Recent developments in Bihar have raised doubts over the Chief Minister’s intention to provide governance that is corruption-free and has a firm grip on the law and order situation. His personal image of an upright politician is taking a severe beating
Bihar Chief Minister Nitish Kumar has enjoyed the benefit of a ‘positive image’. Even those who fundamentally disagree with him, view him as a politician who is free of the two major ills that have afflicted the Indian polity — political corruption and familial nepotism. In addition, Mr Nitish Kumar’s ability to bring about a sense of relief and empowerment through his governance, has put him into the picture of a future prime ministerial candidate.
Therefore, it is with some disbelief that people have been witnessing what has been happening in the troubled State of Bihar over the last few weeks. Watching someone steadily go down the pedestal is always disconcerting and even painful for some. And this is exactly what is happening in Bihar.
As someone who was born in the State and has several relatives there, this writer has been a distressed spectator from the 1990s onwards. Not only has the State been converted into a stenchful den of corruption and nepotism, but it also become a butt of cruel jokes when it was ruled by RJD supremo lalu Prasad and his wife Rabri Devi. However, Mr Nitish Kumar arrived on the scene as a breath of fresh air, and many watched him with admiration when he attempted to reverse the rot that had set in. An example of the positive transformation was the ability of young girls to take bicycles to school.
When Mr Nitish Kumar broke ranks with the National Democratic Alliance, there were many who disagreed with him. It was generally seen as a case of antipathy towards Mr Narendra Modi. But his record insulated him from severe criticism that comes the way of Indian politicians. Such is the cynicism with which politicians are generally perceived that a break-up of a political alliance is seen to be driven primarily by personal motives — which by and large did not happen in Mr Nitish Kumar’s case.
Mr Nitish Kumar had fiercely campaigned against political corruption. In light of this, his decision to throw in his lot with lalu Prasad was seen as hypocritical and expedient. Even though Mr Kumar tried to explain away this incongruence — by stating that he believed in fighting ‘communal forces’ and for that an adjustment of this nature was necessary — his explanations were supremely unconvincing. He just could not give make one understand as to why his fight against corruption had to take a backseat or even placed in cold storage.
Switching of political alliances is not a new phenomenon in India. This tendency of the political was personified by none other than Winston Churchill. But in his case, even his staunchest opponent never accused him of personal motives. Moreover, he had to pay a heavy price and had to remain in absolute wilderness until 1940, when he was called upon to lead the National Government. I do not suppose this analogy will hold good for any Indian politician, including Mr Nitish Kumar.
People watched Mr Nitish Kumar with an increasing sense of dismay as he allowed lalu Prasad, a convict in unprecedented corruption, to form an alliance with him. Mr Kumar repeatedly insisted that his loathing of political corruption remained intact and that he was confident that neither lalu Prasad nor the Congress would prove to be an impediment in this regard.
How shallow this reassurance was, is now coming to the fore. As a first major incidence, the Congress objected to a pamphlet that projected the party and Indira Gandhi in a less favourable light during the dark days of the Emergency.
Both Mr Nitish Kumar and lalu Prasad have been products of the protests that took place in the 1970s. They were students at that time (as was this columnist) and like the entire generation, they eulogised Jayaprakash Narayan and the principled opposition he presented against Indira Gandhi’s dictatorial proclivities. There are few today who will endeavour to put up an unequivocal defence of the Emergency and the events that lead to it.
I would go as far as to state that there is a consensus that this was the darkest chapter so far in the history of independent India. The fact that the Janata Party Government did not last does not obscure the terror that prevailed at that time and the authoritarian nepotistic corruption that had taken root.
It was, therefore, expected of both Mr Nitish Kumar and lalu Prasad to hold their ground. However, just the reverse happened! In the face of the Congress’s protests, Mr Nitish Kumar wilted and had the pamphlet withdrawn — despite the fact that there was no inaccuracy that could be identified by an objective assessor. Many rightly saw this as an affront to Jayaprakash Narayan’s noble legacy that both Mr Nitish Kumar and lalu Prasad claim to uphold.
If that was not enough, Mr Nitish Kumar’s conduct today on two different issues has left many with a very bad taste in the mouth.The first was when he refused to take immediate action against his drunken and offensively irreverent MlA who boarded a train in an inebriated state and harassed a female passenger.
Moreover, the MlA demonstrated that he was an unapologetic practitioner of mendacity when he claimed that he was nowhere near the train; close circuit cameras have nailed his lie. I personally had not heard of this legislator and was certainly not aware of his antecedents. Only through the Press did I learn that he happened to be the son of lalu Prasad’s close friend Taslimuddin, whose record is known to the people in Bihar. Moreover he is a member of Mr Nitish Kumar’s party and was, according to reports which have not been challenged so far, inducted into the party to project a ‘secular’ image! He continued to have a free run for days despite being exposed by the media on multiple occasions. The JD(U) offered lame explanations for the fiasco.
The second was Mr Nitish Kumar’s decision to withdraw criminal cases against lalu Prasad and his semi-literate son; they had been booked for arson and rioting during a bandh.
The JD(U) and the RJD spokespersons did not earn many points through their bizarre and unprincipled defence of this blatant act. One had the chutzpah to state that there was a precedent established. The case against George Fernandes (Baroda dynamite case) was withdrawn when the Janata Government took power. That indeed is true and I have always maintained that the Janata Government of the time should not have been in a haste when it took the decision. But it beggars belief that an analogy of this nature is being drawn to justify the present case.
George Fernandes had been acting against a dictator who had declared an Emergency when even the habeas corpus had been withdrawn. Even if one were to disagree with his methods, there simply has been no suggestion that he had indulged in these activities for crass personal motives. It is also appropriate to point out that George Fernandes was arrested and placed in handcuffs and chains — the recourse to justice being made impossible because of the Emergency.
The comparison, therefore, is not just frivolous but clearly mischievous. I would also tend to see it as grossly insulting to George Fernandes, who was very close to Mr Nitish Kumar throughout his political career. The decision is more in line with Samajwadi Party chief Mulayam Singh Yadav’s withdrawal of cases against Phoolan Devi. Although it could be argued that she had already spent 11 years in prison, the underlying motive that drove Mr Yadav was political expediency — to get the Nishad community votes.
As a Bihar lover, I am deeply troubled by this metamorphosis of Mr Nitish Kumar, an otherwise decent man, into a cheap political manipulator. Troubled times lie ahead.