The passage of the Waqf (Amendment) Bill has triggered political turbulence within the Biju Janata Dal (BJD) in Odisha, forcing the regional political party to grapple with internal contradictions.

The Bill, passed in the Lok Sabha with 288 votes in favour and 232 against, and in the Rajya Sabha with 128 votes to 95, aims to reform the management of Waqf properties by enhancing transparency and accountability.

However, the BJD’s handling of the voting process—marked by a last-minute shift from opposition to allowing MPs to vote per their conscience—has triggered an internal rebellion, a public backlash and questions about the party’s ideological coherence and electoral prospects.

The passage of the Waqf (Amendment) Bill has triggered political turbulence within the Biju Janata Dal (BJD) in Odisha, forcing the regional political party to grapple with internal contradictions.

The Bill, passed in the Lok Sabha with 288 votes in favour and 232 against, and in the Rajya Sabha with 128 votes to 95, aims to reform the management of Waqf properties by enhancing transparency and accountability.

However, the BJD’s handling of the voting process—marked by a last-minute shift from opposition to allowing MPs to vote per their conscience—has triggered an internal rebellion, a public backlash and questions about the party’s ideological coherence and electoral prospects.

Initially, the BJD, under the leadership of former chief minister Naveen Patnaik, had opposed the Bill, aligning itself with minority communities and opposition parties who viewed it as a potential encroachment on Muslim autonomy. Patnaik, a five-time chief minister, has always played up his secular credentials and emphasised the party’s commitment to minorities. This stance has always resonated with Odisha’s Muslim population, who despite forming just about 2.17% of the population as per the 2011 Census, reinforced the BJD’s image as a secular alternative to the Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP).

Also Read: BJD faces turmoil, protests after lawmaker supports Waqf Bill in Rajya Sabha

However, just before the Rajya Sabha vote last week, BJD spokesperson and MP Sasmit Patra announced that the party would not issue a whip, allowing its seven Rajya Sabha MPs to vote based on their conscience. This abrupt U-turn, led to a fractured response: Patra voted in favour, Muzibulla Khan opposed, Debasish Samantray abstained, and the positions of four others remain unclear. The decision sparked immediate dissent, with senior leaders like Prasanna Acharya questioning who authorised the shift, given Patnaik’s explicit directive to oppose the Bill.

The aftermath of the voting has come as a huge headache for the ageing Patnaik, who at 78, is still unable to come terms with his role as Leader of Opposition. While Rajya Sabha MP Samantray took a veiled jab at VK Pandian, Patnaik’s close but controversial aide for the party’s U-turn on the Waqf Bill, seven former BJD MLAs wrote a letter to Patnaik, labelling the conscience vote as a “deviation” from the party’s secular ethos. They demanded a review of identifying those responsible, thus signalling a rare public challenge to Patnaik’s authority. Khan, the BJD’s lone Muslim MP in Rajya Sabha, led a delegation of Muslim representatives to Patnaik’s residence, and demanded action against Patra, fuelling perceptions of disarray within a party once known for its discipline.

It was followed by senior BJD leaders Shashibhushan Behera, Pravat Tripathy, Chandra Sarathi Behera, Nrusingha Sahu, Ashok Panda, Prafulla Samal, and Bhupinder Singh holding a meeting at a hotel in Bhubaneswar where they reportedly held Pandian responsible for the party’s flip-flop on the Waqf bill

As the rumblings grew, Patnaik on Wednesday issued a staunch defence of Pandian dismissing allegations against the former IAS officer as “baseless and exaggerated,” asserting that the retired bureaucrat-turned-politician continues to be a figure of “integrity and dedication.”

“I want to clarify again that he doesn’t belong to the party. I also want to state quite clearly that Kartikeyan Pandian, in the past, has done a lot of good work not only for the state but for the party. So, he shouldn’t be criticised or blamed for anything. Also, he left the party more than 10 months ago and is not involved in any of the party’s work,” Patnaik said.

Not willing to hold fire, Pravas Tripathy contradicted Patnaik’s assertion that he was no longer a BJD member, claiming his 2014 suspension over a chit fund case was revoked in 2017 and that he actively campaigned for the party in 2019 and 2024. Prafulla Mallick too joined the outburst against Patnaik and Pandian saying the BJD leaders have the freedom to choose their place of meeting and not heed the advice of Patnaik in these matters.

Many see the turn of events in BJD over last week as the biggest crisis facing the party after its defeat in June 2024 assembly polls. But what will be its short term and long-term impact over the party’s future?

Also Read: Buzz of early assembly polls in Odisha as BJD leader drops broad hints

First, the erosion of Patnaik’s Infallibility. For a long time, Patnaik has been the BJD’s unifying figure, with dissent swiftly quashed, as seen in the case of rebellions like Pyarimohan Mohapatra’s failed coup in 2012. The defiance showed by many senior leaders of the party such as Prasanna Acharya, Prafulla Mallick and others challenge this image. The rebellion taps into pre-existing tensions, particularly over the influence of Pandian, a Tamil Nadu-born bureaucrat-turned-politician, who has been blamed for the BJD’s 2024 electoral losses.

At 78, Patnaik faces inevitable questions about succession, exacerbated by the 2024 losses. Tripathy’s critique of Patnaik’s leadership style has brought out the underlying tensions among the senior partymen about its future. Without a clear heir, and with Pandian’s influence a lightning rod for criticism, the BJD risks internal power struggles. A successful rebellion could force Patnaik to dilute Pandian’s influence and empower younger leaders.

Second, the party’s secular image, a cornerstone of its appeal, has been dented. Odisha’s small Muslim population may not be electorally decisive, but the BJD has historically leveraged its inclusive rhetoric to distinguish itself from the BJP’s Hindu nationalist agenda. The Waqf Bill fiasco, coupled with accusations from Congress leaders like Jairam Ramesh that the BJD “capitulated” to BJP pressure, could alienate progressive voters and embolden critics who label the BJD as the BJP’s “B-team.”

But Patnaik remains the BJD’s undisputed leader, with a cult-like following in Odisha. Rebels challenging him directly risk expulsion or marginalisation as they would be left without the electoral symbol of ‘conch’ as well as any leader who is acceptable to people across the state. The rebellion lacks a clear leader or agenda beyond criticizing the Waqf decision.

The rebellion in the BJD following the Waqf Bill controversy is unlikely to succeed in fundamentally altering the party’s leadership or direction. A successful rebellion would require rebels to unify around a clear demand—such as Pandian’s ouster or a formal succession plan—and sustain public pressure. Patnaik’s entrenched authority and the lack of a cohesive rebel leadership outweigh the dissident’s advantage.