Woh ektantra mein vishwas rakhte hain, loktantra mein nahin' (He believes in dictatorship, not democracy).

That statement by Samata Party MP Raghunath Jha sums up the reason for the split in his party due to the tussle between him and Union Minister Nitish Kumar for the party president's post in Bihar.

Driving from the airport to his home at 31 Canning Lane, Jha seemed ready for a showdown. The delayed flight from Patna had further jangled his already-frayed nerves. Like Nitish Kumar, Jha has declared he will abide by whatever decision George Fernandes -- the 'tallest' leader in the Samata -- takes in order to prevent disintegration of the party.

The Union defence minister appears in no hurry to make the decision on whether Jha (who got himself 're-elected' in Patna at a parallel meeting) is the Bihar party chief or he prefers the candidate 'elected' by the Nitish faction.

Jha says he will wait for Fernandes's verdict, but underscores that the latter is aware that six out of the 11 party MPs are in his faction.

In conversation with Tara Shankar Sahay, Jha spoke about the crisis in the party, the rival faction headed by Nitish Kumar and his (Jha's) future gameplan.

Both you and Nitish Kumar, heading two rival factions of the Samata Party, are waiting for George Fernandes to sort out your differences. Is there any breakthrough?

No, so far nothing has happened. Georgesahib has been trying his best to avoid the split but it occurred because of Nitish Kumar’s obduracy. I spoke to Georgesahib and he categorically told me that Nitish had no objection to my being re-elected as Bihar party chief. George also underscored that there was no question of having any merger with the Janata Dal (United). Nitish did not agree to these things so the split occurred.

Is there any possibility for a patch-up between the rival factions?

This is wholly dependent on Georgesahib, both of us have said that he is our leader. But Nitish Kumar has disregarded what had been promised to me by Georgesahib -- that I would be re-elected as Bihar party chief and there was no question of the Samata's merger with the Janata Dal (United). Nitish pretended to agree, but changed colours on reaching Patna. In fact, on the flight to Patna he sat beside me. Earlier, he had told me he would discuss our differences but instead he deliberately slept through the entire flight.

In Patna, he told me I should attend the meeting convened at his behest. I refused and told our party colleague Digvijay Singh that the two meetings of the two factions should be stopped. Since party observers were present, I suggested that in its overall interest we should have a common meeting where we should all declare that we will function together without problems. But Nitish flatly refused and held his own meeting. So we too had our meeting in which I was unanimously re-elected chief of our party's Bihar unit.

The split will obviously trigger a political re-alignment in Bihar. Is your party leadership prepared for it?

It is too soon to comment, let us wait for Georgesahib's verdict. But in the present situation, political re-alignment and polarisation would be natural and anti-Laloo (Rashtriya Janata Dal chief) forces would come together to fight him.

What transpired during the reported meeting between Nitish Kumar and JD-U chief Sharad Yadav at his home as claimed by your supporters?

I really don't know. But people can gauge what's on the political horizon considering Nitish Kumar and Sharad Yadav's mutual fascination for each other.

Do you still hold onto your allegations against Nitish Kumar even as Fernandes tries to patch-up between the rival factions?

The political advantage accruing to the National Democratic Alliance following the 13th Lok Sabha election was frittered away in Bihar, thanks to Nitishji and his premature lust for power. He could not win the confidence vote on the floor of the state assembly. Laloo Yadav and his RJD government came back with a vengeance in Bihar and Nitish lost his all-too-brief tenure as chief minister. So you can see that Nitish was responsible for the NDA losing political advantage in Bihar and bringing back Laloo and company.

That's not all. After that, Nitish declared he would be in Bihar to fight the NDA's battle against Laloo's RJD and the Opposition. But I say it with regret that within a week, he hastened back to Delhi and demanded that the agriculture ministry be given back to him.

Our differences with Nitish started when he insisted that the Samata Party merge with Sharad Yadav's truncated JD-U. I pointed out that the NDA should concentrate on political assets rather than liabilities.

The other thing I emphasised was that ours is a democratic party where members are free to exchange views and suggestions after discussing various issues. But Nitish thinks he has the last say. He said other party members were free to either agree or disagree with him. It is this kind of dictatorship that put me off his line of thinking.

But Nitish has alleged that the six MPs with you and your party colleague Prabhunath Singh were 'blackmailing' him and that is why he tendered his resignation as a Union minister.

Blackmailing and drama are Nitish Kumar's specialities. Why did he give his resignation to Georgesahib and not the prime minister if he was really serious? Which of the Samata party MPs had demanded that Nitish resign that he did so? Nitish is blackmailing Georgesahib by resigning and building pressure on him to the detriment of our party.

But if Fernandes has not yet been able to make up his mind on re-uniting the two Samata factions, doesn't it signal the failure of his leadership?

You should address this question to Georgesahib. Besides, we all have faith in his leadership. Nobody can deny that he is making every effort to bring (the two factions) us together.

So what is going to be the upshot now?

We have reposed our faith in Georgesahib and we will be meeting him soon regarding the promises he made to us, and me especially -- that I will be the Bihar party chief and that there will be no merger with the JD-U.

What if that doesn't happen?

Look, I am not saying that Georgesahib should take my case at Nitish's expense and vice versa. What I am saying is that Georgesahib has made certain pronouncements for the overall welfare of the party and that he should abide by it. And if that does not happen, we will have to seek some way. We want to stay under Georgesahib's leadership, but if he doesn't want to keep us, we will go our own separate way.

The Rediff Interviews