Decoding Nitish Kumar

Perhaps the most interesting aspect of Bihar chief minister Nitish Kumar’s recent appearances is how deliberately he has positioned himself as Narendra Modi’s most strident critic. The Congress’ reluctant prime ministerial aspirant has largely steered clear of this debate, focusing his energies on philosophical discussions on India’s myriad problems. Nitish Kumar, on the other hand, has eviscerated Modi’s development model, called him a divisive politician, and blamed him for not following ‘Rajdharma’ during the Gujarat riots of 2002. He has left no one in any doubt that in case BJP anoints Modi as its leader, he will walk out of the National Democratic Alliance (NDA) and end the long-standing and mutually beneficial relationship. 

In terms of realpolitik, Nitish Kumar is clearly appealing to Bihar’s 16% Muslim population who remain stridently opposed to the Gujarat chief minister. If the BJP gives in, Kumar can approach the Muslim electorate with the genuine claim that he has almost single-handedly derailed the Modi bandwagon. And if he quits the NDA solely on the Modi issue, he would have emerged as the new messiah of Muslims in Bihar perhaps even supplanting the redoubtable Laloo Yadav—his main political opponent. Under both scenarios, Nitish Kumar is likely to benefit from an increased Muslim support. Even in alliance with BJP, Nitish Kumar’s JD(U) won nearly a third of Muslim votes in the 2010 assembly elections and any additional support may prove crucial in Bihar’s fractured polity.

However, as Aakar Patel has persuasively argued, the BJP-JD(U) alliance in Bihar is a formidable social coalition with support from upper castes, EBCs and a section of the Muslim population. Though the state government in Bihar faces a degree of anti-incumbency, with a divided opposition and Kumar’s elevated national profile, it is likely to win a third term in 2015. No one can predict with any certainty what will happen if BJP and JD(U) go their own ways. Will upper castes stick with the BJP? Will Muslims support Kumar to the extent he clearly hopes? The preferred outcome for Kumar would be a Orissa-redux but BJP in Bihar retains a strong social base and its organizational strength has been crucial to NDA’s past wins. LalooYadav may not be the force he once was but with Yadavs constituting 11% of Bihar’s population, he can never truly be ruled out. One option Kumar may consider is aligning with the Congress party. However, the Congress in Bihar remains in a moribund state and cannot easily replace the BJP as JD( U)’s partner. Kumar would also be wary of being trapped into an alliance with the Congress party unless he can extract a substantial political price at the centre.  In summary, Kumar’s strategy is inherently high-risk; with BJP largely a pliant partner in Bihar, why risk rocking the boat?

Some have argued that Nitish Kumar is indulging in shadow-boxing with the BJP with tacit support of some Delhi-based leaders who remain wary of Modi’s rise within the party. While nothing can be ruled out in Indian politics, Kumar has raised the pitch to an extent where supping with a Modi-led BJP is not really an option. Others have argued that Kumar is pitching for a Third Front and hoping to emerge as its consensual leader. However, despite the weakness of the two national parties, a Third Front government remains a remote possibility. And even if such a formation could be constructed, there are other leaders like Mulayam Singh Yadav who both in stature as well as sheer numbers are likely to best Nitish Kumar’s claims.  In any case, such governments are inherently unstable and it is unclear why Kumar would sacrifice his preeminent position in Bihar for a remote shot at prime ministership.

So then what explains Kumar’s vigorous opposition towards Modi and his brand of politics? In response to Modi’s developmental agenda, Kumar has stressed the superiority of the ‘Bihar model’ (though it is unclear exactly what it entails beyond Keynesian steroid shots), arguing that inclusiveness is important in a leader who will have to sport both a ‘tilak as well as a topi.’ In Bihar, Kumar has practiced the peculiarly Indian brand of secularism with minority friendly schemes and assiduous wooing of the backward Muslims. To the credit of the NDA government, communal harmony has been maintained in Bihar with no major riots in the last decade. In some cases such as the Bhagalpur riots, the state government has walked the extra mile and attempted to deliver justice to the unfortunate victims. On the economic front, while Kumar has made some attempts to attract private industry, he has refused to intervene in land acquisition issues—a crucial prerequisite for large-scale investments.  In short, Kumar has practiced typical left-liberal governance with faith in public investments, a reluctant embrace of the private sector, and deliberate positioning of secularism as an overarching theme of governance.

In that light, it is easier to understand Kumar’s almost visceral dislike of the Modi model. No doubt, Nitish Kumar has been encouraged by the New-Delhi based media which almost unanimously views Modi as a threat to India’s pluralistic traditions. However, rooted as it may be in cynical political considerations, there are genuine ideological differences between the two regional strongmen. In that respect, Kumar maybe closer to Orissa chief minister Naveen Patnaik. Recall for instance Patnaik’s interview with Karan Thapar in 2008. Stressing that his ‘every bone was secular’, Patnaik appeared visibly distressed by Kandhamal and the alleged role of the Sangh Parviar in fomenting the riots. Soon enough, Patnaik walked out of NDA and has recently reiterated that he would not support a BJP-led government. 

Critics would no doubt point out Nitish Kumar’s hypocrisy. Kumar was in no visible distress during the Gujarat riots when he was a cabinet minister in the Vajpayee government. However, Kumar is still a politician and not an ideological warrior. At that time, he needed BJP’s support to uproot Laloo Yadav’s ‘jungle raj’ in Bihar. In 2013, he has a much stronger hand and making his dislike for Modi clear. Kumar has stressed that he values the NDA; his opposition extends to Modi personally and not to the BJP itself.

Finally, the current fracas illustrates why Modi and Kumar are such pivotal and interesting politicians. Though his rhetoric has been somewhat tempered by the desire for ‘acceptability’, Modi takes a visible delight in scoffing at the conventions which have underpinned Indian politics. Kumar, on the other hand, is cut from the old cloth and represents India’s conventional politics. It is new-school vs. the old-school. Their battle also suggests how the ground-zero of Indian politics has shifted towards the states; that Modi’s ambitions may ultimately be thwarted by a fellow regional leader will only be supremely ironic.

P.S. As an aside, it would be a fascinating bit of counterfactual history to speculate on Modi’s influence on Indian polity if his every move wasn’t shadowed by the riots of 2002. Would his influence be muted because his supporters are motivated by the 2002 riots as many of his critics argue? Or would Modi have shifted Indian polity decisively towards a Right-of-centre platform?

RohitPradhan is a fellow at the Takshashila Foundation. The views are personal. Twitter: @retributions