Patna, Oct 5 — JD-U candidate Neeraj Kumar on Monday filed his nomination papers for the Patna Graduates’ constituency seat in the Bihar Legislative Council amid an ongoing dispute between him and Mokama MLA Anant Singh.
Speaking after the nomination, Union Minister and senior JD-U leader Lalan Singh said there was nothing unusual about Neeraj Kumar filing his nomination, as he is the party’s candidate for the seat.
Asked about the differences between Neeraj Kumar and Anant Singh, and JD-U National Working President Sanjay Jha’s statement that he would ask Lalan Singh to resolve the matter, Lalan Singh said he had received a call from Jha and subsequently spoke to Anant Singh.
According to Lalan Singh, Anant Singh raised several grievances during the conversation, including his dissatisfaction over the party’s handling of events surrounding the recent Assembly election.
Lalan Singh said Anant Singh recalled that when a no-confidence motion was brought against the Bihar government, several JD-U leaders had approached him seeking his support for the Nitish Kumar government.
Anant Singh agreed to support the government, Lalan Singh said, because of his respect for Nitish Kumar and his belief that the government should continue and development work in Bihar should not be disrupted.
Lalan Singh said Anant Singh also recalled that after supporting the government and meeting Nitish Kumar, the then Chief Minister suggested that he contest the Assembly election from Mokama himself.
According to Lalan Singh, several JD-U leaders, including Sanjay Jha, were aware of this.
Anant Singh subsequently entered the electoral contest from Mokama.
Lalan Singh said that during the campaign, Anant Singh faced allegations and what he described as a smear campaign.
“Every action has a reaction,” Lalan Singh said, while acknowledging that the party should have intervened when the campaign against Anant Singh was under way.
He said the state unit had “faltered” in dealing with the situation at the time.
Lalan Singh said Anant Singh also raised questions about a party meeting held during the election campaign, which both Anant Singh and Neeraj Kumar attended.
According to Lalan Singh, Anant Singh had asked that Neeraj Kumar clarify whether he had campaigned against him, made statements against him or worked with his political opponents to run a campaign against him.
Lalan Singh said Anant Singh felt that these questions had not been adequately answered at the meeting.
Anant Singh’s position, as conveyed by Lalan Singh, was that he could not seek votes for someone who had not sought votes for him.
Lalan Singh said Anant Singh viewed the episode as a breakdown of party discipline.
Anant Singh’s grievance, he said, was that if Nitish Kumar had asked him to contest the Mokama election, then any alleged attempt by another party leader to campaign against him should have been treated as a disciplinary matter.
Despite the differences, Lalan Singh said he had urged Anant Singh not to make any further public statements against Neeraj Kumar.
According to Lalan Singh, Anant Singh agreed to the request and assured him that he would not make further public remarks on the issue.
He also reiterated his commitment to the JD-U, saying he stood with the party as he had always done.
When asked about Anant Singh’s allegation that Neeraj Kumar had worked to defeat both him in the Assembly election and Lalan Singh in the Lok Sabha election, Lalan Singh declined to comment at length.
He said that when he contests an election, he focuses on his own work rather than on what others say or do against him.
At the same time, Lalan Singh acknowledged that Neeraj Kumar had been involved in the campaign against Anant Singh.
He reiterated Anant Singh’s position that he would not campaign for a candidate who had not campaigned for him.
Lalan Singh said his intervention was aimed at preventing the dispute from being aired publicly in a manner that could damage the party.
With Neeraj Kumar now formally in the race for the Patna Graduates’ constituency, the episode has exposed continuing differences within the JD-U, even as the party seeks to contain the dispute ahead of the Legislative Council election.