Identity politics has flourished for a long time — undeservingly — in India’s complex and diverse polity. It has given shape to and caused the demise of several political movements over the years. Bihar remains a formidable ground for identity politics — the State, deeply flawed with feudal and reactionary atrocities, has witnessed a long stretch of lawlessness, especially during the rule of Lalu Prasad.
Mr. Prasad as Chief Minister made a mockery of the political and bureaucratic culture in the State and suppressed the aspirations of the masses. Surprisingly, despite his defeat and the fact that he is in danger of fading into oblivion, he is not a changed person. Nitish Kumar, from the same Lohia school of politics as Mr. Prasad, at least in his formative years in politics, has shown greater maturity and commitment to the ideals with which he entered the field. He was always articulate, and like a true politician he forged ties with the Bharatiya Janata Party to end the “jungle raj” of his predecessors. He understood how the Congress and the Left Front kept the Rashtriya Janata Dal government afloat and why the BJP alone opposed that nexus. He found Sushil Kumar Modi in the State and L.K. Advani at the Centre to be steadfast in their opposition to RJD rule.
There was no ambivalence on Mr. Kumar’s part regarding BJP’s stand on several issues, often flagged to create furore. He rightly judged the time and goal to be in the helm of affairs by not only dethroning, but breaking the RJD-Congress nexus in Bihar. Mr. Kumar was voted into power in 2005 with the support of the BJP in response to the electorate’s aspiration for development. His performance as Chief Minister saw him in power in 2010 again.
Reform and a blunder
Mr. Kumar inherited a Secretariat that lacked a work culture and that contained only a few Remington typewriters and betel-stained walls. He began his term by working toward changing the criminal culture of politics in the State. Several powerful politicians and criminals were sent to prison. He succeeded in engendering a work culture with less political, sycophantic and criminal interference while focussing on developing infrastructure. However, by 2009, Mr. Kumar departed from his development agenda and moved toward redrawing the caste equation in his favour. He presented himself as the father figure of Mahadalits. This was nothing short of a blunder from a leader who was immensely respected for his work that went beyond caste boundaries.
A wrong move
Mr. Kumar looked on parliamentary elections as an opportunity to lead a weak third front. He dramatically opposed Narendra Modi and severed the 17-year alliance with the BJP. In spite of this, there was much left for him.
Sadly, he took his defeat in the election on a personal level and brought Jitan Ram Manjhi to lead the State as Chief Minister. Very few knew Mr. Manjhi in Bihar before he shot to fame overnight. This slighted the people of Bihar, who were influenced by the Modi wave during the Lok Sabha elections, but were keen that Mr. Kumar continue as Chief Minister.
Old associates in the Samata Party who helped Mr. Kumar dislodge Mr. Prasad’s Janata Dal were sidelined and forgotten. This will prove fatal for the JD(U). Sharad Yadav who was never an acceptable figure in Bihar politics has also lost his stature.
In the recently held by-elections, the JD(U) succeeded in sending Pavan Kumar Varma and Gulam Rasool Balyawi to the Upper House with the support of the RJD and the Congress. Questions were asked about why leaders with no political base were sent to the Rajya Sabha, especially after the defeat of similar unknown political entities in the Lok Sabha election. With such strategies and by aligning with the RJD, Mr. Kumar’s survival in the State is seriously being contested by the BJP, led by his former Deputy Chief Minister and Finance Minister Sushil Kumar Modi.
Mr. Kumar, whose political credence is still strong in the State, seems to be working against his own interests by promoting lesser-known leaders and by resigning as Chief Minister. He could have patiently watched the functioning of the Modi government until the State elections, just a year away.
Mr. Kumar has changed the manner in which Bihar functions, but much is left to be done. Problems such as poor drought relief mechanisms (such as in north Bihar), lack of industrial investment and lack of jobs still persist. Further, contractual recruitments in schools and various government departments have deepened the gloom.
Nitish Kumar created an environment where aspirations could be fulfilled. He performed extremely well in every sphere, but lost touch with the people. His sudden interest in Delhi’s politics has negatively affected the growth of Bihar.
(Rajeev Ranjan Chaturvedy is a research associate at the Institute of South Asian Studies, Singapore, and Atul K. Thakur is a New Delhi-based journalist. The views expressed are personal.)
