During the same briefing, Mahajan touched on another point briefly but in a far more assertive manner. ``Prime Minister Atal Behari Vajpayee shares his view with Home Minister L. K. Advani on every thing -- 100 per cent.''

Mahajan's assertion has, however, raised more questions than it has answered.It's true that the Vajpayee-Advani relationship goes back to the '50s. In 1995, it was Advani who announced Vajpayee's name as prime minister. But history shows that the prime minister, No 1, hasn't always been the best of friends with his No 2.

The same is now the talk inpolitical as well as government circles. For, Advani carries the same weight, if not more than that of Vajpayee, in the government, not only in the Home Ministry.

Nehru's differences with Sardar Vallabhbhai Patel were well known. Patel's death even before the first general elections, in 1952, provided enough security to Nehru's leadership till his death in 1964. Lal Bahadur Shastri's 18 months were too insignificant. Morarji Desai was obstinately principled and resigned following his differences with Indira Gandhi.

And once Desai became prime minister, his differences with Charan Singh, the No 2 in the Janata Government, led to his dismissal in 1978. Rajiv Gandhi expelled Pranab Mukherjee No 2 during Mrs Gandhi's second term between 1980 and '84 from the Congress barely 16 months after he took over. A year later, V. P. Singh who was de facto No 2, quit following differences with Rajiv. V. P. Singh sacked his deputy prime minister Devi Lal barely six months after he became prime minister. Arjun Singh, aNo 2 under P. V. Narasimha Rao, backed his boss after the demolition of the Babri Masjid in 1992. But a full two years later, he made it an issueand resigned as differences grew.

In all these cases, the No 1 has always been deeply suspicious of an ambitious No 2.

So far Advani has been successful in suppressing his ambition. But even today he is perceived to be the ``leader'' in the government and in the BJP. The allies may be divided on this but not the BJP or the RSS which wields immense clout in deciding who the boss actually is.

The Trinamul Congress has suspended its support to the government now, which means a review of the alliance. Mamata Banerjee didn't tie up with the BJP because she wanted a shield against corruption cases. Her decision to extend support to the present government was a well-considered and a political one in the context of problems in the state Congress and her hostility towards the Left Front. What is interesting is the fact that Mamata's initial proposal to extend supportto the BJP-led government was substituted later by the government led by Vajpayee.

There was no explanation for this but this could only mean that the BJP ally apprehended way back in March that Vajpayee may not be tolerated for long by the party and Advani might step in. And given her ``secular'' background, Mamata kept her options open. She could review the coalition arrangement if Vajpayee is replaced by someone who doesn't have his cross-party acceptability.

Mahajan's denial has not erased such an apprehension. Already, Advani is playing a more assertive role and Vajpayee is accepting each move post fact. Vajpayee, after the Sangh Parivar vetoed the move to make Jaswant Singh as finance minister, announced that he himself would retain the portfolio. But soon after, Advani made a public announcement that he did not want Vajpayee to retain the finance portfolio. Advani prevailed.

In fact, Advani, with his hardline image, for more than two decades, has been the most effective voice in the Jana Sanghand the BJP. He may not be suited for a coalition leadership but some of his admirers in the party accuse him of having failed to come out of Vajpayee's shadow.

Vajpayee has crossed swords with Advani successfully only on few and purely personal issues. He has rehabilitated Jaswant Singh and Pramod Mahajan with Cabinet ranks. He has also succeeded in depriving Arun Jaitely, a potential future leader, of any major post. As for Advani, he has prevailed upon Vajpaee on policy matters.

Vajpayee began his political career as an assistant to Shyama Prasad Mukherjee, founder-president of Jana Sangh, and Advani under Deen Dayal Upadhyay, the more celebrated ideologue. Advani has the additional advantage of being an activist, something that Vajpayee lacks. This brings him closer to party workers and the Sangh. Vajpayee, like Mukherjee, is perceived by the Sangh as a ``great leader and useful for the cause'' but always on trial. He is the one who may have to make compromises.

Today, when both are in thegovernment, the growth of Advani's clout has been at Vajpayee's expense. Unlike in the past, it's the No 2 who has the backing of the party.