JD(U) to quit the NDA. Party president and NDA convenor Sharad Yadav was visibly not in favour of the move as it denied him national standing. Without a sound political base, he also becomes more susceptible to Kumar's dominance. For the survival of socialist politics, to build strength against the Congress, and to keep Kumar within this fold after the Samata found it could not fight Lalu Prasad alone, Fernandes encouraged Kumar to attend the BJP national conference in Mumbai in 1995. The relationship was cemented and brought about huge dividends in Bihar for Kumar and the defeat of the Congress at the Centre in 1998.
The JD(U) explains that Narendra Modi was okay so far as he was contained in Gujarat but was not acceptable for the rest of the country. Apart from the fact that Modi is still only the campaign chief of the BJP, this is strange coming from a party that has miniscule presence in the rest of the country, thanks to Kumar steadfastly avoiding assistance in building the party elsewhere. The BJP under Modi won 12 of the 19 seats with dominant Muslim presence in the last assembly elections. Kumar refuses to accept this reality. Muslims have openly stated that they and the state have moved on with Modi's inclusive policies, because of which they are prospering without any problem. In fact, the BJP and the JD(U) are partners in the Bharuch municipality. Acolytes of the chief minister raise issues like Modi not agreeing to wear a skull cap. Genuine socialists never resort to cheap symbols of tilaks or turbans, as these are purely cultural symbols to be used by the concerned communities, and not part of serious politics. It was an occasion for the JD(U) to emphasise that religion no longer plays a part in governance. A more positive step towards responsible opposition politics would have been to bring more allies into the NDA after pressuring Modi and other BJP leaders to announce collective measures to reassure minorities. That is why the Muslims are not quite cheering Kumar.
The cloud of allegations over Modi's head is in no way darker than that over the Gandhi family for corruption in Bofors, the Congress as a whole for 1984, or the dynastic domination of Rahul Gandhi over more experienced leaders in the Congress. Good governance being the order of the day, the selective use of allegations and the cynical use of perceptions, rather than seeking the truth, is self-serving politics far removed from secularism or principles.
Kumar shed tears for the way the BJP has supposedly treated its senior leader, Advani. While Fernandes led the campaign for the ouster of Lalu Prasad and ensured Kumar was made chief minister in 2005, he promptly arranged for the defeat of Fernandes as party president in 2006 through unorthodox means, after calling him to Patna for his re-election.
Subsequently, he put pressure on Advani to replace Fernandes with Sharad Yadav as NDA convenor, although Parkash Singh Badal was far more experienced, and an older ally. The final humiliation was when Sharad Yadav, as party president, assured Fernandes he would fight from Muzaffarpur in 2009, in the presence of many party workers. Five days later, Kumar sent him a letter saying he was ailing and elderly and would not be given a ticket. He threw him the offer of a Rajya Sabha seat, despite knowing Fernandes's negative views on the subject. He then gave the ticket to an even older and more ailing person from the RJD. This humiliation made Fernandes dig in his heels. A respectful and friendly personal visit by Kumar to plead with Fernandes to withdraw, and reassure him that Muzaffarpur's development would be carried out as per his wishes, would have melted his mentor's heart. Instead, he refused any contact with him and ensured Fernandes's sad defeat. Measured against his own actions for nearly two decades, Kumar would serve principled politics better if he came out with the real reasons for breaking-up the NDA.
The writer is former president of the Samata Party
Source: http://www.indianexpress.com/news/politics-not-principle/1131227/0
Nitish Kumar should reveal the real reasons for his walkout from the NDA
For those tuned to reading smoke signals in politics, it has been clear for some months now that Nitish Kumar was willing to play footsie with the Congress. It posed no threat to him in Bihar and could bring him benefits from the UPA. The rationalisation given for his decision to break a 17-year-old, assiduously built, strategic, political partnership with the BJP, in which no ideological hiccups were ever allowed to reach a breaking point when Atal Bihari Vajpayee-L.K. Advani and George Fernandes were at the helm, has stretched his credibility. However, his action has not caused much surprise among those who know him well and have walked along the political road with him for almost two decades.
As Kumar is someone who has treated party bodies and procedures as a nuisance, or at most as a fig leaf to carry out his own plans, we may discount that the "party" wanted the JD(U) to quit the NDA. Party president and NDA convenor Sharad Yadav was visibly not in favour of the move as it denied him national standing. Without a sound political base, he also becomes more susceptible to Kumar's dominance. For the survival of socialist politics, to build strength against the Congress, and to keep Kumar within this fold after the Samata found it could not fight Lalu Prasad alone, Fernandes encouraged Kumar to attend the BJP national conference in Mumbai in 1995. The relationship was cemented and brought about huge dividends in Bihar for Kumar and the defeat of the Congress at the Centre in 1998.
The JD(U) explains that Narendra Modi was okay so far as he was contained in Gujarat but was not acceptable for the rest of the country. Apart from the fact that Modi is still only the campaign chief of the BJP, this is strange coming from a party that has miniscule presence in the rest of the country, thanks to Kumar steadfastly avoiding assistance in building the party elsewhere. The BJP under Modi won 12 of the 19 seats with dominant Muslim presence in the last assembly elections. Kumar refuses to accept this reality. Muslims have openly stated that they and the state have moved on with Modi's inclusive policies, because of which they are prospering without any problem. In fact, the BJP and the JD(U) are partners in the Bharuch municipality. Acolytes of the chief minister raise issues like Modi not agreeing to wear a skull cap. Genuine socialists never resort to cheap symbols of tilaks or turbans, as these are purely cultural symbols to be used by the concerned communities, and not part of serious politics. It was an occasion for the JD(U) to emphasise that religion no longer plays a part in governance. A more positive step towards responsible opposition politics would have been to bring more allies into the NDA after pressuring Modi and other BJP leaders to announce collective measures to reassure minorities. That is why the Muslims are not quite cheering Kumar.
The cloud of allegations over Modi's head is in no way darker than that over the Gandhi family for corruption in Bofors, the Congress as a whole for 1984, or the dynastic domination of Rahul Gandhi over more experienced leaders in the Congress. Good governance being the order of the day, the selective use of allegations and the cynical use of perceptions, rather than seeking the truth, is self-serving politics far removed from secularism or principles.
Kumar shed tears for the way the BJP has supposedly treated its senior leader, Advani. While Fernandes led the campaign for the ouster of Lalu Prasad and ensured Kumar was made chief minister in 2005, he promptly arranged for the defeat of Fernandes as party president in 2006 through unorthodox means, after calling him to Patna for his re-election.
Subsequently, he put pressure on Advani to replace Fernandes with Sharad Yadav as NDA convenor, although Parkash Singh Badal was far more experienced, and an older ally. The final humiliation was when Sharad Yadav, as party president, assured Fernandes he would fight from Muzaffarpur in 2009, in the presence of many party workers. Five days later, Kumar sent him a letter saying he was ailing and elderly and would not be given a ticket. He threw him the offer of a Rajya Sabha seat, despite knowing Fernandes's negative views on the subject. He then gave the ticket to an even older and more ailing person from the RJD. This humiliation made Fernandes dig in his heels. A respectful and friendly personal visit by Kumar to plead with Fernandes to withdraw, and reassure him that Muzaffarpur's development would be carried out as per his wishes, would have melted his mentor's heart. Instead, he refused any contact with him and ensured Fernandes's sad defeat. Measured against his own actions for nearly two decades, Kumar would serve principled politics better if he came out with the real reasons for breaking-up the NDA.
The writer is former president of the Samata Party
Source: http://www.indianexpress.com/news/politics-not-principle/1131227/0
No comments:
Post a Comment