No factionalism in JDU, party united: Lalan Singh on Patna meet absence
Synopsis
Union Minister Lalan Singh has moved quickly to douse speculation of a JD(U) split, saying his absence from a Patna legislative party meeting was purely logistical — he was in Gujarat. But with half a dozen MLAs publicly questioning why a senior leader was missing, and the Anant Singh-Neeraj Kumar dispute still simmering, the party’s ‘united’ messaging faces an early credibility test.
Key Takeaways
Lalan Singh denied factionalism within JD(U) , saying the party is united and functions on internal democracy.
He was absent from the JD(U) legislative party meeting in Patna on Friday due to a prior event in Gujarat .
JD(U) National Working President Sanjay Jha described the gathering as a routine orientation programme for newly elected MLAs.
Around half a dozen MLAs reportedly questioned Singh’s absence during the meeting, sparking factionalism speculation.
Mokama MLA Anant Singh also said he was unaware of the meeting on Friday.
Lalan Singh declined to comment on the dispute between Anant Singh and JD(U) MLC Neeraj Kumar over the Patna Graduate constituency election.
Union Minister and senior Janata Dal (United) leader Rajiv Ranjan Singh, popularly known as Lalan Singh, on Saturday flatly denied speculation about internal divisions within the party, clarifying that his absence from a JD(U) legislative party meeting at the party headquarters in Patna on Friday was due to a prior engagement in Gujarat — and nothing more.
What Lalan Singh Said
Speaking to reporters after arriving at Patna airport, Singh stated he was in Gujarat for a scheduled event and had no prior knowledge of the Patna meeting. “I was attending an event in Gujarat and was unaware of the meeting. Health Minister Nishant Kumar had called me, and I also spoke with Sanjay Jha,” he said.
Singh confirmed that JD(U) National Working President Sanjay Jha later told him the gathering was a routine orientation programme for newly elected Members of the Legislative Assembly (MLAs). Several MLAs had also contacted Singh directly, he said, to whom he explained he was unavailable due to the Gujarat engagement.
Singh Dismisses Factionalism Allegations
Singh was emphatic in rejecting any suggestion of a split or differences within the party. “You people keep blowing things out of proportion unnecessarily. There are no differences within the party; the party is united,” he told reporters.
He invoked the founding principles of the organisation, recalling that since Chief Minister Nitish Kumar established the Samata Party in 1994, the group has functioned on values of internal democracy, consensus, and consultation. “That tradition continues today, and everyone is in agreement,” Singh added.
Singh said Nishant Kumar called him around 9 pm on Friday, after which he also spoke with Jha. “Sanjay Jha explained that it was a routine orientation programme for the newly elected MLAs. The party functions entirely through mutual consultation. I am in regular contact with Sanjay Jha, so there is no dispute within the party,” he said.
What Triggered the Speculation
During Friday’s meeting, around half a dozen MLAs reportedly raised questions about Singh’s absence and suggested that a senior party leader should have been invited. The development triggered speculation in political circles about possible undercurrents of discord within the JD(U).
Notably, Mokama MLA Anant Singh had also said on Friday that he was unaware of the meeting, adding another layer to the perception of disorganisation surrounding the event.
The Anant Singh-Neeraj Kumar Dispute
Separately, Lalan Singh declined to comment in detail when asked about Anant Singh’s open opposition to JD(U) MLC Neeraj Kumar in the Patna Graduate constituency Legislative Council election, and the possibility of Kumar losing his security deposit. Singh said the matter concerned the two individuals directly and suggested they be asked independently.
The remarks come against the backdrop of an ongoing political dispute between Anant Singh and Neeraj Kumar, which has already surfaced publicly. With Singh’s fresh denial of any broader factionalism, the JD(U) appears keen to contain the political optics ahead of what could be a testing period for the Bihar ruling coalition.
Point of View
Anant Singh, was equally in the dark — points to a communication gap that goes beyond a scheduling conflict. The Anant Singh-Neeraj Kumar confrontation over the Patna Graduate constituency seat is an open intra-party wound, which Singh conspicuously refused to address. JD(U)’s invocation of Nitish Kumar’s 1994 Samata Party legacy as proof of unity is a familiar rhetorical move; the real test will be whether the Bihar coalition can hold together as the state edges toward the next electoral cycle.
NationPress
19 Sept 2026
Frequently Asked Questions
Why was Lalan Singh absent from the JD(U) legislative party meeting in Patna?
Lalan Singh says he was attending a pre-scheduled event in Gujarat and was not informed about the Patna meeting. He clarified this after arriving at Patna airport on Saturday, adding that JD(U) National Working President Sanjay Jha later told him it was a routine orientation programme for newly elected MLAs.
Is there factionalism within JD(U)?
Lalan Singh has categorically denied any factionalism, asserting the party is united and functions on principles of internal democracy established since Nitish Kumar founded the Samata Party in 1994. However, speculation arose after several MLAs publicly questioned his absence during Friday’s meeting.
What was the JD(U) meeting in Patna about?
According to JD(U) National Working President Sanjay Jha, it was a routine orientation programme for newly elected MLAs held at the party headquarters in Patna on Friday. Lalan Singh confirmed Jha communicated this to him after the event.
What is the dispute between Anant Singh and Neeraj Kumar?
Mokama MLA Anant Singh has openly declared his opposition to JD(U) MLC Neeraj Kumar in the Patna Graduate constituency Legislative Council election, raising the possibility that Kumar could lose his security deposit. Lalan Singh declined to comment on the matter, saying it concerned the two individuals directly.
