2020 Bihar Legislative Assembly election
The 2020 Bihar Legislative Assembly election was conducted in three phases on 28 October, 3 November, and 7 November to elect members for all 243 constituencies amid the COVID-19 pandemic, which influenced campaigning and voter mobilization through restrictions and the return of migrant workers.[1] The incumbent National Democratic Alliance (NDA), led by Chief Minister Nitish Kumar's Janata Dal (United) in coalition with the Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) and smaller parties, secured a narrow majority with 125 seats—BJP winning 74, JD(U) 43, and allies 8—allowing Kumar to form the government for his fourth term despite pre-election tensions over seat-sharing and Kumar's history of alliance shifts. The opposition Mahagathbandhan alliance, spearheaded by Tejashwi Yadav of the Rashtriya Janata Dal (RJD) alongside the Indian National Congress and communist parties, captured 110 seats, with RJD as the largest single party at 75 seats, mounting a credible threat fueled by youth discontent over employment and governance but falling short due to fragmented vote distribution in the first-past-the-post system. Voter turnout stood at 57.05%, reflecting cautious participation amid health concerns.[1] The razor-thin victory—NDA's 37.26% vote share edging out the opposition's near-equivalent by mere thousands of votes—highlighted Bihar's polarized politics and the enduring influence of caste-based mobilization over policy shifts.[2]Historical and Political Context
Prior Elections and Shifts in Power
The 2000 Bihar Legislative Assembly election, conducted in two phases on February 11 and March 3, saw the Rashtriya Janata Dal (RJD) under Lalu Prasad Yadav emerge victorious with 124 seats in the 324-member house, forming a coalition government that extended RJD's dominance since 1990.[3] This prolonged RJD tenure was plagued by entrenched corruption, most notably the fodder scam involving the diversion of over ₹900 crore in animal husbandry funds, alongside rampant lawlessness that critics labeled "jungle raj," characterized by unchecked kidnappings, extortion, and caste-driven violence, exacerbating unemployment and prompting large-scale out-migration to other states.[4][5] The February 2005 election produced a hung assembly, with no clear majority among the RJD-led front (156 seats short of a stable coalition due to Lok Janshakti Party's independent run) or the NDA, leading to President's Rule and fresh polls in October.[6] In the October vote, the NDA—primarily JD(U) and BJP—captured 143 of the 243 seats with 36.6% of the vote share, enabling Nitish Kumar to assume the chief ministership on November 24 and pivot toward stringent law-and-order measures, including police modernization and curbing caste militias, marking a decisive break from prior appeasement politics.[7][8] The NDA's momentum peaked in the 2010 election, where it clinched 206 of 243 seats amid a consolidated vote share exceeding 37%, signaling strong endorsement of Kumar's administration through improved security and basic infrastructure, which contrasted sharply with the fragmented opposition's 25 seats for the RJD-LJP alliance.[9][10] Yet, fissures emerged post-2010; Kumar ended the JD(U)-BJP partnership in June 2013 after the BJP named Narendra Modi as its prime ministerial candidate, citing ideological differences, which halved JD(U)'s seats in the 2014 Lok Sabha polls and set the stage for realignment.[11] In 2015, Kumar's JD(U) allied with RJD and Congress under the Mahagathbandhan banner, securing 178 seats (JD(U) 71, RJD 80, Congress 27) against the NDA's 58, allowing Kumar to retain power but tying him to former rivals amid promises of social justice.[12] The coalition unraveled on July 26, 2017, when Kumar resigned, pointing to corruption investigations against deputy Tejashwi Yadav in the RJD-linked railway contract scam, and rejoined the BJP to reconstitute the NDA government without fresh elections.[13] These oscillations between alliances—from RJD dominance to NDA reforms and back—highlighted chronic instability, with abrupt policy U-turns on governance priorities and evident voter disillusionment with familial succession in parties like RJD, as reflected in narrowing vote margins and alliance dependencies across cycles.[11]Incumbent NDA Government's Record (2005–2020)
The National Democratic Alliance (NDA) government under Chief Minister Nitish Kumar assumed power in November 2005, ending the Rashtriya Janata Dal's 15-year rule, and governed Bihar through multiple terms until 2020, albeit with brief alliances shifts in 2015–2017. Kumar's administration emphasized infrastructure development and social empowerment, particularly for Extremely Backward Classes (EBCs) and Mahadalits, aiming to address systemic neglect. Empirical metrics indicate progress in connectivity and basic services, though economic indicators revealed persistent structural weaknesses, including high out-migration and lagging per capita growth relative to national averages.[14] Infrastructure saw marked expansion, with the state's road network nearly doubling from 14,468 km in 2005 to approximately 26,000 km by the mid-2010s, facilitating better rural-urban linkages through initiatives like the Mukhyamantri Gram Sampark Yojana.[15] Electricity supply transformed from sporadic rural access—averaging 5–6 hours daily in 2005—to near-universal household electrification by 2020, supported by central schemes and state investments that elevated peak demand from 700 MW to over 8,000 MW.[16] Poverty metrics improved substantially, with multidimensional poverty incidence in Bihar declining faster than the national average, from around 77% in 2005–06 to under 34% by 2019–21, driven by targeted welfare and agricultural growth.[17] Educational enrollment rose, with literacy climbing from 61.8% in 2011 to about 72% by 2020, though learning outcomes remained suboptimal.