Two roads diverged in a yellow wood,
And sorry I could not travel both
And be one traveller, long I stood
And looked down one as far as I could...
Notwithstanding the fact that a web of roads has been woven in Bihar over the last eight years, its chief minister, Nitish Kumar, has failed to pick the smoothest one politically. Being unable to travel all of them together, he has ended up choosing a bumpy path on which his election ‘rath’ has broken down repeatedly. Unlike his many yatras of the past, his election caravan is stuck.
If the poll pundits are today ruling out a good performance from the JD(U), it’s because of a series of actions by Nitish over a period of time. No longer is he being credited for the roads he built, nor is the media treating him as its darling. It’s not too difficult to understand why Nitish is not getting returns for the work he has done. Shaibal Gupta, member-secretary of the Asian Development Research Institute (ADRI), Patna, says Nitish headed a “coalition of extremes”. Not only were parties with different views—the BJP and the JD(U)—sharing power, Nitish even tried to bring the upper castes as well as extremely backward castes and Mahadalits under one umbrella. This was unheard of and no easy job: one side was with the Ranvir Sena, the other with the CPI (Maoists).
His government created new quotas and also tried to shake up the rural structures. In urban and rural local bodies, reservation for women was raised from 33 to 50 per cent. EBCs were then given 20 per cent. Already, 16 per cent were marked for Dalits. So only 14 per cent seats were for non-Dalit, non-EBC males. Then he announced the Bandopadhyay commission to empower sharecroppers, as in West Bengal. The report was submitted in 2009, but the very next year, a kisan mahapanchayat in Patna voiced resistance to the recommendations and many of his own party leaders aligned with the movement. Nitish was forced to retreat. He then declared 18 of the 22 Dalit subcastes as Mahadalits. Later Pasis and Dhobis were added to the list. Followers of Ravidas too were added, leaving out only the Paswans. Castes affected by these moves were upset, but they continued to vote for the Nitish-led NDA for they didn’t want a return of the Laloo-Rabri regime. But the moment Nitish split from the BJP, the affected castes changed their mind. The agrarian upper and intermediate castes were anyway pro-BJP and now the Paswans were going over too, fracturing Nitish’s grand caste coalition. And it’s his own actions from which this flowed.
By 2009, Nitish started observing that his move to empower the depressed castes and landless classes had not been received well by the landed. He suddenly remembered the 16.5 per cent Muslims in his state. So one fine morning, on June 12, 2010, he cancelled dinner with the top brass of the BJP, including Narendra Modi, who were in Patna for the party’s national executive. There was a contradiction in this: Advani and Narendra Modi had been put up at state guest houses and were in fact state guests, but the CM did not meet them. The BJP bigwigs swallowed the humiliation. A week later, Nitish returned the Rs 5 crore the Gujarat government had donated to the Kosi flood relief fund of August 2008. Still the JD(U)-BJP alliance continued and the combine won a record 206 seats out of 243 seats in the assembly election held in Oct-Nov 2010.
But the crack was too deep to be repaired. Nitish had travelled too far down his chosen tactical route—return was impossible. After the June 16, 2013, split with the BJP, Nitish was seen to have lost the magic touch—he certainly lost the formidable propaganda machinery that came with the BJP. He became vulnerable. Some Muslims, who voted for him in 2009 and 2010, did so as they did not have the NaMo factor in mind then. So Nitish’s gamble of wooing 16.5 per cent Muslims to compensate for the loss of upper castes did not work. When the Modi juggernaut rolled in, Muslims were reminded of Laloo’s role in arresting Advani and halting his rath yatra. Hundreds of bridges built since 2005 have failed to reduce the social gaps that are the reality of the state.
Based in Patna, Soroor Ahmed is a columnist with The Telegraph
Thank you to all those who have taken the trouble to read the article and share their thoughts. Out of the arguments made here, there are two that perhaps need answering. So here they go.
1. The first part of the article compares outcomes (relative percentages of population of the religions concerned) irrespective of the process that led to those outcomes - whether immigration, relatively faster population growth or conversions. This was for two reasons. One, to put the figure of 2.3 per cent in "numerical perspective", as the article itself explained. The second reason was that outcomes are ultimately what the crux of debate is about. The rest of the article in any case dealt with process - or conversions in this case, from both a contemporary and historical perspective.
