New Delhi, March 10
It was the proverbial lull after the storm, as the Yadav duo — RJD’s Lalu Prasad and Samajwadi Party’s Mulayam Singh — backed out today from their clarion call to move a no-confidence motion against the UPA in Lok Sabha.
If that was less, the two did not even meet the President to formally hand over their letter of withdrawal of outside support to the UPA. When asked what kept their steam from going, Lalu said, “We did not get an appointment with the President today. But our battle is on against the unconstitutional manner in which this Bill was passed in Rajya Sabha.”
Claims apart, Lalu’s tone lacked the aggression that was, until two days ago, defining his opposition to the Bill and the UPA. His retreat from the political battlefield may have had something to do with the soft stand the government adopted in the fodder scam case listed in the Supreme Court today.
Even on the no-confidence vote, which the RJD yesterday said it was considering along with like-minded parties, including the SP, Lalu gave a meek response: “Kahan se kerenge no confidence? Chaar to saansad hain (How will we move a no-confidence vote. We are just four members in LS).”
His comrade in arms Mulayam Singh Yadav appeared equally tempered down a day after he threatened to wage a 1977-like war against the Congress. Having addressed the SP parliamentary party meeting in Lok Sabha today, he said there was no question of a no-confidence motion, which requires 50 MPs for the motion to be moved. “But our stand of withdrawal of outside support to UPA remains,” said SP chief, lost as Lalu. Asked if he was meeting the President, Mulayam said: “There is no question of meeting the President now.” He didn’t elaborate on what he meant.
Inside Lok Sabha, however, the two
Yadavs were in full steam, forcing three adjournments and not allowing any business while
opposing the Bill and the suspension of their members in the Upper House. JD-U joined them in protest in LS, even as the party leadership ruled out reports of a split in ranks due to the varying opinions on the Bill.
