24/01/2014

 

CNN-IBN survey may not be a ‘manoranjan’, but needs to be taken with a pinch of salt


Patna,(BiharTimes): While the Bihar chief minister Nitish Kumar on Thursday once again rejected the CNN-IBN and Centre for the Study of Developing Societies (CSDS) survey by calling it “manoranjan” (entertainment) it has certainly alarmed the UPA in the Centre as well as the Janata Dal (United) in the state.
Though it has raised the hope in the BJP camp the saffron party too is very cautious in accepting the result as the survey has been done even before the RJD, Congress and LJP have tied up an alliance.
Even many political observers are taking it with a pinch of salt as three months is too long a time to upset the politics of the state. The Delhi experience has made them careful. Till September no pollster ever claimed that by December Arvind Kejriwal would be the chief minister of Delhi, though the Aam Admi Party’s fortune was definitely on the upswing.
But the survey has raised several other questions. For example, in Bihar it gave seven to 13 seats to the ruling Janata Dal (United) and something between 16 and 24 to its former alliance partner the Bharatiya Janata Party. It gave six to 10 seats to the Rashtriya Janata Dal and 0-4 to Congress.
But the survey has been done before the finalization of pre-poll alliance. Now that it appears that the Congress may go with RJD and LJP the picture of the state may completely change. The BJP now is not so much bothered about Nitish Kumar, but apprehends the revival of Lalu Yadav’s RJD. Several BJP leaders, including former deputy chief minister Sushil Kumar Modi, has repeatedly warned the partymen in this regard.
If the RJD-Congress-LJP alliance really clicks who will be hit harder––the BJP or Janata Dal (United). Most political observers are of the view that Janata Dal (United) would be affected more as it has suddenly lost its winnability edge. When it was in alliance with the BJP it used to get a large floating vote of the EBCs, Mahadalits and even some Muslims. Now these votes may get divided and go both to the BJP and RJD. They are of the view that the BJP has its solid vote block which is not going to be affected.
The BJP is not taking the battle easily as it is being made out in the surveys. On the ground the picture may change any moment. It is aware of the big RJD victory in the Rajput and Bhumihar dominated Maharajganj parliamentary by-election in June last year.
The RJD candidate, Prabhunath Singh, trounced JD(U)’s Prashant Kumar Shahi, who is in fact a minister in the state cabinet. The election was held two weeks before the June 16 split in the NDA.
Though the BJP cadres did not work much for the JD(U)’s candidate yet it is a fact that they did not even oppose him. In spite of all this the RJD candidate won by 1,35,000 votes. This notwithstanding the fact that the Congress nominee, Jitendra Swamy, also a Rajput, too contested the election. If the alliance really takes place this time both JD(U) and BJP are likely to be in trouble in the constituency.
Similar is the case with Banka, another constituency politically dominated by Rajputs. The BJP is trying to play the Rajput card due to Rajnath Singh. But the problem is that now the JD(U) has virtually decided to field former bureaucrat-turned-Rajya Sabha MP, N K Singh. If he accepts then there would be two strong Rajput candidates. The RJD-led alliance may just put up a Yadav or Koeri from there to pose a big challenge.
No doubt there is Narendra Modi wave in some sections of the society. But to over-estimate it would just be suicidal for the BJP, which can not show any complacency.
It knows that even during the Ram Janambhoomi years of early 1990s the saffron party failed disastrously in election after election in Bihar. It succeeded only when the temple movement subsided, but the BJP joined hands with the Janata Dal (United).
If the RJD-Congress-LJP did very well in 2004 it was simply because of the alliance. They managed to check the Vajpayee factor then. But in 2009 the RJD, LJP and Congress were routed simply because they fought separately.

comments powered by Disqus

traffic analytics