What gave Nitish Kumar a landslide victory?

As a consequence, his arch rival — the NDA (JD(U) and BJP combine) reaped a rich harvest of 32 seats out of 40 Lok Sabha constituencies. The credit for this landslide victory undoubtedly goes to Nitish Kumar, whose one-man show just reversed the scene of 2004 when the UPA had bagged 29 seats. Such was the wave of the JD(U) strongman in this election that it uprooted the RJD, LJP and the Congress from their respective strongholds.

But what made Nitish tick?

Even his ardent supporters aver that they, at best, were expecting to win a maximum of 30 seats but by emerging victorious in 32 constituencies, Nitish has made all political pundits re-do their homework. No doubt, in the coming days, his stature will grow by leaps and bounds, both at personal and political level, and he will eventually become an invincible ally within the NDA. But then, the JD(U) leader had assiduously cultivated fertile ground over the last three years to reap a bumper harvest.
The first thing he did after taking over the reigns of Bihar was to improve law and order, which was abysmally poor. The ‘kidnapping industry’ went for a toss after ‘rule of law’ was established in the otherwise lawless state. Other than motorable roads and improved power supply, it was the establishment of good governance which fetched Nitish rich dividends.

But Nitish did not remain urban-centric. He organised ‘Vikas Yatra’ (to get a feedback of the people) and held Cabinet meeting in rural belt (to strike an emotional chord with the poor) as a part of ‘Apki Sarkar Apke Dwar” (government at your doorsteps) programme.

Besides, by setting up a fresh inquiry commission to probe Bhagalpur riots, and announcing a monthly pension for the riot victims, Nitish made a dent into Lalu’s traditional minority vote-bank. He also wooed the fair sex when his regime announced 50 per cent reservation for women in civic polls.
Having done that, it was time to hit Paswan where it hurts the most. The Bihar regime set up a Mahadalit Commission to look after the welfare of the most underprivileged sections among the Dalits. Belonging to a dominant backward caste — Kurmi — Nitish, however, ensured greater say of extremely backward castes (EBCs) too in running the government and the administration.

Perfect combination

With Muslims, Dalits, backwards and EBCs, coupled with BJP’s traditional upper caste voters backing him to the hilt, the JD(U)-BJP alliance was, undoubtedly, headed for a landslide.

Statistics provide the clearest evidence how poll arithmetic is more important than alliance chemistry. In 2004 Lok Sabha elections, the RJD secured 30.7 per cent votes. It’s alliance partners the LJP got 8.2 per cent, while the Congress fetched 4.5 per cent votes. Together the three UPA constituents polled more than 43 per cent votes and bagged 29 out of 40 Lok Sabha seats. The NDA had to remain content with merely 11 seats.

The scene reversed in 2009.

The JD(U) got 24.04 per cent votes while the BJP 13.93 per cent. Together they polled 37.97 per cent votes, but bagged 80 per cent of the seats (32 out of 40). The estranged allies of UPA did not fare badly, but contesting separately proved them costly. The RJD fetched 19.3 per cent, LJP 6.55 per cent and Congress up from a meagre of 4.5 per cent to 10.26 per cent votes.

Had the three constituents of the UPA entered the fray unitedly, they would have together polled 36 per cent votes. Just one per cent less than the NDA, but a huge difference in terms of seats.
No wonder the self-styled management guru is today regretting why he got his maths wrong.