Few politicians in modern india embody contradiction as sharply as Nitish Kumar. Lauded once as the architect of Bihar’s turnaround, he is today better known for a different skill: switching sides with acrobatic ease, defying ideological gravity while landing comfortably on the winning team each time. How did a leader once celebrated for governance reforms become a symbol of political restlessness?
This editorial interrogates that puzzle — not through personality, but through the deeper system that rewards such pivots: caste arithmetic, coalition fragility, institutional vacuum, and public cynicism.
1. What Is Happening? — The Continuous Re-Engineering of Bihar’s Power Map
Nitish Kumar’s recent political moves are not isolated events; they represent a larger pattern stretching nearly two decades.
His journey from JD(U)–BJP → JD(U)–RJD → JD(U)–BJP → JD(U)–RJD → JD(U)–BJP has effectively restructured Bihar’s alliances more often than its economic model.
The Symptoms of This Flux
Governance reforms of the 2005–2012 era have stagnated
India's poorest state by per-capita income remains Bihar
Youth unemployment remains among the highest in the country
Migration for labour continues at levels comparable to the 1990s
Infrastructure gains have slowed; private investment remains minimal
Yet, politically, Nitish remains indispensable — not because bihar is progressing, but because Bihar’s political arithmetic is stuck. The state’s fractured social blocs require “mediation figures” who can negotiate coalitions. Nitish mastered that role.
2. Why Is It Happening? — The Hidden Motives Behind the Constant Switching
a. The Caste Chessboard of Bihar
Bihar’s politics is not merely electoral; it is sociological.
Dominant blocs:
Yadavs (RJD base)
Upper castes (lean BJP)
Extremely Backward Castes (EBCs)
Kurmis/Koeris (Nitish’s JD(U) base)
Muslims (swing block, historically with RJD)
Nitish’s genius is understanding that each bloc alone is insufficient.
Thus, his alliances shift based on:
Which bloc is restless
Who controls the anti-incumbency mood
What national trends demand
Whether bjp or RJD needs him more than he needs them
He does not switch because he is indecisive; he switches because no stable coalition is possible without him.
b. Institutional Weakness
Bihar’s bureaucracy, judiciary, and local governance networks remain fragile.
A weak institutional environment increases the power of political negotiation over administrative outcomes.
Nitish thrives in such a system.
c. National Parties’ Strategic Needs
For bjp, bihar is crucial to offset northern states where it sees resistance.
For RJD, Nitish provides the “governance credibility” they lack.
His switching is therefore incentivised — he is always courted by both sides.
d. Personal Legacy Anxiety
Nitish Kumar’s once towering reputation as “Sushasan Babu” (Mr. Good Governance) has eroded.
Frequent pivots are also attempts to protect relevance, maintain leverage, and ensure he is never politically cornered.
3. Who Benefits?
1. nitish kumar Himself
Political longevity is his greatest success.
He stays relevant irrespective of:
election outcomes
ideological alignments
public criticism
No other indian CM has maintained such influence while frequently changing partners.
2. National Parties (BJP and RJD)
Nitish’s entry or exit recalibrates Bihar’s entire electoral map, granting:
BJP crucial seats and social bloc access when allied
RJD access to EBCs and Kurmi votes when together
Both parties temporary legitimacy for coalition governance
3. local Power Networks
MLAs, district-level leaders, contractors, and bureaucratic elites retain their power because Nitish protects their networks across regimes.
In a state where economic mobility is low, political networks become survival mechanisms.
4. Who Loses?
1. Citizens of Bihar
While alliances oscillate, key indicators do not:
Bihar’s GSDP per capita is the lowest in India
Over 34% of children remain underweight
Migration to Delhi, Punjab, Haryana, and kerala remains among the highest
Private-sector jobs are lower than even smaller states like uttarakhand and Himachal Pradesh
Coalition instability disrupts long-term policy continuity:
Education mission reforms stall
Industrial corridors remain unimplemented
Agricultural supply chains lack modernisation
Urbanisation remains underdeveloped
2. Bihar’s Young Population
With one of the youngest populations in india, Bihar’s youth suffer the most.
Unemployment levels exceed 20% in many districts, fueling migration, skill drain, and rising frustration.
3. The Credibility of Governance
When politics becomes theatre, governance becomes secondary.
Nitish’s reputation shift from reformer to “perpetual pivot-engineer” has undermined Bihar’s global investment narrative.
5. What the Public and media Missed
a. The Collapse of Bihar’s Reform Momentum
Between 2005–2012:
Roads were rebuilt
Law and order improved
Girls’ education incentives increased enrolment
Panchayati-level governance strengthened
But since 2015, coalition politics consumed administrative energy.
No major reform agenda has been sustained long enough to deliver results.
b. Bihar’s Structural Economic Trap
Bihar’s economy is trapped by:
lack of industrial base
over-dependence on agriculture
weak urbanisation
low private capital investment
poor human development indicators
Frequent political instability discourages investors who require policy stability, not political acrobatics.
c. media Focus on Drama, Not Data
Most coverage focuses on:
“Who will Nitish join next?”
“Will he switch again?”
“What is the next twist?”
But little attention is given to:
quality of public spending
stagnation of manufacturing
rural underemployment
The drama overshadows the decline.
6. Contradictions and Hypocrisy
Nitish presents himself as a champion of “good governance” yet creates instability that prevents governance.
He repeatedly condemns corruption while forming alliances with parties he earlier accused of corruption.
He claims ideological conviction while switching between left-of-centre and right-of-centre blocs.
He positions himself as a secular leader yet joins hands with a party built on Hindutva mobilization.
He demands respect from allies but switches when he doesn’t get “adequate space.”
The contradiction is stark:
A leader who once fought to stabilise bihar now destabilises its politics to stabilise his career.
Long-Term Consequences
Bihar may remain trapped in a low-growth cycle
Policy inconsistency will deepen investor hesitation
Youth frustration may escalate into social unrest
Political cynicism could weaken democratic participation
National politics may face increased coalition volatility, given Bihar’s electoral importance
The real tragedy is that Bihar’s potential — demographic, geographic, cultural — remains systematically unrealised.
Conclusion — A Provocative Question
Nitish Kumar’s survival instincts may be extraordinary, but governance cannot be built on perpetual repositioning.
If a state’s political fortunes depend on one man’s switches, is it the man who is powerful — or the system that is fundamentally broken?
click and follow Indiaherald WhatsApp channel