The Big Story: Survival politics

Bihar politics underwent a dramatic change in a matter of few hours on Wednesday. Chief Minister Nitish Kumar resigned and broke the alliance with the Rashtriya Janata Dal and the Congress that brought him back to power in 2015. By midnight, he was entertaining Bharatiya Janata Party leaders, the same leaders he accused of spreading “communal poison” just two years ago, at his home in Patna and staked claim to forming the new government with saffron party’s support. He will take oath on Thursday.

Kumar said he had taken the step because he could no longer tolerate corruption. He wanted an explanation from Deputy Chief Minister Tejashwi Prasad of the Rashtriya Janata Dal about corruption charges the young politician was facing in the alleged railways scam in which the Central Bureau of Investigation filed a First Information Report earlier this month. Since there was no response from the Rashtriya Janata Dal, and with the Congress unwilling to intervene, the Janata Dal (United) leader claimed that he had no option but to quit.

On the face of it, his explanation seems flimsy. When Nitish Kumar joined hands with Lalu Prasad Yadav in 2015, the latter was already a convicted criminal, having been sentenced to jail in 2013 in a fodder scam (he was released on bail shortly after). Kumar’s inability to countenance a cabinet colleague with an FIR against him seems incongruous in light of his previous decision to ally with a party whose leader had been imprisoned for corruption. In the process, Kumar seems to have changed his key priorities – communalism, which was his primary worry a few months ago, has suddenly given way to corruption. Besides, it isn’t as if his new ally is untained by corruption. Only last month, senior BJP leader in Madhya Pradesh, Narottam Mishra, was disqualified from the Assembly for having bribed newspapers to publish articles favourable to him. Mishra continues to be the number two in the BJP’s Madhya Pradesh unit.

To many, the 2015 alliance seemed destined to fail. Kumar and Lalu Prasad have been rivals for decades, plotting against each other constantly. It was a marriage of convenience, susceptible to even the slightest hint of domestic disturbance.

If Kumar stands accused of opportunism, Prasad, with his stubbourness in putting his family over the government, has clearly precipitated these developments. Had he asked his son Tejashwi Prasad to resign, he could have stopped Kumar’s designs in their tracks. By allowing Kumar to use corruption as an excuse, Prasad has cost the Opposition much more than Bihar. The Opposition at the national level now looks significantly weakened, with Kumar, touted to be a possible prime ministerial candidate in 2019, embracing the enemy.

In 2015, Bihar voted to keep the BJP away from power. The state became a shining light for resistance against the BJP and the centralised politics of the Narendra Modi-Amith Shah combination. By pulling the plug on the alliance, Nitish Kumar has forced on the people of Bihar a government they did not wish for. Opportunism and stubbourness have negated the mandate of the people.

The Big Scroll

  • Anita Katyal argues that the BJP has outsmarted the Congress by taking away Nitish Kumar. 

Punditry

  1. Suhas Palshikar in the Indian Express on why the Jawaharlal Nehru University’s move to put an tank on the campus should worry us all. 
  2. Historian Jayadeva Uyangod in The Hindu looks back at the 1987 Indo-Sri Lanka accord, which in the last three decades has profoundly impacted politics in the island nation. 
  3. In the context of Christopher Nolan’s new film Dunkirk, Salil Tripathi in Mint looks at how the British miss the larger picture as they try harder to pain the war as the battle for freedom. 
  4. In the Economic Times, Mohamman Sajjad says Nitish Kumar has taken the biggest risk of his life by going back to the BJP. 

Giggles

Don’t miss

Can National Security Adviser Ajith Doval’s visit to Beijing solve the Indo-China stand off in Doklam?

“At his meeting with Yang, Doval is expected to argue that any Chinese attempt to alter the border until the dispute is mutually resolved will be taken as a violation of the earlier agreements. According to Indian officials familiar with the dispute, a 1993 bilateral agreement lays down that any change in the status quo on either side of the disputed border will require mutual consultation.”