In the 2020 Assembly election, RJD leader Tejashwi Yadav got his sherwani stitched in anticipation of the Mahagathbandhan’s victory, but, at 110 seats, the Opposition alliance fell 12 short of a simple majority. This time, that buzz was missing, with the RJD set to register one of its worst performances in its recent elections.
Yet, even before looking at the poll trends, Tejashwi had set November 18 as the day of “swearing-in”, telling journalists on Friday morning, “Shubhkamnayen, badlav ho raha hai (Best wishes, change is set to happen).”
But it did not work out as the RJD leader must have hoped for, as his party and the Opposition coalition failed to extend their social combination beyond the Muslim-Yadav vote bank. While Yadavs looked to support the RJD as ever, the AIMIM dented a good chunk of the Muslim votes in the Seemanchal region, comprising the districts of Kishanganj, Katihar, Purnea, and Araria.
Story continues below this ad
The RJD and Tejashwi did not do too well this time because of multiple factors:
If the RJD had risen from 22 seats in 2010 to 80 in 2015, it was because of its formidable social combination with the JD(U), with the Congress acting as the glue. In 2020, the RJD emerged as the single-largest party with 75 seats because the Chirag Paswan-led Lok Janshakti Party (LJP) walked away from the NDA and contested on its own and ended up damaging the JD(U). And the JD(U)’s loss was automatically the RJD’s gain.
When the RJD went to the polls this time, it had no extraneous or indirect factors to help it. The party was on its own. The RJD did try to stitch together a seven-party coalition to expand its base, but it did not work. The Congress continued to remain the alliance’s weak link, and other allies such as the CPI (M-L) Liberation, Vikassheel Insaan Party (VIP), and the Indian Inclusive Party (IIP) also did not add much to its social combination.
Weak ‘laabharthi’ narrative
Story continues below this ad
In the run-up to the polls, Tejashwi was raising questions about Chief Minister Nitish Kumar’s health, saying the NDA government was in an “achet (unconscious)” state. He also termed the Nitish government as “khatara (rickety)”. However, the RJD leader, who had shaken the NDA with his 10 lakh jobs narrative in 2020, did not have anything fresh to offer in terms of a vision, except the promise of a government job for each family, which did not have many takers.
His Mai Bahin Maan Yojana, promising Rs 2,500 to each woman, looked somewhat doable, but the NDA successfully countered it with the Mukhyamantri Mahila Rojgar Yojana, in which 1.51 crore prospective women entrepreneurs received Rs 10,000 in the first instalment. Now famous as the “dashazari” scheme, it helped Nitish rally his core constituency of “mahila” voters and swept away Tejashwi’s narrative.
Lalu, both a liability and an asset
Tejashwi’s biggest asset is that he is the son of Lalu Prasad, and his father’s years in power, remembered as the years of “jungle raj” or lawlessness, are also his liability. The RJD was able to tide over the “jungle raj” narrative in 2015 and 2020 with a good social combination, or when the NDA alliance was weaker, but this was not the case this time.
What Tejashwi may need to do
Tejashwi will now have to work towards revitalising the RJD and broadening his party’s core base. To this end, he needs to rein in his core voters, Yadavs, which is an obstacle to attracting the EBC vote. Reports of the dominance of Yadavs in places such as Tejashwi’s own constituency of Raghopur have been holding back the RJD.
Story continues below this ad
In addition to this, Tejashwi needs to reach out to EBCs by giving them tickets proportionate to their population. As this election shows, having allies from EBC communities, such as the VIP and the IIP, may not be enough.
Tejashwi will also require a better team around him to ideate an alternative vision that can resonate with voters and improve coordination with allies. His statement that “friendly fights” in some constituencies were “tactical” in nature did not go well with most voters, indicating the lack of a cohesive alliance.