BY RAJDEEP SARDESAI
BEFORE a major heavyweight boxing title bout, there are sideshows on the day’s entertainment. Call it a teaser or a trailer, the aim is to whet the appetite of the fan for the real thing that is to follow.

In political terms, we’ve just had our first taste of the electoral battle that is to follow in 2014: Nitish Kumar versus Narendra Modi may not be the final countdown, but the appetiser before the main course.
On the face of it, Mr Nitish Kumar and Mr Narendra Modi have been positioned as rivals for the big prize: who will be the opposition’s prime ministerial candidate in the next general election? The truth is, both of them are setting themselves up for a contest in which neither of them may end up qualifying for the ultimate shoot-out. It may be attractive for the media to pit a Nitish versus a Modi: the legatee of Mandal politics versus the Hindutva hero is a clash that offers striking ideological contrasts. The reality is, both Mr Kumar  and Mr Modi are rather similar individuals and, in many ways, represent an identical trend in Indian politics: the regional satrap as an independent power centre.
In Bihar, Mr Kumar is the Janata Dal-United. In the seven years in power, he has systematically eliminated all potential rivals within his party. A Sharad Yadav may be the National Democratic Alliance convenor, but has been reduced to a drawing room demagogue while Mr Kumar  strengthens his mass leader credentials. No other leader really matters in a party that is now subsumed in the Nitish persona.
Modi’s Sway over Gujarat
Narendra Modi in Gujarat is no different. For all the rantings of a Keshubhai Patel and other BJP dissidents, the fact is there is only one leader in the Gujarat BJP today. Ten years ago, a Praveen Togadia might have competed with Mr Modi for the title of ‘Hindu Hriday Samrat’; today the VHP leader has been pushed to the margins. No central leader of  the BJP has any control over Gujarat; Modi is truly an autonomous monarch of  the state.
Their working styles, both personal and political, are not dissimilar. Mr Modi left his home as a teenager to become a full-time pracharak. Not for him the trappings of family life or a desire to pass the baton to a new generation. He is a loner, a hermit-politician solely driven by the single-minded pursuit of power.  Mr Kumar  too, has determinedly kept his family away from public life, choosing again to be a political sanyasi with no real attachment to home.
Both are OBCs who have dismantled traditional power hierarchies in their state. Rather than rely upon fellow-politicians, both Mr Kumar  and Mr Modi prefer to work through the faceless bureaucracy. Their trust in bureaucrats and not partymen reflects a mindset which is uncomfortable dealing with political peers who might challenge their authority. It also enables them to reduce their dependence on the party apparatus and deal almost directly with the masses.
There are other similarities. Both Mr Kumar  and Mr Modi have a reputation for financial integrity, administrative rigour and yes, astute brand management. There is little space for dissent in Mr Modi’s Gujarat or Mr Kumar’s Bihar; the media has been harnessed to build personality cults around the respective individuals. Any questioning of the carefully cultivated image is sought to be crushed with the ruthlessness of  an autocratic leader.  
So is the Nitish-Modi clash a confrontation between two strong regional potentates with similar personalities, or is it a clash of competing worldviews, one emerging from the caste cauldron of  the Indo-Gangetic plain, the other from the Hindutva laboratory of  western India? Yes, the political legacy of  Mr Kumar  with its strong roots in the JP movement and of  Mr Modi with his RSS training have fundamental differences, but that alone cannot explain their fierce divide.
After all, Mr Kumar’s deputy, Mr Sushil Modi -- the óther’ Modi -- is a long-serving RSS member, and yet seems to have developed a close rapport with the Bihar Chief Minister. If ideology alone was such a sticking point then how did Mr Kumar succeed in building such a proximate relationship with the BJP leadership in the state?
Ideology in Coalition Era
Ideology is often a veil in a political tug of war, particularly in a coalition era where convenience matters more than conviction. In Bihar, the imperatives of  coalition politics have forced Mr Kumar to perform a delicate balancing act: co-habitation with the BJP but not at the cost of  alienating the large and growing 18 per cent Muslim population in the state. Conscious of  the thin line he treads, Mr Kumar  cannot share a stage with the Gujarat Chief Minister because it would be seen as the ultimate ‘compromise’ with majoritarian politics. 
On the other hand, as a potent symbol of  Hindu assertiveness, Mr Modi cannot turn his back on those who measure their identity in religious terms. He cannot, for example, appear contrite for Gujarat 2002 because it would be seen as a sign of weakness by his core constituency.
In a strange way, Mr Modi and Mr Kumar  need each other to consolidate their respective vote bases. Mr Kumar needs to pitch the battle as one between a ‘secular’ Bihar and a ‘communal’ Gujarat to define his own distinctive appeal. Mr Modi needs to create a conflict between a ‘progressive’ Gujarat and a ‘backward’ ‘çasteist’ Bihar to strengthen his own credentials as a ‘modern’ leader.
But by pitching the stakes so high, and turning a power struggle into an ideological war, both Mr Kumar and Mr Modi run the risk of  knocking each other  out even before the main contest for prime ministership has  begun. Strangely, not too many in the  opposition seem willing to play referee and call a halt to the punching. Maybe, those watching from the sidelines are hoping that a Modi versus Nitish bruising battle will enable a third face to slip through as a compromise candidate for the top job. The fun has only just begun!