Tags:
Journalism of Courage
The BJP has affected a sense of hurt at Naveen Patnaiks decision to part his BJD from the National Democratic
Alliance. The Biju Janata Dal has been in a seat-sharing alliance with the BJP in Orissa for 11 years now; and the alliances longevity resulted from both the BJDs anti-Congressism and its controversy-free existence. Some sections of the BJP have chosen to read Patnaiks decision over the weekend as betrayal,and strangely reacted to the development by calling for presidents rule even before a test of strength on the floor of the House could be scheduled. For the BJP,the loss of the BJD could be acute. There is not just the fact of the 21 Lok Sabha seats up for grabs in Orissa,a state believed to retain much of the pro-incumbent sentiment that returned the BJD-BJP coalition to power in the assembly elections held together with the 2004 general election. Patnaiks exit means more than that: the loss of a longstanding ally could affect the cohesiveness of its alliance just weeks before polling begins.
Patnaik is said to have been in a rethink since the Kandhamal
violence. For now,he says his decision is based on winnability; the BJP,according to him,was not agreeable to record its decline in the seat-sharing specifics. Correct or not,that is a perception that political parties are expected to counter robustly. Some of that has to do with numbers,but a lot is also founded on programmes for governance.
Because an election of disaggregated state verdicts puts national parties at a disadvantage,that disadvantage is reversed only by articulating a national agenda made of federal specifics. The BJP should ask whether many of its problems derive from this absence.
