Patna,(BiharTimes): The statement given by the BJP MLA Rameshwar Chaurasia that “all political leaders born out of the movement led by Jaiprakash Narayan in 1974 have lost their relevance after miserably failing to root out corruption, an agenda on which the great leader had united the countrymen leading to the ouster of then Indira Gandhi government in 1977 elections” has sparked off a fresh debate in the political circle.

While talking to the PTI on Wednesday Chaurasia not only took a dig at RJD chief Lalu Prasad and JD (U) leader Nitish Kumar but also criticized his own party’s leader, Sushil Kumar Modi––though without taking his name. While the first two went on to become the chief minister of the state, Sushil Kumar Modi served as the deputy chief minister for over seven and a half years. He may even be the BJP’s choice for the CM post in the next year’s Assembly election.

However, it is on this issue that the BJP is a divided house and Chaurasia too has expressed reservation over SuMo’s candidature.

But Chaurasia did not stop there. He went on to question the capability of “all political leaders born out of the movement led by Jaiprakash Narayan…to root out corruption.” He said that Bihar “needed new blood and fresh crop of leaders to fulfil changed aspirations of masses for corruption-free and transparent governance.”

But several social activists, who took part in the JP movement and who are at present not associated with any political party or NGO question the very locus standi of Chaurasia to flay the leaders of JP movement days. Naiyer Fatmi, who went to jail during Emergency when he was still 20, is among them.
They are of the view that JP movement not only produced Lalu, Nitish, Sushil Modi, Narendra Singh, Ashwini Choubey etc but hordes of others––for example Krishna Murari––who did not join politics, nor accepted pension as offered by the Nitish Kumar government. Those like Rashosh died unsung without much help from the state government.

It is true that some of them join politics and fully encashed their right connection and castes to rise in politics and others went on to form their NGOs yet some of them––their number may not be too large––are still maintaining their integrity. “It is sad that nobody is bothered about them in the society,” commented an observer.

Analysts are of the view that the advantage with Lalu, Nitish, SuMo and others is that they are Patna-centric leaders, who got quick opportunity to rise politically. But what happened is that they plunged into politics soon after Emergency, when they were still in their 20s and gradually acquired the prevailing political culture. As. Lalu and Nitish became chief minister and Union minister in 1990 when they were still in early 40s and SuMo leader of opposition in the state Assembly a few years later people were expecting something different from them.

The first two, in particular, had to run new party, help all the candidates contest and win elections and survive in politics so they became ‘pragmatic’ and abandoned all for which they stood in their young days.

But the case of BJP was somewhat different. It was an established party with no problem of funding and other human and material resources. If SuMo and other BJP leaders are equated with Lalu or Nitish, and that too by a partyman, it is somewhat surprising, said a Bihar watcher.