Kalyan out of BJP for six years

Thakre said the party was forced to take this decision as Singh had breached party discipline and there was a need to maintain discipline for the party’s growth.

“We are sad for parting company with a person who served the party for so long,” Thakre said. Asked whether Singh’s expulsion would affect the party’s support among the backwards and weaker sections, he said: “It won’t have any after-effects. We have otherleaders among them like Uma Bharati.”

Thakre said that Singh, besides criticising Vajpayee, had also hit out at the party leadership. The DAC report denied Singh’s charge that the BJP had abandoned “cultural nationalism” and said that his remarks amounted to denigration of the party.

Within hours of his expulsion, Kalyan once again attacked Vajpayee: “Atal will have a comfortable sleep tonight. For the last 10 months, he has been conspiring to get me out of the party. A section of the BJP leaders, in league with Vajpayee, have signed the party’s suicide note by deciding to expel me.”

This bravado, however, wasn’t matched by any support. No party MLA came to lend him a shoulder today. At his Mall Avenue residence, only the Samata’s Raghubar Dayal Verma was with him.

“I have served the party for 45 long years but have been humiliated before being pushed out of the party,” said Kalyan trying hard not to show any emotions. “The party is finished in UP and my expulsion will have an impact on itsprospects in the Bihar Assembly polls as well.”

There was speculation that Kalyan was waiting for his expulsion to announce the formation of a new party but he refused to comment on this. “Wait until 2 pm tomorrow,” he said.

Meanwhile, referring to Singh’s claim that the party had become a victim of the personality cult and that there was place only for vested interests who were indulging in sycophancy, the DAC report said that Kalyan’s reply “constituted contempt for the party’s principles and morals.”

The committee held that releasing his reply to the media was an act of serious indiscipline. The committee came to the unanimous conclusion that the object of Singh’s public outcry and conduct was to undermine the party’s prestige and that under Section 25 of its constitution it amounted to act of indiscipline.