Bihar has always held a special place in Indian politics. It is a state where the interplay of caste, community, and social change is the most complex. The 2025 elections once again turned Bihar into a stage for these sophisticated political calculations, but this time, along with the result, the process itself has raised some troubling questions.
When we look at the election outcome with the NDA winning 202 seats and the Mahagathbandhan left with only 35, if someone asks whether this is a decisive mandate, the clear answer is yes. But if someone asks whether this is the complete truth, the answer becomes far more complicated.
In this election, the NDA secured a 46.6% vote share, while the Mahagathbandhan received 37.9%—an approximate difference of 9%. Yet this vote gap translated into a difference of 167 seats. The result of this assembly election is as decisive as it is controversial. The NDA’s sweeping victory (202 seats) and the Mahagathbandhan’s humiliating defeat (35 seats) have raised several questions that could shake the foundations of Indian democracy. Is this merely a victory of political-social strategy, or do serious flaws in the electoral process lie behind this outcome?
There is no doubt that the NDA deployed an excellent political strategy in this election. Nitish Kumar’s 20-year governance legacy once again managed to convince people; they succeeded in creating a social contract with women and mobilising them; and just days before the election announcement, the state government transferred ₹10,000 each to 1.4 crore women. This ₹14,000-crore cash transfer was an economic reality, not an election promise. In a state like Bihar, where the average family earns ₹15,000–₹25,000 a month, this amount accounted for nearly 40–67% of a family’s budget. Most importantly, the alliance was well-calibrated—BJP consolidated upper castes, JD(U) mobilised the extremely backward classes, and the parties of Chirag Paswan and Jitan Ram Manjhi unified Dalits in favour of the NDA. In contrast, the Mahagathbandhan appeared strategically scattered.
Women’s turnout in this election reached 71.6%, compared to 59.69% in 2020. This is not merely a figure; it resembles a social revolution. In Kishanganj, 88.57% women voted; in Araria, 83.4%; and in Katihar, 78.9%, proving that women are now a decisive political force—and they appeared firmly aligned with the NDA.
See Also: BLO Commits Suicide in West Bengal Citing SIR Pressure—Second Case in State, Fifth Nationwide
But this analysis alone does not tell the full story. This is where another aspect emerges—the question of whether the electoral process was fully impartial, and the credibility of the Election Commission. The voter list revision method adopted just before the election was unusual. In June 2025, during the Special Intensive Revision (SIR), around 64–68 lakh voters were removed from the list, and this is a deeply worrying figure. Especially because the proportion of women, Dalits, and minorities was unusually high among them, particularly rural women who generally do not possess property documents. Initially, the Election Commission accepted only property documents for verification, not voter ID cards. Only after Supreme Court intervention was Aadhaar accepted, but by then, millions of names had already been removed. The entire process lacked transparency. Political parties were not informed about who was being removed and for what reason. Affected voters received no notification, and no effective system for appeal was provided.
The Election Commission’s job is not merely to conduct elections. Its real responsibility is to protect democracy, guarantee citizens’ rights, and uphold the reality of impartiality.
But in the 2025 Bihar elections, the Commission appeared completely unable to fulfil this responsibility.
Whether it was violations of the Model Code of Conduct by the ruling party, the use of special trains to transport voters, or cases of illegal campaign expenditure—the Election Commission remained silent every time. Yet it acted strictly on every minor move by the opposition, exposing a clear imbalance in its behaviour.
The direct transfer of ₹10,000 each to over 1.4 crore women just before the election should have been a major political and ethical issue. This amounted to straightforward vote-buying. The Election Commission’s silence on the distribution of such a massive sum—₹14,000 crore—raises serious questions about its role. It is the Commission’s responsibility to ensure that elections are free and fair, yet it neither halted nor investigated this historic cash transfer, casting doubt on the transparency of the entire process.
When critics called it an open attempt to buy votes, the scheme was repackaged as women’s economic empowerment. But distributing this amount so close to the election clearly revealed the intentions of the ruling party. The Election Commission’s silence showed that it was unwilling or unable to prevent or scrutinise such financial interventions.
Voter-verified paper audit trail (VVPAT) slips were found scattered on roads in several booths, suspicious activities were reported, and when the opposition demanded 100% VVPAT verification, the Commission outright rejected it.
It is also important to note that fairness in elections is not limited to the counting of votes only, but it includes equal access to voting and equal opportunity for all voters. The Commission’s silence has placed a huge question mark on these basic democratic standards. It has cast doubt on the credibility of future elections and has become a matter of grave concern for the strength of our democracy.
These concerns are not technical but constitutional. And given this election result, some deeper questions have arisen. Is the Election Commission truly independent, or does it covertly assist those in power? When such large numbers of women, Dalits, and minority voters are removed from the electoral rolls, can we still call our democracy inclusive? And when doubts persist over EVMs and the Commission avoids transparency, can the legitimacy of the results remain intact?
To the answer of these questions, there are two truths, both of which appear simultaneously valid.
The first truth is that the NDA executed an excellent political strategy. It won the trust of women, strengthened its alliance, and the public accepted Nitish Kumar’s legacy. This victory is real because it reflects a mandate.
But the second truth is that the electoral process suffered from serious flaws. The removal and addition of names from the voter list were not transparent. The Election Commission stood far away from neutrality and appeared aligned with the ruling party. It made no effort to address doubts about EVMs, and all these flaws are also part of the real truth.
Both truths exist, and we must acknowledge both. Those who see only the first truth ignore a systemic crisis, and those who see only the second truth overlook political and social realities.
The real challenge now is: how do we build a democratic system where victory comes from social work and political strategy—not from institutional manipulation? Where the Election Commission represents the Constitution, not the ruling party?
The outcome of the Bihar election has placed this question before Indian democracy. And failing to answer it could be dangerous—not just for Bihar, but for the entire country.
Author Note: My name is Rahul Dev. I studied at the Tata Institute of Social Sciences, Mumbai, and for the last 12 years, I have been working on issues related to Indian politics, the electoral system, and democratic institutions. I have a deep interest in Bihar’s political developments.
(This is the translated version of the opinion piece by Rahul Dev titled "बिहार जनादेश से आगे: लोकतंत्र की नई चुनौती". Read the original article in Hindi here. The article has been translated by Varsha Pant.)
[VP]
Suggested Reading: