The ongoing spat between Bihar Chief Minister Nitish Kumar and his alliance partner Bharatiya Janata Party has generated reactions ranging from a sense of political inevitability to a palpable anxiety that attends a marriage on the rocks. What is clear is that the Bihar chief minister gave up some of his initial advantage, in terms of spontaneous public support at least outside his state, when he returned the Rs 5 crore offered by the Gujarat government for the flood victims in his state.

Until then, it was evident that the BJP had needlessly provoked Nitish Kumar by reminding him of his association with Gujarat Chief Minister Narendra Modi. By returning the Rs 5 crore offered by Modi's government for flood relief in Bihar, though, it suddenly seemed as if Nitish Kumar snubbed the people of Gujarat along with its chief minister. After all, the money belonged to the people of Gujarat and the Gujarat government had offered it to the people of Bihar, as state governments routinely do in times of natural calamities. Nitish Kumar, the argument goes, had no business to take it personally.

The Nitish Kumar camp, however, argued that Narendra Modi had no business to refer to the aid amount in a public speech. Bihar government had donated double this amount to the earthquake-hit Gujarat earlier but had never tried to make political capital out of it. In this case, therefore, Nitish Kumar had little choice but to return the amount to Gujarat.

Even as the row seems to be getting uglier, the question arises whether Nitish Kumar should have kept politics out of the aid money given by Gujarat government. Should Nitish Kumar have returned Rs 5 crore to Gujarat just because Narendra Modi happens to be its chief minister?