[18] Despite these gains, critiques centered on unaddressed economic vulnerabilities. Bihar's gross state domestic product (GSDP) growth averaged 10.93% annually from 2005–11 but decelerated thereafter, consistently trailing India's national rate in per capita terms, with the state contributing only about 3% to national GDP.[14] Out-migration persisted at scale, with over 7.45 million interstate migrants recorded in the 2011 Census—predominantly youth seeking employment elsewhere—reflecting limited local job creation and fueling remittances as a key economic pillar.[19] Youth unemployment for ages 15–29 hovered around 12–15% per Periodic Labour Force Survey data, exacerbated by low female workforce participation at 31.2%.[20] The 2016 alcohol prohibition policy yielded mixed results on women's safety, reducing reported intimate partner violence through lower spousal alcohol consumption, yet it spurred illicit trade and enforcement challenges without curbing underlying domestic tensions comprehensively.[21] Governance faced scrutiny over corruption scandals, notably the Srijan scam, where an NGO diverted over ₹1,000 crore in government funds from 2004–2014 via fictitious transactions involving state treasuries, implicating local officials and highlighting oversight lapses.[22] Crime statistics presented a nuanced picture: while cognizable crimes per lakh population fell from 222 in the early 2000s to 159.7 by 2020, rates of attempted murders rose 67.6% under Kumar's tenure, per National Crime Records Bureau data, underscoring incomplete law-and-order reforms.[23] Kumar's EBC and Mahadalit quota expansions—reserving over 50% of seats in local bodies—bolstered political support among marginalized castes but arguably diverted focus from broad-based industrialization to alliance preservation, as evidenced by Kumar's 2015 shift to the Mahagathbandhan and 2017 return to NDA, prioritizing coalition stability over sustained developmental momentum.[24]Socio-Economic Conditions Pre-Election
Bihar's population stood at approximately 110 million in 2020, with over 88% residing in rural areas, reflecting heavy dependence on agrarian livelihoods and limited urbanization.[25][26] The state's demographic profile featured a youthful structure, with nearly 58% of residents under 25 years of age, amplifying pressures on employment and public services. Caste demographics, characterized by Other Backward Classes (OBCs) at around 27% and Extremely Backward Classes (EBCs) at 36%—together forming over 63% of the population per subsequent surveys—exerted substantial influence on social and economic dynamics, though exact pre-2020 enumerations relied on estimates from earlier data.[27] Economically, Bihar recorded the lowest per capita income among Indian states at roughly ₹48,000 in 2019-20, underscoring persistent developmental lags despite some growth in prior years.[28] Agriculture engaged about 50% of the workforce, yet productivity remained constrained by the state's flood-prone terrain, where 73% of the geographical area faced annual inundation from rivers like the Kosi and Gandak, disrupting cropping cycles and infrastructure.[29][30] The onset of the COVID-19 pandemic in early 2020 triggered a massive reverse migration, with an estimated 1.5 crore workers returning from urban centers across India, straining local resources and highlighting chronic out-migration driven by insufficient local job opportunities.[31] Health and education indicators revealed enduring gaps: the infant mortality rate hovered at 27 per 1,000 live births in rural areas during 2020, higher than the national average and linked to inadequate sanitation and maternal care access.[32] Literacy stood at approximately 70%, with stark rural-urban and gender disparities—male rates exceeding female by nearly 20 percentage points—impeding skill development and economic mobility amid a burgeoning youth cohort.[33] These conditions fostered widespread voter concerns over sustenance and opportunity, setting a backdrop of empirical hardship rather than isolated progress metrics.Major Issues and Voter Concerns
Economic Migration and Development Deficits
Bihar's economy has long been characterized by high levels of out-migration, with an estimated 20-25% of its workforce seeking employment outside the state due to insufficient local opportunities in industry and services.[18] [34] According to 2011 census data extrapolated to pre-election estimates, Bihar contributed around 20.9 million inter-state migrants, many in low-skill sectors like construction and labor, underscoring structural deficits in industrialization and job creation despite remittances inflows estimated at over ₹1 lakh crore annually, which propped up rural consumption but failed to spur sustained local growth.[34] The COVID-19 lockdowns from March 2020 exacerbated this, triggering mass reverse migration as over 40% of rural youth migrants from Bihar lost urban jobs and returned home, straining local resources and amplifying pre-existing unemployment pressures among the state's roughly 2 crore youth aged 15-29.[35] [36] The incumbent NDA government, led by Nitish Kumar since 2005, promoted the Saat Nischay program to address infrastructure gaps through initiatives in roads, electricity, and education, claiming these would foster employment indirectly.[37] However, verifiable outcomes showed limited direct job generation, with only about 6 lakh government positions filled over 15 years, far short of demands from a youth cohort facing labor force participation rates below 40% and unemployment concentrated among the educated.[38] Bihar's fiscal constraints— with own tax revenue at ₹34,750 crore in 2020-21 against a total budget of around ₹2.18 lakh crore—highlighted causal barriers to scaling public employment without broader reforms in revenue mobilization and private investment, as remittances masked rather than resolved underlying productivity stagnation.[39] [40] In contrast, the opposition Mahagathbandhan, spearheaded by Tejashwi Yadav, campaigned on a pledge to create 10 lakh government jobs within months of assuming power, positioning it as a direct antidote to migration-driven distress.[41] This promise, while resonant amid post-lockdown returns, overlooked fiscal realities: Bihar's low industrial base and dependence on central transfers (over 50% of revenue) rendered such expansion untenable without corresponding increases in tax base or efficiency, as public sector hiring alone cannot generate sustainable employment without private sector multipliers from skill development and ease of business—deficits persisting despite prior schemes.[39] Empirical patterns from other states indicate that rapid job pledges often lead to budgetary overload or unfulfilled delivery, prioritizing short-term patronage over long-term causal drivers like human capital investment.[20]Caste-Based Politics and Social Engineering
