The alliance between the Janata Dal-United led by Nitish Kumar, the Rashtriya Janata Dal led by Laloo Prasad Yadav and the Congress, announced recently for the 10 seats that are going for by-elections on August 21 in Bihar, has predictably led to much comment and discussion. This development, which has brought together parties that have previously both collaborated and opposed each other, needs to be analysed for its context, purpose and consequences, both in the perspective of Bihar, and the nation at large.
The BJP won a handsome victory in Bihar in the recent parliamentary elections. On its own it got a vote percentage of 22 per cent of the electorate; in tandem with its principal allies, Ram Vilas Paswan’s Lok Janashakti Party and the Rashtriya Lok Samata Party led by Upendra Kushwaha, it secured somewhere in the vicinity of 36 per cent of the vote, enough to give the alliance an unprecedented victory of 31 out of 40 parliamentary seats.
There are identifiable reasons for the BJP’s successful performance. First, to give credit where it is due, Prime Minister Narendra Modi harnessed the anti-incumbency mood against the UPA-II with organised brilliance. People were overburdened by rising prices and fed up by lack-lustre governance. They wanted a change, and Mr Modi promised to deliver that by projecting himself as the answer to all the nation’s problems. Second, in support of his campaign, the BJP seemed to have unlimited resources, even more, as per reports, than the ruling Congress. Third, it was a parliamentary election — what was at stake was the formation of a government in Delhi, and Nitish Kumar, the incumbent chief minister, had ruled himself out as a candidate for PMship.
Most people in Bihar said that they supported Mr Kumar for his transformational stewardship in Bihar, but since this election was about who came to power in Delhi, they would vote for Mr Modi in this round. Fourth, there were mistakes made by the non-BJP parties — Mr Paswan could have as easily been opposing the BJP, but the Congress never responded in time to seal this possibility.
Fifth, the opposition to the BJP was hopelessly divided — the JD(U) was fighting on its own; the RJD’s only ally was a demoralised Congress; the BJP’s candidates slipped through this oppositional divide. And, sixth, never before in the history of Bihar was there such a massive attempt to polarise the electorate on religious grounds, even as the overt slogan remained that of governance.
However, it is instructive that even against such odds the non-BJP parties garnered a greater vote-share than the BJP and its allies. As against the latter’s 36 per cent, the Congress-JD(U)-RJD vote share was in the mid-40’s. In spite of this, they lost because they fought separately and not as a united front.
The question has been asked, and not without substance, how the JD(U) and the RJD, which were openly hostile to each other, can come together now. Predictably, the BJP has made the accusation of political opportunism. But, having itself aligned with Mr Paswan, that is the last allegation it can make. In 2002, Mr Paswan had resigned from the National Democratic Alliance because of the Gujarat riots. Subsequently, he was the most bitter critic of the BJP, going so far as to say that BJP stands for “Bharat Jalao Party”. Yet, Mr Modi and Mr Paswan became convenient bedfellows.
Even so, it is perfectly in order to ask what the new non-BJP alliance stands for. To my mind, on an ideological level, it stands for three things. Firstly, it stands for inclusive growth which allows the fruits of progress to reach the poorest of the poor. Secondly, it stands for social and religious harmony without which, in a country like India, no governance is possible and no citizen can be safe, and, thirdly, it must stand for good governance.
On the first two issues, Mr Yadav and Nitish Kumar have no differences; they are products of the socialist Jayaprakash Narayan movement, and until their more recent differences, worked jointly to further the socio-economic empowerment of the underprivileged.
On the question of good governance, Mr Kumar is perhaps India’s best role model. He has transformed Bihar beyond imagination while in power. For five years in a row, Bihar had the country’s highest growth rates. He restored law and order and brought back security to the common citizen; and, as the Planning Commission has recognised, he managed, in the most adverse circumstances, to redeem the maximum number of people from below the poverty line. In one line, he is the man who single handedly brought back pride to Bihar.
But there is another vital reason for the new alliance to jointly oppose the BJP. The people of Bihar gave the BJP alliance 31 seats. But, after coming to power, what has the BJP given to Bihar? The answer is next to nothing. Bihar, and most least developed states, just don’t figure in the imagination of the ruling party, as the Budget clearly shows. Leave alone Special Category Status, no affirmative action of any kind has been planned for the poorest state in the country. Bihar is nowhere in the scheme of industrial corridors and smart cities. No schemes exist for jobs for the young.
And prices, notwithstanding Mr Modi’s projection of a magic wand, continue to rise to the misery of the Bihari. Collectively, this is the biggest betrayal of the faith of the Bihari people.
Chanakya always said that politics to be dynamic must adjust to new challenges. The political experiment in Bihar, which is a work in progress, will, if successful, once again give to Biharis a political voice and, as importantly, send a message to all of India that possibilities exist, within the democratic framework, to challenge the ineffectual, smug triumphalism that has become the hallmark of the BJP today.
Author-diplomat Pavan K. Varma has been recently elected to the Rajya Sabha
