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 data-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

• failures in health and education outcomes

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 data-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?