Caste dynamics have profoundly shaped Bihar's electoral landscape, with parties engineering vote blocs around demographic arithmetic rather than ideological platforms. In the 2020 assembly election, the Mahagathbandhan, led by the Rashtriya Janata Dal (RJD), achieved near-unanimous consolidation among Yadavs (approximately 14% of the population), securing 79% of their votes, and strong support from Muslims (17% of the population), with 65% backing, forming a core bloc estimated at 27-31% of the electorate.[42][43] Conversely, the National Democratic Alliance (NDA) relied on upper castes (15% of the population), capturing 53% of their votes, and Extremely Backward Classes (EBCs, 36% of the population), with 44% support, enabling a narrow victory despite comparable overall vote shares of around 37% for both alliances.[42][43] This polarization underscored persistent caste loyalties, where empirical data from post-poll surveys revealed limited cross-bloc defection compared to 2015, when broader OBC consolidation had favored the then-Mahagathbandhan.[42] Nitish Kumar's administration pursued deliberate social engineering to reconfigure these blocs, targeting fragmentation within Other Backward Classes (OBCs) and Scheduled Castes (SCs). The Mahadalit scheme, initiated in 2007 following recommendations from the Bihar State Mahadalit Commission, classified 18 of 22 Dalit sub-castes (covering about 75% of SCs) as "Mahadalits" eligible for enhanced welfare, including land patta distribution to 2.5 lakh beneficiaries by 2010, scholarships, and hostels, aiming to address intra-Dalit disparities dominated by the more prosperous Dusadh and Paswan communities.[44] Complementing this, EBC quotas in government jobs and education were raised from 12% to 18% in 2006, later adjusted to 25% under a 2016 policy, benefiting over 100 small OBC castes and countering Yadav (14%) numerical edge within OBCs by fostering political agency and higher turnout among these groups, which constitute 18-20% of the vote bank.[45][46] These measures empirically shifted EBC allegiance toward the NDA, with 44% support in 2020 versus fragmented votes in prior cycles, though implementation gaps, such as uneven land reforms, limited full socio-economic uplift.[42][44] Critics of the RJD portrayed its strategy as entrenching Yadav dominance through hereditary leadership—exemplified by Lalu Prasad Yadav's family succession to son Tejashwi—fostering a patronage system that prioritized caste kin networks over meritocratic governance, contributing to the "Jungle Raj" era's stagnation before 2005.[45] This approach, while consolidating a reliable 27% bloc, incurred agency costs by alienating EBCs and perpetuating intra-OBC rivalries, as evidenced by RJD's over-reliance on Yadav candidates (24% of tickets despite 14% population share).[47] In contrast, Nitish's fragmentation tactics drew acclaim from equity advocates for extending Mandal Commission (1990) principles to sub-groups, enhancing representation without proportional seat gains for dominant castes.[46] However, development-oriented perspectives contended that such engineering, while tactically effective, reinforced caste as a zero-sum resource allocator, delaying broader economic reforms needed to transcend identity-based voting patterns observed in persistent bloc fidelities from 2015 to 2020.[42]Law and Order versus 'Jungle Raj' Narratives
During the Rashtriya Janata Dal (RJD)-led governments under Lalu Prasad Yadav from 1990 to 2005, Bihar was widely characterized by the term "Jungle Raj," referring to pervasive lawlessness including rampant kidnappings for ransom, booth capturing in elections, and caste-based violence that deterred investment and mobility.[5][48] Criminal gangs operated with impunity, often linked to political patronage, resulting in Bihar's reputation as India's most failed state in terms of governance and security. Following Nitish Kumar's assumption of power in November 2005 as part of the National Democratic Alliance (NDA), reforms targeted police professionalization, rapid trials, and decentralization of authority, leading to measurable declines in key crimes; for instance, National Crime Records Bureau (NCRB) data indicated a sharp drop in kidnappings and serious offenses in the initial years, with overall cognizable crimes falling by over 20% between 2006 and 2007.[49][50] These changes facilitated economic resurgence, as improved security reduced extortion risks, enabling remittances from migrant workers to fuel local growth and infrastructure, with Bihar's per capita income rising at 9.44% annually from 2007 to 2012.[51] However, NCRB figures also showed rises in crimes against women, such as rapes up 21% and kidnappings of women up 16% by 2015, underscoring uneven progress amid population growth and reporting improvements.[52] The 2016 liquor prohibition under Nitish Kumar aimed to curb alcohol-fueled domestic violence and public disorder, correlating with a 0.22 standard deviation reduction in reported violent crimes per district-level studies, though it spurred illicit trade, hooch deaths, and enforcement-related violence.[53][54] In the 2020 campaign, the NDA leveraged this record to pitch "Sushasan" (good governance) and stability, warning voters against a Mahagathbandhan (MGB) return to Jungle Raj under RJD's Tejashwi Yadav, whose family faced ongoing corruption probes including disproportionate assets.[23] The MGB countered by highlighting NDA-era crime spikes and alleged selective enforcement, though empirical data favored NDA's narrative of systemic gains over anecdotal opposition claims, with left-leaning critiques often downplaying policing's causal role in enabling Bihar's Human Development Index climb from 0.367 in 2005 to higher rankings by 2020.[55]Alliances, Parties, and Strategies
