Editor’s Note
This analysis highlights the perceived rigidity of opposition tactics following the Bihar Assembly elections, suggesting a continuity of strategy despite the electoral outcome. The piece questions the political narrative’s alignment with public sentiment.
Even after the results of the Bihar Assembly elections, there is no visible change in the opposition’s attitude. The habits formed during the election process—questioning the Election Commission at times, leveling allegations against the government at others, and targeting welfare schemes—remain exactly the same even after the results. The public has completely rejected a certain narrative, yet the opposition seems stubbornly stuck on it. The voters of Bihar not only dismissed arguments like alleged ‘vote theft’ but also gave the NDA a clear and massive mandate, indicating the direction of the electoral discourse. Despite this, the opposition is holding meetings in Delhi and talking about rallies against the Systematic Voters’ Education and Electoral Participation (SVEEP) program, as if repeating the same old mistake has become their destiny instead of analyzing the defeat.
The biggest question is this: if the opposition had so little trust in the SVEEP process, did they appoint their Booth Level Agents (BLAs) at all polling stations during this process? The answer is no. There were a total of 90,712 polling booths in Bihar, but the Congress deployed only 17,549 BLAs during the SVEEP period. This number is not only insufficient but clearly shows that the Congress itself was not as serious as it tried to appear in its rhetoric. The preparation available to monitor the very process the opposition has been trying to create a nationwide fear about remained limited to a minimal level. If the Congress truly believed that SVEEP was the biggest threat to the democratic framework, its first priority would have been to ensure a strong presence at the booth level. But this could not happen because the party lacks both organizational strength internally and the ground-level network of workers it publicly claims to have.
Despite continuously making allegations during the Bihar elections, the Congress could not present a single concrete example that could prove the alleged ‘vote theft’ or manipulation of votes. In such a scenario, continuing to oppose SVEEP is a clear sign that the opposition feels more comfortable following the old pattern rather than understanding issues or gauging the public pulse. This raises questions about the opposition’s seriousness: is it truly fighting in the name of protecting democracy, or is it merely trying to evade responsibility for defeat by crafting a political narrative?
The opposition’s dilemma does not end here. After the election results, they also raised questions on welfare schemes like the Chief Minister’s Women’s Employment Scheme, as if they still do not believe that Bihar’s voters cast their ballots based on the development, better governance, and tangible benefits of schemes witnessed in recent years. The ‘overnight miracle’ narrative that the opposition is presenting as the basis for the election results exposes a mindset that is miles away from understanding the real aspirations of the people. These results are not the impact of any one scheme or one announcement but an expression of the broad changes in Bihar’s socio-political structure over the past decade.
The opposition, even after defeat, appears to have chosen the path of blame and counter-allegations instead of introspection, while the deeper meaning of Bihar’s mandate is something else. On one hand, Nitish Kumar’s ‘Sushasan’ (good governance) model has become a permanent alternative to freedom from ‘Jungle Raj’, while on the other, the positive impact of the politics of stability, development, and credibility that the country has moved towards under the leadership of Prime Minister Narendra Modi is deeply visible on Bihar’s society. In recent years, Bihar has left behind the image of the ‘most backward state’ and set new standards in construction, connectivity, energy, and social welfare. This change did not come suddenly; rather, voters’ trust has strengthened due to continuity and smooth implementation.
It is time for the opposition to redefine its role. Credibility is essential to become strong, and this credibility can only come from facts, public outreach, ground presence, and introspection. If the opposition keeps repeating the same old mistakes after every election, not only will its political ground shrink, but India’s new development-centric politics will expand more seamlessly because the voter is no longer ready to just listen to complaints; they want solutions, and they see solutions where both vision and execution are present.
