Bihar politics has reached yet another critical juncture, as the Janata Dal (United) faces challenges from within. Nitish Kumar, long regarded as a balanced and experienced leader, now appears to be grappling with a leadership crisis in his own party. This turmoil is not merely a matter of internal disagreement but could signal a deeper political strategy at play.

Nitish Kumar had entrusted Lalan Singh and Sanjay Jha with the responsibility of liaising with the BJP. Acting as his “messengers,” they were expected to advance Nitish’s strategic objectives. However, when the real negotiations over seat-sharing began, both leaders reportedly aligned more closely with the BJP’s position. This came as a shock to Nitish, though timely warnings from the opposition allowed him to preserve his personal position, the party itself could not escape political setbacks.

Following these developments, Nitish Kumar reportedly told Lalan Singh and Sanjay Jha in no uncertain terms, “Enough is enough.” The party strategy, originally designed by him, was being turned against his leadership. The first major casualty of this internal upheaval was Chirag Paswan, against whom JD(U) had adopted a strong strategy. Nitish Kumar’s decision to stop taking calls even from the Prime Minister indicates the seriousness with which he is treating this internal “damage.”

Lalan Singh’s conciliatory stance toward the BJP raises several questions. Is he engaged in a strategic dialogue with the BJP? Does he aim to establish an alternative leadership within JD(U)? Or is this all a calculated strategy to signal the BJP’s internal maneuvers to the public?

Political analysts argue that the BJP is once again employing a “divide and dilute” strategy in Bihar, mirroring tactics used in Maharashtra and Madhya Pradesh to weaken ally parties and consolidate its own power. In Bihar, the BJP is reportedly encouraging leaders within JD(U) to take positions contrary to Nitish Kumar’s directives.

Recently, RJD leader Tejashwi Yadav remarked, “JD(U) is no longer with Nitish Kumar,” alleging that three JD(U) leaders were acting under the BJP’s guidance. While politically aggressive, this statement confirms that internal divisions in JD(U) have now become public.

On the other hand, Nitish Kumar’s close aide Neeraj Kumar has been vocally critical of the BJP, supporting Nitish’s policies on every issue. This demonstrates a clear polarization within JD(U)—one faction seeking alignment with the BJP and the other determined to uphold Nitish Kumar’s leadership.

Another key figure in this unfolding drama is RCP Singh. Lalan Singh had previously questioned RCP Singh’s closeness with the BJP. The irony now is that similar accusations are surfacing against Lalan Singh, highlighting the prevalence of opportunistic politics within JD(U).

Ultimately, it would not be incorrect to say that JD(U) is experiencing a leadership crisis. However, this crisis is not solely the result of personal ambitions. It may also form part of a larger political strategy, with leaders like Lalan Singh and Sanjay Jha attempting to expose the BJP’s internal maneuvers. The public now faces the task of understanding this internal conflict and deciding which leadership they trust—one willing to compromise for power or one ready to fight for principles.