National Democratic Alliance Composition and Tactics
![The Chief Minister of Bihar, Shri Nitish Kumar meeting with the Deputy Chairman, Planning Commission, Shri Montek Singh Ahluwalia to finalize Annual Plan 2007-08 of the State, in New Delhi on February 14, 2007 (Nitish Kumar) (cropped).jpg][float-right] The National Democratic Alliance (NDA) in the 2020 Bihar Legislative Assembly election primarily consisted of the Janata Dal (United) (JD(U)) contesting 115 seats and the Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) contesting 110 seats, with smaller partners such as the Hindustani Awam Morcha (Secular) (HAM(S)) allocated 7 seats and the Vikassheel Insaan Party (VIP) 4 seats.[56] This seat-sharing arrangement reflected a pragmatic approach aimed at maximizing vote consolidation against the Rashtriya Janata Dal (RJD)-led opposition, rather than strict ideological cohesion, as the allies adjusted allocations based on winnability assessments in caste-dominated constituencies.[57] Leadership dynamics featured Nitish Kumar of JD(U) as the alliance's chief ministerial face, drawing on his 15-year tenure as chief minister since 2005, which emphasized governance reforms, contrasted with the BJP's robust organizational machinery and national leadership support to mobilize upper-caste and non-Yadav backward voters.[58] The NDA's tactics centered on highlighting empirical gains in development under Kumar, including road connectivity expansions from 800 km of paved roads in 2005 to over 10,000 km by 2020, electrification of 99% of households, and initiatives like the liquor prohibition policy enacted in 2016, which appealed particularly to women voters.[59] The alliance also pushed for enhanced women's reservation, building on Kumar's earlier implementation of 35% quota for women in local body elections in 2006, positioning it as a counter to opposition narratives on social justice.[59] The NDA maintained an empirical advantage in upper-caste (e.g., Bhumihars, Rajputs) and Extremely Backward Classes (EBCs) vote shares, where surveys indicated 40-50% support driven by perceptions of improved law enforcement and economic stability post-2005, as opposed to the pre-Nitish era.[60] However, intra-alliance strains emerged from the Lok Janshakti Party (LJP)'s defection in September 2020, led by Chirag Paswan, who invoked a "Bihar First" platform and fielded candidates on 137 seats, predominantly against JD(U) incumbents to erode Kumar's base among Dalits and Paswans, resulting in JD(U) securing only 43 seats compared to BJP's 74.[61] This tactical split, while not derailing NDA's overall majority of 125 seats, underscored tensions over leadership primacy and resource allocation within the coalition.[57][62]Mahagathbandhan Dynamics and Appeals
The Mahagathbandhan alliance, led by the Rashtriya Janata Dal (RJD), positioned itself as a counter to the incumbent National Democratic Alliance through consolidation of caste-based voting blocs, particularly the Muslim-Yadav (MY) combine that has historically underpinned RJD's support. This strategy drew from the party's entrenched influence among Yadavs, who constitute around 14% of Bihar's population, and the 17% Muslim electorate, seeking to leverage demographic arithmetic for electoral gains. The inclusion of Congress and Left parties aimed to broaden appeal among secular voters and smaller backward castes, though these allies played marginal roles due to their limited organizational strength in the state.[63] Tejashwi Yadav, son of RJD founder Lalu Prasad Yadav, emerged as the alliance's chief ministerial face, emphasizing youth employment to address Bihar's high unemployment rates, which exceeded 10% among the 15-29 age group pre-election. He pledged to provide 10 lakh government jobs within the first year of forming government, tapping into the aspirations of a youthful demographic frustrated by economic migration and stagnant job creation under the prior regime. The Left partners contributed a narrative of secularism and anti-fascism, appealing to minority communities wary of perceived majoritarian policies, while downplaying RJD's past governance lapses. This jobs-centric pitch marked a shift from pure caste mobilization, though empirical analysis indicates the core remained the MY bloc's reliability.[64][65] Critics, including NDA leaders, highlighted the alliance's heavy reliance on Lalu Prasad Yadav's family dynasty as a root cause of RJD's earlier administrative failures from 1990 to 2005, when Bihar experienced negligible economic growth, rampant corruption exemplified by the fodder scam involving millions in embezzled funds, and a breakdown in law and order leading to mass exodus. This dynastic control, with Tejashwi and his siblings holding key positions, was argued to perpetuate nepotism over merit-based governance, undermining policy innovation and contributing to the state's developmental deficits. Mainstream outlets often framed the Mahagathbandhan as a viable anti-BJP front, yet closer scrutiny reveals a paucity of detailed economic blueprints beyond populist promises, with cohesion strained by Congress's negligible 7-8% vote share in prior polls and occasional seat-sharing disputes.[66] The alliance drew momentum from the 2019 Lok Sabha elections, where RJD secured a 22.6% vote share despite winning no seats, signaling potential spillover into assembly segments through consolidated opposition votes against NDA dominance. However, internal frictions persisted, with Congress's organizational weaknesses rendering it a junior partner, often overshadowed by RJD's assertive negotiations, which prioritized Yadav-dominated constituencies. Such dynamics underscored a tactical rather than ideological unity, vulnerable to perceptions of policy vacuum amid Bihar's pressing needs for infrastructure and industrial revival.[57]Smaller Alliances and Independent Factors
