The Unfinished Revolution: Bihar After 10 Years of Nitish Kumar’s Rule
Bihar, long India’s most impoverished large state, has often served as a critical barometer for the subcontinent’s political and socio-economic transformation. Approaching the crucial 2015 assembly elections, the state was at an inflection point, having undergone a decade of rule under Chief Minister Nitish Kumar. The changes observed during this period, often termed a “quiet, peaceful revolution,” were profound yet ultimately incomplete, leaving behind a complex tapestry of progress and stagnation.
This analysis, rooted in the political reportage series “Writings on the Wall,” examines the visible markers of change on the ground and the new political calculus—or trigonometry—that defined the 2015 contest.
The Evolution of Aspiration: From Bare Feet to Smartphones
The “Writings on the Wall” metaphor—the practice of observing ground-level economic signals—tells a compelling story of rising aspiration in Bihar. The state’s journey out of the “jungle raj” era under Lalu Prasad Yadav was marked by a distinct progression of consumer and educational demands:
- 2005 (Post-Lalu): Following 15 years of misrule, there were virtually no commercial writings on the walls; poverty was so deep that “nobody had the money to buy anything.”
- 2010 (Nitish 1.0): Five years of rapid growth and the restoration of the rule of law saw the first tangible signs of mass aspiration. The walls began to sell branded underwear and English medium school education, signaling a desire for basic respectability and upward mobility.
- 2014-2015 (The Competitive Edge): By the 2014 parliamentary elections, the highest-selling item had transitioned to coaching classes for IIT-JEE and medical entrance examinations. This represented an educated, ambitious youth cohort targeting India’s premier professional institutions.
- The Newest Marker: The Smartphone: The most visible sign of change in the 2015 campaign was the smartphone. Hundreds of faces at rallies—even among the traditionally poorer, less literate, and lower-caste rural vote banks of Lalu Yadav—were seen holding up phones, recording videos of their leaders. Bihar had moved from people walking “barefoot” (a marker from 2005) to a population that was “shooting videos with smartphones”.
These social indicators were underpinned by tangible infrastructure improvements. By 2015, over 90% of Bihar was electrified, with the consumption of electricity having quadrupled since 2010. Furthermore, signature social schemes, such as providing free bicycles to girls and new initiatives to distribute sanitary pads, contributed to the quiet revolution in social empowerment.
The Contradiction of Progress: Agro-Povertarianism and the Clerical Trap
Despite the phenomenal social mobility, the analysis reveals a critical contradiction: Nitish Kumar’s success became his own undoing. His rule delivered growth and raised expectations, but “stopped short of genuine modernization.”
The state’s economic model was one of “agro-povertarianism”. Agriculture had improved, with visible signs of modernization like seed drills and shops stacked with hybrid seeds. However, the cities—Patna, Gaya, Darbhanga—were decaying, described as having “worsened greatly” and infested with garbage, stray animals, and stench.
Crucially, no modern manufacturing or services economy had taken root. Driving across thousands of kilometers revealed the only prevalent industry was brick kilns—polluting, consuming fertile soil, and offering only low-level, exploitative jobs. This failure resulted in the final, most disheartening observation on the walls:
“The reality of poor quality education and a non-industrialized, non-job-creating state now stares at you…”
The largest-selling wall advertisements were for competitive exams, but primarily for low-value clerical positions: “banks, SSC, railways”. Having acquired a taste of education, the youth now demanded white-collar jobs, but the state economy could promise little better than a clerk’s life. Nitish Kumar, despite his intentions, had failed to create the industrial backbone necessary to absorb the aspirations he had unleashed.
The Political Study in Trigonometry
The 2015 election was a highly complex political affair—not merely arithmetic (numbers) or chemistry (social mix), but trigonometry, involving a clash between two multi-sided alliances:
- Mahagathbandhan: JD(U), RJD, and Congress.
- NDA: BJP, Jitan Ram Manjhi’s party, and Ram Vilas Paswan’s party.
Each ally brought both a plus and a minus. For Nitish, Lalu Prasad Yadav brought a formidable Yadav-Muslim vote bank anchor but also severely diminished his core claim of good governance. The threat of a return to Lalu’s “jungle raj” handed the NDA its best campaign weapon. Similarly, the BJP’s allies, Paswan and Manjhi, promised Dalit/Mahadalit votes, but brought negative baggage, particularly Paswan’s family-centric politics that undermined the BJP’s anti-dynastic rhetoric against Lalu.
The contest was therefore defined as a clash between two “decelerating forces”: Narendra Modi as the Bikaspurush (Man of Development) of 2014 and the Mandalite Muslim vote bank politics of Lalu Yadav.
The Rise of the Post-Ideological Electorate
Perhaps the most significant finding was the emergence of a new, post-ideological, impatient generation of voters. This cohort, empowered by the smartphone, motorcycle, and cheap college education, preferred using first names and was less encumbered by traditional caste loyalties or parental preferences.
They were inclined to view the election as a “transactional phenomenon: what are you going to do for me?”. These young voters were bored by the old politics and, crucially, were asking why Bihar couldn’t build a state like Gujarat.
The analysis concludes that this new “Gen-backward caste Indian thinks like the forward caste once did,” empowered by education and technology. This generation’s appeal to Modi, who was seen as enhancing India’s global status and strengthening the army, signaled a clear shift away from traditional caste-based empowerment politics.
In 2015, the political challenge for both alliances was clear: to win over a voter who no longer viewed the election as a simple matter of social justice or loyalty, but as a direct negotiation for a better life. Whatever the result, the rise of this young, aspirational, and transactional electorate marked a change that looked irreversible.
About The Author
