By Arun Srivastava
Nitish Kumar betrayed secularism, if not the secular forces, but in the process has gifted a young and dynamic secular face in the form of Tejashvi Yadav. The way he lambasted Nitish on the floor of the Bihar assembly, while speaking on the confidence motion put by the chief minister in favour of his government, made it abundantly clear that Nitish, Sushil Modi and Narendra Modi have erred in their political assessment of this young lad of 29 years.
Tejashvi is certainly not Lalu Yadav or Nitish Kumar. His speech reflected he is away from the caste nuances and is not a hypocrite. Usually politicians avoid using hard words even against their sworn enemies as they are not sure on which turning they will come face to face and would need the help of the other. But Tejashvi was unsparing when he sought to know from Nitish on the floor of the house; “did not you feel ashamed at sitting by the side of Sushil Modi?” Certainly by any standards this was harsh. Even some of the JD(U) and BJP legislators had described it as un-parliamentary and had requested the Speaker to expunge it from the proceedings. These words came from a boy who till hours back used to address him as “chacha ji” (uncle).
To be honest, the BJP and Sangh leadership, have come to realise the potential of this young chap. They could comprehend that a new face of secular force was waiting in the wings to show its presence on the stage. Basically that was the reason why they had planned to implicate him in what is viewed as frivolous cases and malign him. Their strategy was to push him out of the political frame of the state to oblivion. But their calculation was based on parameters and inputs which were basically flawed. They never expected that he would come out of the shadow of his father so soon and in such a ferocious manner.
Nitish did reply to his accusations while summing up the debate but it was insipid. It lacked thrust and conviction. He mocked at the charge leveled by Tejashvi that he had betrayed the mandate of the people given in 2015. On his part, he tried to put the blame on Lalu and Tejashwi. He said: “The mandate given by the people was for a clean and transparent governance. My commitment is to serve the people and not one family”. Nitish wanted to tell the house that he had become captive to Lalu. He even charged that the RJD was living in “ahankar (arrogance) and illusion”, obviously implying Lalu.
Interestingly at no stage did Nitish raise accusing fingers at Lalu during his 20 month rule. To be fair to Nitish he should have placed the facts in the public domain, as he did on the day he resigned. If Nitish was really concerned about charges of corruption against all the family members of Lalu, he should have taken up the issue with Lalu and tried to find a way out of the impasse. He claimed to have maintained the alliance dharma. But it surely does not imply that he should hide the misdeeds of his partner.
Plain speaking has its own dynamics and ironically politicians never indulge in it. They simply maintain the façade of it. While Nitish himself admitted, “I had to face a lot of difficulties. But I tried to deal with it. I resigned only when I thought I could not run the government. I did not ask for Tejashvi’s resignation. But I asked him for an explanation. He did not have an explanation.” So how come his spokespersons maintain that Nitish had asked Tejashvi to resign?” Certainly this is against the ethics of coalition dharma. It is obvious Nitish had been preparing his grounds to strike at Lalu, which he did once the NDA got his own man as the President of the country. Lingering apprehensions were there in the minds of the central BJP leaders on the attitude of the former president towards this, which is why they deferred its execution till Ram Nath Kovind took over.
No doubt Nitish intended to give a strong rebuff. But it lacked punch. Tejashvi put him on the defensive. While Tejashvi addressed him as “Boss” he took Nitish to task on issues ranging from corruption to lust for power and questioned his motive behind forming four different governments. Even a senior BJP MLA was forced to concede: “We did not expect such a good retort from Tejashvi.” He hit Nitish where it hurt most. Through his command, body language and speech, he made it clear that a new opposition leader had been born in his own right. The use of the word “boss” drew hisses from the treasury benches, but Tejashvi shot back: “Have you no shame in taking oath again?”
Nitish’s allegation that he was forced to tolerate the activities of the RJD leadership was aptly exposed by Tejashvi, who told the house: “During these 20 months, Nitishji usually told me that he had grown old and I and Ashok Choudhary were the future of Bihar politics. He also warned us against the BJP and described it as an expert in conspiracies. What happened to your vow that you would rather die than rejoin the BJP? While I was deputy chief minister I did my work honestly. I held the road construction department and moved a proposal that no file related to the award of contracts or to variation of bills would come to the minister. Everybody knows what happens with these files, and had I disposed of these files I would have been framed. Nitishji knows who opposed the move in the cabinet.”
He was quite caustic; “everybody knows what a large social base Nitishji has. In the 1995 Assembly elections… his party ended up with just seven seats…. In the 2014 Lok Sabha polls he ended up with just two seats. Nitishji needs the crutch of either the BJP or the RJD.” According to Tejashvi, his father Lalu “was not obsessed with putramoh (love for son). It was bhaimoh (love for brother).”
After three days of the high voltage moral drama, the situation has started returning to normalcy. The political picture is now taking a shape. The people too have started reacting to the development. One thing is clear. There are few takers for Nitish’s claims and exhortations. A senior government officer used a metaphor used for TV serials and quipped “his TRP has fallen substantially.”
In fact, tribal leaders from the neighbouring state Jharkhand, who were contemplating to float a joint front with Nitish, had developed cold feet and accused him of betraying their trust. Nitish Kumar may have won the trust vote but has lost the trust of the tribals in Jharkhand. He often visited Jharkhand and shared the dais with tribal leaders to attack the state BJP government on giving tribal land to big corporate houses. He had also spoken against the BJP government’s decisions to amend tenancy law and local residents’ policy that they believed diluted tribal claims to land and government jobs.
No doubt Lalu is involved in scams, he has been the Godfather of scamsters and has amassed a huge fortune out of his nasty operations, but it was certainly not politically correct to paint Tejashvi with the same brush. Attempts are being made to project Nitish’s parting of ways as the dying declaration of secularism in India. This is simply a ploy to present Nitish as the sole saviour of secularism in the prevailing political scenario.
The fact of the matter is that the entire episode that took place outside the sprawling palace of the governor has once again exposed the politician’s greed and lust for the power and above all the acute sense of insecurity that grips them for being out of power. Indian politics is littered with state leaders who thought they could easily become national figures.
Those who have watched Nitish grow in state politics vouch that his first instinct has always been survival. He has an enviable track record of managing to remain indispensable and also at the same time a firm believer in a weak party organisation that ensured he is never challenged from the inside. Look at the way he dropped George Fernandes, Sharad Yadav and many other leaders. He always prefers to ride piggy back on one or the other leader to reach his destination. This time he was desperate to get Congress to acquire a national image.
He has been striving to fructify his mission without an organisation of his own, without a pan-India ideology, without years of national outreach and of course without exhausting too much of sweat and blood. He intended to position himself as a conscience keeper and crusader against corruption to serve his political maneuvering to ride the Modi bandwagon. (IPA Service)