The Lok Janshakti Party (LJP), led by Chirag Paswan, opted to contest the 2020 election independently rather than as part of the National Democratic Alliance (NDA), strategically fielding candidates primarily against Janata Dal (United) [JD(U)] incumbents while avoiding direct contests against Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) nominees.[61] This approach, dubbed a "vote-cutter" tactic by critics, contributed to JD(U)'s reduced tally from 71 seats in 2015 to 43 seats, as LJP's interventions fragmented Paswan community and lower-caste votes in approximately 40 constituencies.[67] [68] Despite securing only one seat (Piari) and a vote share below 2%, LJP's targeted disruptions amplified NDA internal dynamics, indirectly benefiting BJP's seat gains.[69] A smaller coalition, the Grand Democratic Secular Front (GDSF), emerged as a third front comprising the Rashtriya Lok Samata Party (RLSP) under Upendra Kushwaha, All India Majlis-e-Ittehadul Muslimeen (AIMIM) led by Asaduddin Owaisi, Bahujan Samaj Party (BSP), and minor outfits like the Peoples Party of India (Democratic).[70] This grouping contested over 100 seats, emphasizing secular appeals to non-Yadav OBCs, Dalits, and Muslims, but achieved limited success with AIMIM securing five seats in the Muslim-dominated Seemanchal region (Amour, Bahadurganj, Kochadhaman, Phulwari Sharif, and Jokihat).[71] AIMIM's 1.02% statewide vote share masked localized impacts, where it drew 10-15% in targeted pockets, splitting anti-NDA Muslim votes and enabling NDA victories in triangular contests by diluting Mahagathbandhan margins.[72] The GDSF's overall vote haul remained under 5%, underscoring its marginal electoral footprint despite tactical disruptions in caste-fluid areas.[73] Independents and micro-parties fielded around 1,200 candidates, comprising roughly 20% of the total field, often leveraging local grievances or rebel candidacies to fragment votes in close races.[74] While independents won just one seat and garnered under 3% votes collectively, their presence influenced outcomes in at least 10 narrow-margin constituencies (differences under 5,000 votes) through vote splits or boosting NOTA options, particularly in rural belts where personalized campaigns swayed undecided voters.[75] This scattered effect, though empirically minor statewide, highlighted Bihar's fragmented polity, where fringe elements amplified multi-cornered dynamics without altering the bipolar NDA-Mahagathbandhan contest.[57]Pre-Election Polling and Forecasts
Opinion Polls on Vote Shares
Pre-election opinion polls for the 2020 Bihar Legislative Assembly election generally projected the National Democratic Alliance (NDA) holding a modest lead in vote shares over the Mahagathbandhan (MGB), with aggregates estimating NDA support at 35–40% and MGB at 30–35%, though margins of error around 3–5% rendered outcomes competitive.[76][77] These surveys captured a narrowing gap following initial post-COVID sentiments favoring opposition anti-incumbency narratives, as NDA consolidation among upper castes and non-Yadav OBCs bolstered its position in later polling.[78] Prominent polls, such as those by Lokniti-CSDS and CVoter, relied on face-to-face interviews in rural-heavy samples to mitigate biases from phone-based methods, which often underrepresented migrant laborers and lower-income voters in Bihar's context. Lokniti-CSDS, conducting fieldwork from October 10–17, 2020, with a sample of 3,731 respondents, forecasted NDA at 38% and MGB at 32%, attributing the edge to NDA's retention of 2019 Lok Sabha voters despite a 5% erosion since 2015.[76] CVoter's October 2020 surveys similarly tilted toward NDA, though earlier iterations occasionally inflated its share to near 48%, highlighting methodological sensitivities to undecided voters (up to 24% in some cases) and splintered opposition votes to entities like LJP at 6%.[79][80]| Pollster | Date | NDA Vote Share | MGB Vote Share | Others/Undecided | Notes |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Lokniti-CSDS | Oct 10–17, 2020 | 38% | 32% | 17% others + undecided | Face-to-face; NDA lead of 6% despite voter indecision.[76] |
| CVoter (ABP/Times Now) | Oct 14–24, 2020 | ~41–48% (varied) | ~30–35% (est.) | Not specified | Edge to NDA; potential overestimation from sampling.[79][80] |
Seat Projection Analyses
The Lokniti-CSDS pre-poll survey, conducted between October 10 and 17, 2020, projected the National Democratic Alliance (NDA) to secure 120-130 seats in the 243-member Bihar Legislative Assembly, reflecting a modest edge over the Mahagathbandhan alliance amid a closely contested race.[83] This forecast aligned with the NDA's observed consolidation among rural voters, particularly through caste-based mobilization of upper castes, OBCs, and EBCs, though it incorporated adjustments for undecided voters leaning toward Nitish Kumar's Janata Dal (United.[76] In contrast, some media interpretations amplified Tejashwi Yadav's youth appeal and anti-incumbency against Nitish Kumar, suggesting potential Mahagathbandhan gains beyond empirical sampling data, which detached from ground-level rural dynamics where NDA's development narrative held firmer sway. Methodological critiques of these projections highlighted potential urban sampling biases in pollster methodologies, as Bihar's electorate remains predominantly rural, with over 80% of seats influenced by village-level caste arithmetic rather than urban migrant sentiments.[42] Lokniti-CSDS, drawing from its academic rigor and face-to-face interviews across 40 constituencies, mitigated some errors by weighting for caste and regional variations, yet broader media reliance on telephonic or online supplements in other forecasts underestimated NDA's rural booth-level organization.