As the 240-seater prime minister attempts to moderate his image of hardline hero, he has made room for others to elbow in and that is what is happening.
And that it what will continue to happen from inside the BJP, notes Aakar Patel.
Weakened leaders of ideological parties are always vulnerable to those willing to be more extreme than them.
This is something to consider when understanding what is going on in Uttar Pradesh and it will serve as an example of what we can expect in the future in a minority government.
The BJP's allies in Delhi opposed the idea that UP's shopkeepers be compelled to advertise their names (and by extension their religion).
From the outside there seems no apparent reason for asking shopkeepers to do this except to generate controversy.
No demand for this was made and this has not been an issue in the past.
The manner in which it has been done, at first without an official order and pretending that it is voluntary further strengthens the impression that the action was taken only to stir the pot.
Consider then that the issue has become larger than the news of just a day before it happened, which was that UP's chief minister was in trouble for delivering defeat in the Lok Sabha polls.
All the news channels were full of speculation about what would happen next.
That is no longer the story, and the chief minister has managed with one action to change the narrative.
Observe that few Union ministers are defending this or promoting the idea.
This is not, of course, because they disagree with it but because it doesn't serve the government in Delhi.
Why give your allies the opportunity to show rifts and dissent?
It doesn't help with the illusion that nothing has changed after 4 June.
But everyone understands that and it why this is being done.
The action in UP cannot be openly opposed either, and this is the problem of ideological parties.
The chief minister is doing only what the BJP has been doing against minorities through its entire history because that is its ideology.
The same thing done six months ago or last year would have been a different matter but this is a new time.
We have seen glimpses of this same situation before.
The challenger who is more extreme than the weakened leader was first seen over 20 years ago.
In April 2002, only a month after the violence after Godhra had led to the death of about 1,000 people in Gujarat, the BJP national executive met in Goa.
There was talk in the media that prime minister Vajpayee was going to get chief minister Modi to step down.
A magazine reported under the headline 'How Vajpayee ended up as the Hindutva choir boy', 29 April 2002 reported what happened next: 'No sooner had party President Jana Krishnamurthy completed his "taken as read" presidential address than Modi got up and said in his sombre, chaste Hindi: "Adhyakshji, I want to speak on Gujarat ... From the party's point of view, this is a grave issue. There is a need for a free and frank discussion. To enable this I wish to place my resignation before this body. It is time we decided what direction the party and the country should take from this point onwards".
'He didn't need to say more. With one stroke, the Gujarat chief minister had seized the initiative. He galvanised his supporters who now stood up to be counted.
'Food Minister Shanta Kumar, who had spoken out against Modi and the VHP's extremes, found himself being rebuked and facing a disciplinary committee. He was forced to apologise.
'Even if the prime minister may have thought Modi's resignation prudent for the sake of both his personal image and the unity of the coalition, there was absolutely no way he could go against the ferocity of the pro-Modi sentiment. He tried shelving the issue for a day but even this was resisted.'
Vajpayee's inability to wrestle Modi down was predictable. Having been raised on ideology, the cadre was not interested in moderation.
As noted earlier, leaders in extremist parties are always vulnerable to charismatic persons further to their right, who are willing and eager to push harder and risk more and are better able to express the cadre's zealotry.
Modi was able to build a nationwide and really a global notoriety and fame because of the BJP's refusal or inability to change its leadership in Gujarat.
The apologetic Hindutva of the decade following the fall of the Babri Masjid was about to end.
The BJP cadre and the Sangh had a real hero who spoke and felt and did as they really wanted their leaders to.
That gloss has now gone because of the events of 4 June. If the prime minister wishes to see smooth functioning inside government he will have to avoid issues that needlessly agitate allies, such as this one.
Remember that the allies will always be looking out for issues on which they can press to extract what they really want.
As the 240-seater prime minister attempts to moderate his image of hardline hero, he has made room for others to elbow in and that is what is happening.
And that it what will continue to happen from inside the BJP.
Those in the party who feel threatened, or are about the lose their position, or feel that they need to assert themselves over others in some way, will consider using this formula.
Many will actually deploy it, as we are seeing. This is the problem with ideological parties.
It is going to be a different third term for him and an interesting one for observers.
Aakar Patel is a columnist and writer and you can read Aakar's earlier columns here.
