New Delhi: Bihar chief minister and Janata Dal (United) chief Nitish Kumar minced no words while hitting out at his colleague and senior party leader Pavan Varma, who has criticised the party’s move to support the controversial Citizenship Amendment Act. On Thursday, when asked about Varma questioning the logic behind JD(U) allying with the BJP even in Delhi for the upcoming assembly elections, Kumar said, “He is free to go and join any party he likes, my best wishes.”“Our stand is clear, no confusion. If anyone has any issues, then the person can discuss it within party or at party meetings, but to give such public statements is surprising. Is this a way to talk?” he added. Known for his short but clear statements, Kumar, who leads the JD(U)-BJP coalition government in Bihar, clearly indicated that he will brook no such public criticisms of the party, from within the party, anymore. Apart from Varma, party’s vice-president Prashant Kishore and many senior leaders of the party, including another national general secretary Gulam Rasool Balyawi had also expressed their discomfort against Kumar’s decision to support the Citizenship Amendment Bill in the Parliament, which they feel has to be seen in conjunction with the proposed National Register of Citizens (NRC). According to these leaders, Kumar has assured them that he will not allow NRC to be implemented in Bihar. However, Varma came out publicly to question JD(U)’s alliance with the saffron party in Delhi, especially at a time when protests over CAA-NRC has only been growing across the country, including in Bihar. Varma, a former Rajya Sabha MP and party’s national general secretary, had tweeted a letter to Nitish Kumar two days ago to express his anguish and anxiety over the alliance. He spoke about a conversation in which Kumar had expressed “grave apprehensions” about the BJP and its ideological fountainhead Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh (RSS). He had asked the party chief to “harmonise” the party’s private and public positions. This is the letter I have written to @NitishKumar today asking him how the JD(U) has formed an alliance with the BJP for the Delhi elections, given his own views on the BJP, and the massive national outrage against the divisive CAA-NPR-NRC scheme. pic.twitter.com/ErSynnuiYm— Pavan K. Varma (@PavanK_Varma) January 21, 2020“On more than one occasion, you have expressed your grave apprehensions about the BJP-RSS combine. If these are your real views, I fail to understand how the JDU is now extending its alliance with the BJP beyond Bihar, when even long standing allies of the BJP, like the Akali Dal, have refused to do so. This is especially so at a time when the BJP, through the CAA-NPR-NRC combine, has embarked on a massive social divisive agenda aimed at mutilating the peace, harmony and stability of the country,” Varma wrote.He also spoke of his first meeting with Kumar in 2012 where he spoke “at length and with conviction on why Narendra Modi and his policies are inimical for the country.” He also reminded Kumar of his election call for an “RSS-mukt Bharat (RSS-free India)”. He also said that when Kumar revived his alliance with BJP in 2017 after dumping Rashtriya Janata Dal and Congress, with which he had contested the assembly elections together, the BJP leadership had subjected him to humiliation. Also read: Decoding Nitish Kumar’s Curious Stand on NRC-CAAIn the last few months, however, Kumar has hinted at the possibility of JD(U) joining the Union government. The party has already become a part of the BJP-led National Democratic Alliance. His adamant stance on CAA indicates that his word on the issue may be the final one in the party. Responding to him, Varma said, “(Leaving) is an option that everyone has and I know it. It was never my intention to hurt him.” He added that he welcomed Kumar’s rebuke as his statement hints at the further possibility of a discussion within the party. Varma’s objections to CAA-NRCSpeaking to The Wire in December, Varma said that his position in JD(U) was “irrevocably untenable” after he publicly criticised his party’s support to CAB in the parliament. And that he “would like to devote the next few years” and all his “political energy to create a sane and credible alternative in this country at the political level.”“This country needs choice which is congruent with what the country’s good is. I will work towards that end,” he had asserted. “The party can remove me or I can remove myself from the party,” he had said. “Yes, we are in an alliance with the BJP in Bihar. Yes, the government in Bihar is a coalition. Yes, perhaps the BJP and the JD(U) need each other to fight the elections next year when the assembly elections are due. But at the same time, the JD(U), and specially Mr. Nitish Kumar has been a leader who on specific issues, even while in an alliance with the BJP, has taken a strong position of differing, of saying that we are allies but we don’t agree.” He had gone on to speak about JD(U)’s objection to “the manner in which Article 370 was rammed through in the parliament.”“There are issues on which we protest. Particularly, for instance, when there are overt communal voices in the BJP, we come out against them,” he had said.He had also said that he was deeply anguished by the fact that Kumar, despite his private objections to CAA and NRC, had gone ahead to support the CAB in Rajya Sabha. He felt that JD (U) preferred political expediency and “possible political dividend to the far more fundamental pursuit of ideological chastity.” “To my mind that is unacceptable. It is against our party constitution. In the very first page of our constitution, the word secular occurs three times. Nitish Kumar himself has always stood multiple times against attempts to divide the society on the basis of dharm and majhab and religion,” he had said, adding that even in the case of CAB, Kumar has made his concerns about CAB public. “Nitish Kumar was very sensitive to the concerns in the northeast (against CAB), for that (northeastern) identity to be preserved, and not to be swamped,” he said. “What happened to all of that? The northeast is in flames. My point is if you are willing to jettison ideology on the altar of political expediency, somewhere you are on the wrong track,” he had said, adding that there seemed to be “a lack of ideological clarity” in his party.