[84] Pollster reliability varied, with Lokniti's seat range proving proximate to the actual NDA tally of 125 seats, while less rigorous surveys overemphasized Tejashwi's momentum from urban youth cohorts, ignoring causal factors like Nitish Kumar's targeted welfare schemes resonating in EBC-dominated areas.[85] Projections from other outlets, such as those aggregated in pre-election analyses, ranged NDA estimates up to 150 seats in optimistic scenarios factoring late consolidations, but these often lacked transparency in seat allocation models across alliances.[76] Errors stemmed from undercapturing covert NDA support in polarized rural pockets, where respondents hedged responses due to lingering 'jungle raj' fears from prior RJD regimes, a factor Lokniti partially addressed through follow-up probing but which mainstream narratives downplayed in favor of opposition surge stories.[42] Overall, while projections captured the razor-thin margin—evident in 20% of seats decided by under 5,000 votes—their variance underscored challenges in modeling Bihar's fragmented caste coalitions without granular, on-ground validation.[86]Campaign Dynamics
Key Campaign Events and Rallies
Prime Minister Narendra Modi addressed a major rally in Patna on October 28, 2020, coinciding with the first phase of polling, where he warned voters that a single vote could prevent Bihar from descending into the "jungle raj" of the 1990s under Rashtriya Janata Dal rule, emphasizing the NDA's record of development and stability.[87][88] The event drew large crowds and highlighted the NDA's strategy of leveraging national leadership star power to counter Mahagathbandhan narratives, with Modi invoking infrastructure projects like expressways and the Ram temple to underscore progress under Nitish Kumar's governance.[89] On October 25, 2020, Tejashwi Yadav, the Mahagathbandhan's chief ministerial face, released the alliance's manifesto promising 10 lakh government jobs within the first year of forming government, alongside improvements in education and healthcare, positioning the campaign around youth unemployment and migrant worker crises exacerbated by the COVID-19 lockdown.[90] This pledge formed the core of Tejashwi's grassroots rallies across the state, targeting rural and urban youth with direct appeals for economic revival, contrasting the NDA's focus on continuity by framing the election as a choice between immediate job creation and alleged corruption in prior regimes.[90] A notable viral moment occurred on October 27, 2020, when Chief Minister Nitish Kumar, during a rally, remarked without naming opponents that families seeking a male heir were having "eight to nine children," a comment interpreted as a jab at Lalu Prasad Yadav's family and criticized for insensitivity amid Bihar's demographic challenges.[91] Tejashwi responded by noting Prime Minister Modi's six siblings, deflecting the attack and amplifying it on social media to question Nitish's focus.[91] Following the first two polling phases on October 28 and November 3, the NDA intensified its development narrative in subsequent rallies, citing completed projects like road networks and electricity access to rebut Mahagathbandhan claims of stagnation, while Tejashwi's events maintained emphasis on employment guarantees to mobilize lower-caste and Muslim voters.[87]Media Coverage and Narrative Battles
Mainstream English-language media outlets emphasized narratives of anti-incumbency against Chief Minister Nitish Kumar, portraying the election as a contest between stagnation under prolonged JD(U)-BJP rule and promises of change led by Tejashwi Yadav's Mahagathbandhan (MGB). Coverage frequently highlighted youth unemployment and migrant worker distress exacerbated by the COVID-19 pandemic, amplifying Yadav's pledge of 10 lakh government jobs as a potential "youth wave" capable of upending the incumbent National Democratic Alliance (NDA).[92] This framing often downplayed NDA's governance achievements, such as infrastructure improvements and law-and-order stabilization, in favor of critiques of Nitish Kumar's perceived fatigue after 15 years in power.[93] In contrast, Hindi-language regional press and vernacular outlets accorded greater prominence to themes of continuity and development under the NDA, underscoring empirical gains in road connectivity, electricity access, and reduction in crime rates compared to the pre-2005 "Jungle Raj" era. These publications, with deeper penetration in rural Bihar, stressed voter preference for stability amid economic recovery from the pandemic, aligning more closely with ground-level caste and regional alliances that favored NDA incumbents.[94] Such divergence reflects broader patterns where national English media, influenced by urban-centric perspectives, prioritized disruption narratives, while local Hindi media reflected constituency-level priorities grounded in verifiable state data.[95] The NDA countered these portrayals through robust digital campaigns on platforms like Twitter and Facebook, disseminating data-driven content on scheme implementation—such as the distribution of free LPG cylinders to 1.15 crore women and increased school enrollment—to rural and migrant demographics. Social media also facilitated rapid debunking of misinformation, including fabricated claims about NDA policies, enabling direct voter engagement that bypassed traditional media filters.[96] This approach proved effective in reinforcing empirical evidence of progress, contrasting with MGB's reliance on rally-based mobilization.[97] Post-election, MGB leaders, including Tejashwi Yadav, questioned Electronic Voting Machine (EVM) integrity, alleging discrepancies in results despite their 37.5% vote share outperforming NDA's 37.3%. The Election Commission refuted these claims, affirming EVMs as "absolutely robust and tamper-proof" and reporting no mismatches in Voter Verifiable Paper Audit Trail (VVPAT) counts across 20 randomly selected polling stations per constituency, with full audits confirming alignment on December 3, 2020.[98] [99] Critics noted that much media coverage engaged in sensationalism by overemphasizing transient issues like youth discontent while underrepresenting enduring caste arithmetic, where NDA secured advantages among Extremely Backward Classes (27% vote share) and upper castes, pivotal in forming the government despite MGB's popular vote edge. This oversight ignored causal factors like strategic seat adjustments and Nitish Kumar's consolidation of non-Yadav backward votes, which empirical post-poll surveys confirmed as decisive.[47] [100]Candidate Selection and Prominent Contests
