File photo: Nitish Kumar

NEW DELHI: After two decades at the helm of Bihar, Nitish Kumar has finally ceded the seat that he made his own, kicking up a storm of reaction from angry supporters and criticism from the opposition that cited it as another example of BJP “cannibalising” its allies like in Maharashtra.But Kumar appeared to go quietly, posting on X his desire to work in Parliament.The aloofness of his departure, as witnessed in his announcement, matched the icy wiliness with which he ensured post-2005 that he stayed in the CM’s seat, irrespective of who he went with or which among the allies had more MLAs. After all, it was nothing short of a ‘Paltu Ram’ act that saw him win a majority to eject Lalu Prasad’s RJD from Patna in 2005 before joining hands with RJD and Congress in Bihar. In 2015, as part of “Mahagathbandhan”, he humiliated BJP that had just stormed to office in Delhi led by Narendra Modi. He returned to NDA in 2017, then turned to RJD and Congress in 2022, before realigning with BJP in Jan 2024. All this while, he resigned and took oath as CM.

The flip-flops were not just about parties, but also about ideology and players, moving from being a “never-Modi” to a willing partner of the PM. But through his ideological shifts, Kumar carved a niche that had not been witnessed before – as an OBC politician who brought a “Mandal-plus” age-nda to the fore in a backward state, and as a strategist who worked to carve a personal constituency for himself. He stood out also for being a rarity-an OBC politician from the north who could govern well, and was not tainted by corruption allegations.Kumar’s equity with voters was on display during the 2025 assembly elections. As his growing gaffes and eccentricities coupled with a prolonged absence from public view led to questions about his mental acuity, the opposition stepped up its campaign that BJP would install its own CM, like it had done in Maharashtra. BJP increased Kumar’s campaign rallies and announcements. That is said to have done the trick by reinforcing the “Jodya Modi-Nitish ke hit hoi” (Modi-Nitish partnership will prevail) message. On the road to entrenching himself as a satrap, Kumar was helped by the low bar set by his once comrade-in-arms Lalu. He made “clean administration” and “crime” issues that he and BJP hammered on for years to keep rival RJD on the backfoot.But the real cunning lay in thinking of a strategy to overcome RJD’s advantage on caste front in a state that has an overwhelmingly large OBC/Dalit population. This is where Kumar set a template that was later emulated by other states. Hailing from the Kurmi caste of OBCs that has a minuscule population share, Kumar moved with alacrity to fragment the OBC population by categorising them along “developmental” status – backwards and most backwards. He cornered the loyalty of a large chunk of “aspirational” OBC communities, while turning “Yadavisation” into a stick to beat the rival with. The polarisation of “Yadav vs non-Yadavs” sustained him for two decades. Kumar tried the same with “Dalits vs Maha Dalits” but failed as political compulsions forced him to dilute the “Maha Dalit” tag by including stronger communities.The game changer was when his search for a personal constituency led him to focus on the pan-caste category of “women”. From his earliest signalling through reservations in panchayats to bicycles for girls to microfinance loans/self-help groups, to dole for women, the JDU leader fused his “welfarism” with “development” to earn the loyalty of a key voting bloc. Questions remain whether women vote independently from family and caste factors, but it consolidated pro-JDU sections at multiple levels, diluting factors like anti-incumbency.To successfully create personalised loyalty in the shifting sands of competitive caste politics is a feat that remains unrivalled since Lalu’s ejection from the Patna throne.