Political scientists across the globe, especially those studying democracy at the grassroots, have found Bihar and the way it elects its leaders to be an unfathomable area of research. Though she never worked on Bihar, political scientist and Lancaster and Keele University professor Margaret Canovan once referred to democracy having two faces. She mentioned that one face represented moral transformation and the politics of empowering ordinary people while the other was the face of practical democracy, where compromises are made for good governance.
In Bihar, Lalu Prasad Yadav’s RJD and Nitish Kumar’s JD(U) embody these two faces. This Assembly election hinges on one crucial question: will Tejashwi Yadav of RJD show the practical face of democracy or will Nitish Kumar be able to represent the politics of moral transformation?
This line can be debated as Lalu Prasad Yadav is often credited with politically empowering the masses. However, under his son Tejashwi Yadav, RJD must show its practical side, because the sharp-edged politics of social justice had lost its appeal by 2005. People were weary of the 15 years of chaotic rule under Lalu-Rabri Yadav.
Anthropologist Jeffery Witsoe, who has closely studied caste and caste-based politics, writes that during the 1990s, the political assertion of the so-called lower castes, especially the other backward classes and Dalits, in Bihar triggered a deep conflict between the newly empowered political leadership and state institutions dominated by upper castes like the bureaucracy, police, and judiciary. As a result, caste-based empowerment politics disrupted the normal functioning of public institutions in Bihar.
Nitish Kumar projected himself as a pragmatic alternative. His politics struck a balance between development and social justice, something Lalu had failed to do. Nitish Kumar’s political model made Bihar move from politics of social justice to that of social adjustment.
According to a 2015 Lokniti-CSDS survey, about 42% of respondents believed that Lalu’s politics gave voice and dignity to Dalits and backward castes. However, nearly half of them also believed that his politics was responsible for Bihar’s backwardness and lawlessness.
If the RJD fails to demonstrate its practical side, it will struggle in the elections. Its social coalition remains imbalanced, still dominated by Yadavs and Muslims, with limited participation from other castes. Generally, allies help bridge such gaps, but the RJD in not expecting much from the Congress, at least that’s what the bitter haggling over the seats showed.
In the 2020 election fought in alliance with Congress and CPI(ML), the Grand Alliance came out weaker from its performance in 2015, when Nitish Kumar’s JD(U) was also part of the conglomerate. With Chirag Paswan’s LJP emerging stronger by getting a respectable seat share in the rival alliance in this elections, the RJD cannot afford to outsource Dalit vote mobilization.
However, Nitish’s pragmatic politics is now running out of fuel and is largely seen as a symbol of convenience and stagnation. From 2005 to 2015, he enjoyed immense popularity. In the 2015 CSDS survey, 40% of people considered him their first choice for Chief Minister. But the situation has changed. According to the latest C-Voter survey, Tejashwi Yadav now leads with 35% preference, followed by Prashant Kishor with 23%, and Nitish with only 16%.
The BJP, on its own, has made inroads into the JD(U)’s core voter base of EBCs (Extremely Backward Castes) and Kurmi–Kushwahas. Evidence of this includes the Modi government’s approval of a caste census, the Bharat Ratna awarded to Karpoori Thakur, and the appointment of a Kushwaha, Samrat Chaudhary as Deputy Chief Minister. Between 2005 and 2020, the BJP’s vote share in seats it contested rose from 35% to 42%, while the JD(U)’s declined from 37% to 32%.
Another factor is the rise of the new generation. According to the Election Commission, 47% of Bihar’s voters are between 18 and 39 years old. For this group, the memories of the Lalu–Rabri era are faint. However, they do remember Tejashwi Yadav’s two stints as Deputy Chief Minister, when he focused on employment and public issues.
Additionally, Prashant Kishor (PK) poses a fresh challenge in this electoral landscape, who offers technocratic idealism against the cynicism of old politics. His role too needs a detailed analysis but let’s limit this discussion to battle between the two protagonists.
Both the JD(U) and RJD face the same challenge of moving Bihar’s politics beyond the legacy of “Lalu’s Bihar.” For the RJD, this means promising a Bihar that does not resemble the Lalu era. To Tejashwi’s credit, he has tried to focus on issues that concern ordinary people.
Nitish Kumar’s party is fighting to not fall victim to the fading memory of Lalu’s rule. Nitish’s popularity was originally built on resentment against Lalu’s governance, and as that resentment fades, so does Nitish’s political influence.
However, in the fresh push to their campaign both Kumar and the BJP leadership including Prime Minister Narendra Modi and Home Minister Amit Shah are working overtime to recall the ‘jungle raj’, how much would it work, only ballots would tell!
Ultimately, Bihar’s election is not merely a contest between parties or leaders. It is a referendum on which face of democracy the state chooses to embrace, the moral or the practical, transformation or compromise.
(The writer is an author, academic and president of the Centre for Reforms, Development & Justice)