2. Some commenters have tried to cast doubts on the reliability of Census 2001. Those who do this should bear in mind that Census 2001 was conducted by a BJP government. Considering the extreme importance that BJP gives to this issue, it would be reasonable to expect that IF it had perceived a problem with the methodology that was distorting the numbers, it would have fixed it. As the article mentioned, BJP or BJP-supported governments have been in power for 10 of the last 40 years, or about a quarter of the time, and the only reasonable conclusion one can arrive at is that any misreporting of numbers, real or perceived, would be marginal and hence, not of importance.
To all other arguments made, my answer is the following: Please read the article again, with particular focus on the quotations of Vivekananda and Monier Williams, and the history of the missionary efforts in Bengal and their outcome.
" he announced the Bandopadhyay commission to empower sharecroppers, as in West Bengal "
Had he stood ground and empowered sharedcroppers (EBCs and SCs) he would have scored landslide win in this this and future elections. But he went on appeasing the upper castes, gave them full control over the administration, but he was never espoused by them.
THere is a phrase in hindi:
"Dhobi ka kutta na ghar ka, na ghaat ka"
He left NDA for Muslim votes, here we have a Muslim opinion on him!
"THere is a phrase in hindi:
"Dhobi ka kutta na ghar ka, na ghaat ka"
He left NDA for Muslim votes, here we have a Muslim opinion on him!"
Mr. Pramod! There is a saying Tamil also. Lady who went behind smiling King was deserted by both the King and her husband
We at Outlookindia.com welcome feedback and your comments, including scathing criticism
1. Scathing, passionate, even angry critiques are welcome, but please do not indulge in abuse and invective. Our Primary concern is to keep the debate civil. We urge our users to try and express their disagreements without being disagreeable. Personal attacks are not welcome. No ad hominem please.
2. Please do not post the same message again and again in the same or different threads
3. Please keep your responses confined to the subject matter of the article you are responding to. Please note that our comments section is not a general free-for-all but for feedback to articles/blogs posted on the site
4. Our endeavour is to keep these forums unmoderated and unexpurgated. But if any of the above three conditions are violated, we reserve the right to delete any comment that we deem objectionable and also to withdraw posting privileges from the abuser. Please also note that hate-speech is punishable by law and in extreme circumstances, we may be forced to take legal action by tracing the IP addresses of the poster.
5. If someone is being abusive or personal, or generally being a troll or a flame-baiter, please do not descend to their level. The best response to such posters is to ignore them and send us a message at Mail AT outlookindia DOT com with the subject header COMPLAINT
6. Please do not copy and paste copyrighted material. If you do think that an article elsewhere has relevance to the point you wish to make, please only quote what is considered fair-use and provide a link to the article under question.
7. There is no particular outlookindia.com line on any subject. The views expressed in our opinion section are those of the author concerned and not that of all of outlookindia.com or all its authors.
8. Please also note that you are solely responsible for the comments posted by you on the site. The comments could be deleted or edited entirely at our discretion if we find them objectionable. However, the mere fact of their existence on our site does not mean that we necessarily approve of their contents. In short, the onus of responsibility for the comments remains solely with the authors thereof. Outlookindia.com or any of its group publications, may, however, retains the right to publish any of these comments, with or without editing, in any medium whatsoever. It is therefore in your own interest to be careful before posting.
9.Outlookindia.com is not responsible in any manner whatsoever for how any search engine -- such as Google, Bing etc -- caches or displays these comments. Please note that you are solely responsible for posting these comments and it is a privilege being granted to our registered users which can be withdrawn in case of abuse. To reiterate:
a. Comments once posted can only be deleted at the discretion of outlookindia.com
b. The comments reflect the views of the authors and not of outlookindia.com
c. outlookindia.com is not responsible in any manner whatsoever for the way search engines cache or display these comments
d. Please therefore take due caution before you post any comments as your words could potentially be used against you
10. We have an online thread for our comments policy:
You are welcome to post your suggestions here or in case you have a specific issue, to directly email us at Mail AT outlookindia DOT com with the subject header COMPLAINT