The BJP has affected a sense of hurt at Naveen Patnaik’s 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 alliance’s longevity resulted from both the BJD’s anti-Congressism and its controversy-free existence. Some sections of the BJP have chosen to read Patnaik’s decision over the weekend as betrayal, and strangely reacted to the development by calling for president’s 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. Patnaik’s exit means more than that: the loss of a longstanding ally could affect the cohesiveness of its alliance just weeks before polling begins.

It is in this context that the BJP should inquire why it’s having such a rough ride keeping its allies. In Maharashtra, another of its longer-standing allies, the Shiv Sena, has kept the BJP on notice during seat-sharing talks. Relations have been especially clouded in recent days by the Shiv Sena’s indication that it would not oppose Sharad Pawar’s candidature for prime ministership, were the results to be so configured to give him a viable bid. In Tamil Nadu, another state that could decide the difference between competing national alliances, the BJP is in the odd position of going it virtually alone in these elections. Odd, because just five years ago it was in the amazing position of having its pick of the DMK and the AIADMK; its choice then was which of the two to discard.

... contd.