Bihar is under Delhi, its House in freezer

‘‘I am not going to the Cabinet meeting as my party has been opposed to imposition of President’s rule in the state, especially after the people have given their verdict and RJD has emerged as the single largest party,’’ Laloo told reporters, before leaving for Patna this evening.

His Cabinet colleague and bitter adversary Ram Vilas Paswan was also not present at the Cabinet meeting, chaired by Prime Minister Manmohan Singh, which lasted for only 35 minutes.

Paswan said that he would observe the state administration under Central rule for a month before taking his next step. ‘‘I expect the law and order situation to improve during President’s rule,’’ he said, adding that he expected strong advisors to the state government but he wasn’t going to spell out names.

Official sources said that Paswan was advised to keep away from the meeting to avoid a war of words with Laloo. The advice was given to Paswan, and not Laloo, since the former is the only Cabinet member from his LJP while Laloo’s RJD has two Cabinet ministers.

But Paswan denied receiving any such instructions and said that he had made clear his inclination to a President’s rule in Bihar to both the Prime Minister and Home Minister yesterday. He told The Indian Express late this evening: ‘‘I wanted people to discuss the issue threadbare.’’

Although he prescribed President’s rule as a ‘‘correct medicine’’ for Bihar, he claimed that it would have no effect on the ruling UPA government. Paswan said that within a year, the Congress and the Left would be fighting each other in West Bengal but that did not mean the UPA government was going to be in jeopardy.

‘‘Non-RJD and non-BJP MLAs constitute 132 MLAs in Bihar Assembly. Let them form a government, I will open my cards only after one month of Central rule,’’ he said.

But the Cabinet decision to endorse Governor Buta Singh’s recommendation to impose President’s rule in view of the inability of any party or alliance to get a working majority in the 243-member Bihar House has only increased the acrimony between Laloo and Paswan—and is likely to put further strain on the fraying dynamics within the UPA.

For the record, however, Laloo was careful not to attack the Congress or party chief Sonia Gandhi for failing to pressurise Paswan to back an RJD-led ‘‘secular’’ government.

While railing against Paswan for pushing Bihar under President’s rule, the RJD chief, unlike his more voluble colleagues and supporters, also did not formally ask for Paswan’s removal from the Union Cabinet. ‘‘Why should I demand it? It is better if Paswan goes back to the NDA,’’ Laloo said.

He also refuted speculation that the intra-UPA crisis in Bihar would impact the Centre. ‘‘I am sure this development will not cause any embarrassment to the UPA government which will remain strong and intact,’’ he said.

On Sonia Gandhi’s role, Laloo was equally careful in his reponse. ‘‘She can only make Paswan see reason and cannot force him,’’ he said. Unlike RJD spokesman Shivanand Tiwari who had accused Congess of tacitly supporting Paswan, Laloo said, ‘‘I have no grievance against the Congress which has extended support of its 10 MLAs for an RJD government.’’

Laloo’s calibrated sound bytes against Paswan but without any rancour towards the Congress reflects his shrewd grasp of politics. Having lost power in Bihar, he does not want to lose his powerful status in the Union government or rock the boat at the Centre—at least not at this juncture.

Rather, by maintaining good ties with the Congress leadeship, he will try to have a say in the running of Bihar. The backing of the Congress will also be crucial for the RJD in any new political equation that may emerge in the state.

For the Congress, which won only 10 seats in Bihar as a result of their confused strategy of both backing and opposing RJD, President’s rule is the ideal interim solution.

Although party strategists are accused of botching up Bihar, the Congress can take credit for achieving—albeit by default—its two primary objectives in the state: ‘‘taming’’ Laloo; and, preventing NDA from wresting power in Patna. The imposition of President’s rule, under a Congress-led dispensation at the Centre, also gives the party a say in the running of Bihar by proxy.

That is why, despite pressures from RJD and sections within the UPA, the Congress leadership has so far been rather soft on Paswan. Both RJD and the BJP-JD(U) combine have been openly demanding Paswan’s ouster from the UPA but Paswan’s rapport with Sonia Gandhi—established from the day she walked over to his house on 12 Janpath over a year ago—has remained intact.

Congress sources pointed out that removing Paswan from the Cabinet at this stage would only deliver him to the NDA. Several of his MLAs are keen to join hands with the BJP-JD(U) combine to gain power, and would put even greater pressure on him if he were to lose his berth at the Centre.

The Congress’s hope is that a spell of President’s rule would cool down tempers and enable a more leisurely pace of negotiations on the formation of a ‘‘secular’’ government at a later stage.