Election results in Bihar have left everyone spell-bound. In the times of anti-incumbency, what is it that drew people to JD(U), rather Nitish Kumar.
The Bihar assembly results have cast a spell on everyone. Though a clean sweep was predicted, the scale of it –the JD(U)-BJP alliance bagging 206 out of 243 seats – made even the best of psephologists look incompetent. The JD(U) won115 seats while BJP with 91 seats raked in its biggest-ever victory in Bihar Assembly elections. The largest opposition, RJD-LJP alliance, bagged a mere 25 seats, while Congress had to content itself with four seats despite all the charm and charisma of Sonia Gandhi, Rahul Gadhi and Manmohan Singh. The eight seats that were left went to the Left, JMM, others and independents.
What are the reasons for this landslide victory against Laloo Prasad Yadav who remained in power from 1990 to 2005 undeterred by any criticism? Laloo, with his typical Hindi accent, was a popular mass-leader. He was recognized as a brilliant administrator when business schools of Harvard, Wharton and IIMs learnt from him the turnaround of Indian railways. Yet, today Laloo stands a faded figure in his own state. His wife and former Bihar CM Rabri Devi lost both the constituencies she contested from.
The victory of the JD(U)-BJP combine under the leadership of Chief Minister Nitish Kumar has come on the heels of the most peaceful elections conducted in the state in rebut his time, even the Naxal –affected areas saw few incidents of violence of a very low intensity. In addition to this, the voter turnout was high –52.43 per cent voters exercising their franchise in all six phases compared to 45.85 per cent in 2005 Assembly elections and 44.6 per cent in last year’s Lok Sabha elections. Greater participation by women pushed up the voter turnout. Men accounted for 50.77 per cent of the voters, while it was 54.85 per cent for women. This could not have been possible without the confidence instilled by good governance in addition to security provided by the Election Commission.
Undoubtedly these elections indicate triumph of developmental issues over caste considerations. In a time when parties win on account of anti-incumbency—the same factor that brought Nitish Kumar to CM’s chair in 2005—this is a positive vote in recognition to infrastructural and social development started by the incumbent CM. There have been creditable improvements in roads and bridges. The law and order situation has improved greatly. Extortion, loot and kidnapping with open political patronage are believed to have reduced. Nitish Kumar has also brought in popular education reforms. The two popular schemes are the provision of cycles for girls and scholarships for Muslims. Veteran journalist Shekhar Gupta notes his experience from a pre-election visit to Bihar in his column in The Indian Express that what catches one’s attention “is the young girls, … often in school uniforms, riding bicycles on the state’s new roads.”
The CM became popular among Muslims by reserving seats for lower backward castes in the rural and urban local body elections in 2006. As many as 27 castes of Muslims (Ajlaf and Arzal) fall in the category of lower backward castes. He was also adamant about not letting Gujarat Chief Minister Narendra Modi enter the state for election campaigns citing his awful track record in handling minority issues. The Mahadalits have also benefited by reservations.
Promoting his image as the mascot of development of Bihar, Nitish Kumar fought the 2010 elects on the basis of development as agenda. He has promised that corruption is his next target. His manifesto included improving the power scenario. Kumar’s blog mentioned that “it would be our priority to streamline the PDS system. We have done some experiments with food coupon and I want to give it a concrete shape at the earliest.”
Laloo Prasad Yadav made caste the axis of politics since the early-1990s. He should be credited for bringing the issues of the lower castes to the fore and giving leadership to them and the Muslims in the state. It is said that RJD won election after election riding on the achievements of promoting secularism and challenging upper-caste hegemony. Such agenda kept Laloo in power for some time, but not for long. Material development is a pre-requisite for a society to continue its process of social change.
Nitish Kumar inherited this consciousness of the people. Thus, despite being an ally of BJP, JD(U) provided relief to Muslims, especially those who belonged to the lower part of social ladder. BJP also acted pragmatically. Though BJP’s star campaigner Narendra Modi was not allowed to enter the state, the alliance continued. BJP has registered a better success rate than JD(U) but only because of the wave in favour of Nitish and development.
Editor-in-chief of the Outlook magazine Vinod Mehta said in a TV talk-show that if this is the result of such minimal development, what would have happened if there was a substantial development in the state? There is a lesson to be learnt here for the political parties and leaders of hues and colours.