The major alliances finalized their candidate selections through seat-sharing agreements that allocated constituencies based on past performance, caste demographics, and perceived winnability. The Mahagathbandhan assigned 144 seats to the Rashtriya Janata Dal (RJD), 70 to the Indian National Congress (INC), and the remainder to leftist allies, with RJD prioritizing Yadav-dominated areas and fielding younger leaders to appeal to anti-incumbency sentiments. In contrast, the National Democratic Alliance (NDA) divided seats among the Janata Dal (United) (JD(U)) with 115, Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) with 110, and smaller partners like Hindustani Awam Morcha (HAM), focusing on retaining incumbents in strongholds while introducing fresh faces in competitive zones to counter opposition narratives on governance fatigue. Prominent contests highlighted intra-alliance tensions and personal rivalries. In Raghopur, RJD leader Tejashwi Yadav, positioned as the Mahagathbandhan's chief ministerial face, contested against JD(U)'s Guddu Gupta, drawing national attention due to Yadav's family legacy and promises of job creation amid youth unemployment concerns.[101] The Lok Janshakti Party (LJP), contesting independently under Chirag Paswan, fielded candidates targeting JD(U) incumbents across multiple seats, such as in Vaishali and Samastipur districts, aiming to fragment the NDA's vote by exploiting Paswan community dissatisfaction and positioning itself as a spoiler in close races. Urban seats like Patna Sahib emerged as high-stakes battlegrounds, where BJP's veteran Nand Kishore Yadav, a former minister emphasizing infrastructure development, faced INC's Pravin Singh, who campaigned on local issues like flooding and urban poverty, testing NDA's hold on upper-caste and middle-class voters in the capital region.[102] Other notable races included dynastic elements in RJD strongholds, such as Tej Pratap Yadav's contest in Hasanpur against JD(U), underscoring the reliance on familial ties in candidate choices despite critiques of limited merit-based selection. These selections reflected broader patterns of caste arithmetic, with parties balancing OBC, EBC, and upper-caste representation to minimize vote splits in empirically tight margins observed in prior cycles.Conduct of the Election
Phased Schedule and Logistics
The Election Commission of India (ECI) announced the schedule for the 2020 Bihar Legislative Assembly election on September 25, 2020, structuring the process in three phases to facilitate security deployments and logistical management across the state's 243 constituencies.[103] Polling in the first phase occurred on October 28, covering 71 constituencies primarily in the northern and eastern regions; the second phase on November 3 involved 94 constituencies in central and southern areas; and the third phase on November 7 encompassed the remaining 78 constituencies, focusing on western districts.[104] [105] Counting of votes from all phases took place simultaneously on November 10, 2020.[104] Preparatory efforts encompassed approximately 7.3 crore registered voters, with the ECI establishing over 63,000 polling stations to mitigate crowding.[1] In response to the ongoing COVID-19 pandemic, the ECI enforced protocols including compulsory face masks for voters and staff, provision of sanitizers at booths, thermal screening, and physical distancing markers, alongside increased booth numbers to limit queues.[106] [107] To address absenteeism among migrant laborers, the ECI introduced facilitated postal voting options, allowing eligible outstation voters to cast ballots via proxy or electronically transmitted systems in select categories, though uptake remained limited due to implementation hurdles.[108] Logistical difficulties persisted in flood-prone regions, where September-October inundations in districts like Patna and Bhagalpur delayed infrastructure readiness and hindered transportation of polling materials and personnel.[109]Voter Turnout Patterns and Demographics
The overall voter turnout for the 2020 Bihar Legislative Assembly election stood at 57.05%, marginally lower than the 56.81% recorded in 2015, amid challenges including the COVID-19 pandemic and migration patterns.[1] Turnout exhibited phase-wise variations, with the lowest in the second phase due to factors such as weather disruptions and logistical constraints in central Bihar districts.| Phase | Date | Number of Constituencies | Turnout (%) |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | October 28 | 71 | 57.19 |
| 2 | November 3 | 94 | 54.18 |
| 3 | November 7 | 78 | 57.79 |
Reported Irregularities and Security Incidents
Despite Bihar's history of electoral violence, the 2020 Legislative Assembly election proceeded with relatively few major security incidents, aided by the deployment of approximately 300 companies of Central Armed Police Forces (CAPF) for area domination exercises prior to polling. Police records and Election Commission monitoring indicated isolated clashes rather than widespread disorder, with no official tally of systemic booth capturing or large-scale disruptions confirmed by authorities. Claims of booth capturing in areas like Jehanabad circulated on social media, but investigations revealed many stemmed from misattributed older footage unrelated to the 2020 polls.[116] The Rashtriya Janata Dal (RJD)-led Mahagathbandhan alleged irregularities including Electronic Voting Machine (EVM) tampering and vote manipulation favoring the National Democratic Alliance (NDA), with RJD leaders citing discrepancies in vote shares versus seat outcomes as evidence.