For Bihar's sake: Lalu as important as Nitish
Running a coalition government has not been an easy task in Indian politics. Vaulting ambitions of alliance partners and their unnecessary interference in governance have hastened the downfall of many a regime in the past.
Chief minister Nitish Kumar ran a successful coalition government with the Bharatiya Janata Party for seven-and-a-half years in Bihar before their ties were broken. Now, all eyes are riveted on him to see whether he will pass muster in a similar collaboration with Lalu Prasad Yadav.
Nitish is, at present, running a government with the props of the Rashtriya Janata Dal and the Congress. His detractors believe that his job is difficult this time owing to Lalu's proclivity to dominate the alliance.
Lalu has not had a reputation of being a considerate ally over the years. Since the RJD has emerged as the largest party in the recent Assembly elections, he is expected to dictate terms to Nitish. BJP leaders such as Sushil Kumar Modi have already started accusing Lalu of being the "super chief minister" of the state.
The RJD president's recent visit to a government hospital for a reality check and subsequent intervention in a case related to retrenchment of some woman health workers at Darbhanga Medical College Hospital have prompted the opposition to refer to him as a parallel power centre in Bihar.
Lalu's alleged meddling has also not gone down well with the supporters of the chief minister, known for following the rule book. In his previous term, Nitish did not let the BJP pursue its agenda and had adopted the "take-it-or-leave-it" policy towards his coalition partner when it came to implementing the government decisions.
Whether he will be able to mete out a similar treatment to Lalu in his fresh tenure remains a moot point, though.
Lalu, on his part, has sought to dispel the impressions that he would play a spoilsport for the new government. In fact, he has iterated that Nitish could rule Bihar for the next 20 years with his support, and their alliance would last until the chief minister himself walked out of it.
As far as Nitish is concerned, he does not see anything wrong in Lalu's so-called interventions. He believes that Lalu, who happens to be a former chief minister and is the leader of the "Grand Alliance", has every right to talk to the government officials. "What is wrong if the people's representatives talk to the government officials for a good cause?" he asked at an official function to hit out at the BJP the other day.
Nitish, of course, understands the basics of the coalition dharma well.
He consults both his alliance partners regularly over important decisions of his government. Recently, he had kept Lalu in the loop on the appointment of his poll campaign manager, Prashant Kishor as his advisor on planning and programme implementation. As the head of a multiparty government, the chief minister obviously cannot afford to ride roughshod over the sentiments of his allies. Any misunderstanding between them will prove disastrous for his government.
At the same time, he has to strike a balance and pursue the common agenda of his alliance without allowing any coalition partner to dictate terms to him.
Lalu also needs to match his actions with his words and curb his instincts to play the big brother much too often. He will only create problems for the Nitish government if he goes beyond his role of an advisor. His interference, after all, may not only create parallel power centres in Bihar but also divide the state's bureaucracy into two vertical groups of loyalists owing allegiance to different leaders.
Nitish and Lalu have got the massive mandate of the people to work in tandem for five years with mutual understanding and trust.
It is, therefore, necessary for both of them to follow the coalition dharma in letter and spirit. Nitish has proved himself to be an able administrator in the past and needs Lalu's full support to attain the goals set by the Grand Alliance government. But the onus of running a successful coalition government is not on him alone. It has to be shared equally by all the stakeholders in the state government.