Bihar CM Nitish Kumar.
Credit: PTI File Photo
Nitish Kumar's flip-flops and his ninth term as chief minister with the support of the BJP is the most talked-about topic in Indian politics now after the consecration of the Ram temple in Ayodhya. Some reports termed the JD(U) leader's actions “abrupt” while others saw them coming for a long time, and traced them to the handshake he had with Prime Minister Narendra Modi at the G20 summit in New Delhi where the ice was broken, leading to secret deliberations between the BJP’s top leadership and Nitish Kumar. The decision of the Modi government to confer Bharat Ratna posthumously on Bihar’s veteran socialist leader and former CM Karpoori Thakur, which elicited quick and wholesome praise of Modi by Nitish, led to the formal announcement by the JD(U) leader to dump the Mahagathbhandan.
Nitish's actions need scrutiny though he is known for breaking alliances to remain in power. It is noteworthy that he began his eighth term as CM in alliance with the RJD and the Congress. He played a key role in the efforts to create the I.N.D.I.A bloc to take on the BJP in the Lok Sabha polls. He even released the caste census report, daring the Modi government to carry out a national caste survey. While doing all this, he nursed ambitions of becoming the prime minister if the Opposition bloc emerged successful in defeating the Modi government in the upcoming polls. Nitish must have made up his mind to exit the bloc when the leaders of the alliance supported Congress president Mallikarjun Kharge for the post of the group’s convener.
The consecration of Ram temple in Ayodhya, with Modi as the ‘Yajaman’, and the widespread media campaign that the Lok Sabha election results are a 'done deal' perhaps made Nitish bury his PM ambitions. That must have been the real reason — and not his allegation that things were not going well in the I.N.D.I.A bloc — that led to his decision to ditch the Mahaghathbandhan and return to the BJP fold to retain the CM's gaddi for the ninth time. Committed to its overriding objective of coming back to power at the national level and strengthening its hold in the Hindi heartland, the BJP took back Nitish again. This is the only pragmatic way in which one can explain the realpolitik considerations of Nitish's decision to break with the I.N.D.I.A bloc. Compared to his flip-flops in recent years, the action of Haryana legislator Gayan Lal in 1967 — who changed parties thrice in 15 days leading to the coining of the expression 'Aaya Ram, Gaya Ram' — pales into insignificance.
Many commentators have written that the exit of Nitish Kumar from the I.N.D.I.A bloc has dealt a body blow to the alliance. But such conclusions are impulsive. In any case, the issue needs to be pragmatically analysed. First of all, despite Nitish's stature as a long-standing leader on the Indian political horizon, his influence in electoral terms is confined to Bihar. For that matter, even in Bihar, Nitish is not a hegemon politically. Lalu Yadav, an influential leader despite his involvement in corruption scandals, holds significant influence over the Bihar voters, given the fact that the Yadavs constitute 14.26% of the state's population. Surely, Lalu and his son Tejashwi Yadav will describe Nitish Kumar’s actions as betrayal during their campaign speeches.
Secondly and more importantly, while Mamta Banernee will fight the Lok Sabha polls on her own by not agreeing to any seat-sharing, Trinamool Congress' victories would very be the I.N.D.I.A group's victory. Similar will be the situation in Punjab where the AAP is part of the alliance. Thirdly, Nitish Kumar has no influence electorally in Maharastra, the Northeast and the southern states. Hence, the argument that his exit from the Mahaghathbandhan is going to drastically affect the group’s electoral fortunes in the Lok Sabha polls is an overstatement. However, it is crucial that the I.N.D.I.A bloc quickly agrees to seat-sharing wherever possible keeping in mind the strengths of regional parties to face the BJP juggernaut.
Importantly, the alliance must come up with a common minimum programme anchored in constitutional values and people-friendly welfare programmes to attract the electorate to its side. The task is formidable but by no means impossible if there is political will.
(The writer is a former professor of Political Science, Bangalore University)