[117][118] The Election Commission refuted these assertions, emphasizing EVMs' tamper-proof design, standalone operation without network connectivity, and verification via Voter Verifiable Paper Audit Trail (VVPAT) slips, where random checks showed no mismatches.[119] Such claims lacked substantiation from mandatory audits or court-admissible evidence, contrasting with empirical indicators like the low rate of invalid or null votes—typically under 2% in EVM-based elections, reflecting minimal ballot stuffing or procedural errors absent in paper systems.[120] Tensions from the Lok Janshakti Party (LJP)'s decision to contest against Janata Dal (United) (JD(U)) allies in several seats fueled local acrimony, but this manifested more in competitive campaigning than verified polling-day irregularities, with NDA defenders highlighting the Election Commission's oversight as ensuring process integrity despite opposition narratives. No court challenges to the 2020 results succeeded on fraud grounds, underscoring the absence of proven systemic issues.[121]Election Results
Aggregate Seat and Vote Outcomes
The National Democratic Alliance (NDA) secured 125 seats in the 243-member Bihar Legislative Assembly, achieving a slim majority with just three seats above the 122 required. The Mahagathbandhan (MGB) obtained 110 seats, while smaller parties and independents claimed the remaining 8.[58][122] In vote terms, the NDA garnered 37.3% of the approximately 41.4 million valid votes cast, edging out the MGB's 37.0% by a razor-thin statewide margin of roughly 84,900 votes.[2][123][124] This near-parity in popular support, coupled with the NDA's more efficient translation of votes into seats—owing to concentrated backing in winnable constituencies—highlighted the election's competitiveness and Bihar's persistent bipolar alignment between the two dominant coalitions.[42] Despite the NDA's vote share dipping relative to the 2015 incumbent alliance's broader mandate, its strategic consolidation prevented a defeat.[125]Performance by Alliance and Party
The National Democratic Alliance (NDA) secured 125 seats in the 243-member Bihar Legislative Assembly, forming a slim majority. Within the NDA, the Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) won 74 seats, the Janata Dal (United) (JD(U)) 43, the Hindustani Awam Morcha (Secular) (HAM(S)) 4, and allied parties or independents supporting the alliance accounted for the remainder.[58] The BJP's gains were driven by strong upper-caste backing, enabling it to outperform its 2015 tally despite alliance tensions. The Mahagathbandhan (MGB) obtained 110 seats, with the Rashtriya Janata Dal (RJD) emerging as the single largest party at 75 seats, the Indian National Congress (INC) at 19, and Left parties (including CPI(ML) Liberation with 12) totaling 16.[58] The Lok Janshakti Party (LJP), which broke from the NDA to contest independently targeting JD(U) strongholds, won just 1 seat while securing 5.7% of the statewide vote share, illustrating its inefficiency in converting votes to legislative representation and contributing to fragmented anti-incumbent support.[126] Overall vote shares were nearly identical between alliances, with NDA at 37.99% and MGB at 37.96%, underscoring the MGB's suboptimal seat-sharing arrangements and candidate inefficiencies that prevented popular support from translating into a governing majority despite leading in raw assembly representation for RJD.[124]| Party | Alliance | Seats Won | Vote Share (%) |
|---|---|---|---|
| Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) | NDA | 74 | 19.8 [56] |
| Rashtriya Janata Dal (RJD) | MGB | 75 | 23.5 [126] |
| Janata Dal (United) (JD(U)) | NDA | 43 | 15.7 [56] |
| Indian National Congress (INC) | MGB | 19 | 9.6 [126] |
| Lok Janshakti Party (LJP) | Independent | 1 | 5.7 [126] |
| CPI(ML) Liberation | MGB | 12 | 2.4 [74] |
| Hindustani Awam Morcha (Secular) (HAM(S)) | NDA | 4 | N/A |
Regional Variations and District Breakdowns
The 2020 Bihar Legislative Assembly election exhibited marked regional variations across the state's 38 districts, with the National Democratic Alliance (NDA) securing stronger performances in southern and urban-centric areas, while the Mahagathbandhan (MGB) mounted closer challenges in northern riverine and border districts. In the Patna region, encompassing the capital district with its 14 assembly constituencies, the NDA achieved a decisive sweep, winning 8 seats to the MGB's 4, bolstered by a 50% vote share compared to the MGB's 40%.[114] Similarly, in the Magadh region, covering districts such as Gaya, Aurangabad, Nawada, and Jehanabad with approximately 24 seats, the NDA captured 12 seats against the MGB's 6, with vote shares of 48% to 42%.[114] In contrast, the Seemanchal region—spanning the Purnia division districts of Araria, Katihar, Purnia, and Kishanganj, which collectively hold 24 seats—saw a tighter contest, where the NDA edged out 11 seats to the MGB's 8, despite vote shares of 47% for NDA and 43% for MGB; this outcome was influenced by vote fragmentation from independent and other parties, including the All India Majlis-e-Ittehadul Muslimeen (AIMIM), which secured 5 seats primarily in this Muslim-concentrated area.[114][128] Northern divisions like Tirhut and Koshi also contributed to NDA leads through narrow margins in districts such as Muzaffarpur and Madhubani, where upper-caste and Extremely Backward Class (EBC) voter concentrations aligned with NDA incumbency.[129] Urban-rural divides further underscored these patterns, with the NDA attaining 52% of the vote in urban constituencies versus 38% for the MGB, reflecting stronger appeal among urban upper-caste and business communities, while rural areas showed a narrower gap of 46% NDA to 44% MGB, driven by Yadav and Muslim demographics favoring the MGB in agrarian districts.[114]| Region | Total Seats (approx.) | NDA Seats | MGB Seats | NDA Vote Share | MGB Vote Share |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Patna | 14 | 8 | 4 | 50% | 40% |
| Magadh | 24 | 12 | 6 | 48% | 42% |
| Seemanchal | 24 | 11 | 8 | 47% | 43% |