As the Bihar Assembly elections
approach, claims and counter-claims have begun to fly thick and fast. Chief Minister Nitish Kumar has projected the
development work that he has accomplished in Bihar[i]
while the BJP has sought to counter this with the report of its think tank which
debunks his achievements.[ii] Of
course, the BJP has to walk a thin line since it was Nitish Kumar’s JD(U)’s
partner till as late as June 2013. Hence, the main force of BJP’s attack is
that Bihar has suffered since it split with the JD(U). Arun Jaitley delivered
what he thought was a coup de grace
when he said “What is there to debate? This debate is over. Gujarat is number 1
and Bihar stands at 21”.[iii]
This is almost like the USA telling India “Your per capita income is barely 3%
of my per capita income. Debate over”. Such statements, while they grab
headlines, are generally devoid of any substance.
There is no doubt that
Bihar starts with a massive disadvantage. It has been quite easily one of the
worst performing states. The question to be asked is whether the state is
showing signs of progress. If there has, in fact, been some progress, it might
be good strategy for the BJP to claim some credit since it was in alliance with
the ruling JD(U) for much of Nitish Kumar’s tenure. It has been opposed to JD(U)
only for the last couple of years. Is it possible that all that the alliance
might have achieved over so many years would have unraveled in the last two? If
it has, indeed, unraveled in the last two years, then it speaks pretty poorly
about the governance structures and institutions that the BJP would have helped
put in place. Surely, that cannot redound to the credit of the BJP. But the BJP
and, indeed, all political parties in India, work on the principle of voter
myopia. It is the belief of political parties that voters will not remember
anything that happened in the distant past and would be entirely swayed by
claims and counter-claims being bandied about here and now.
In this note I will
present some facts about Bihar and compare these to two states: Gujarat and
Maharashtra. In many ways, Gujarat and Maharashtra are the best performing of
all Indian states. Gujarat is the showpiece state of the BJP, while Maharashtra
has had a Congress-led government till the recent change. At first blush, this
comparison seems unfair. Even without looking at the facts, most people are
likely to conclude that Bihar is bound to perform worse than Gujarat and
Maharashtra. But this note will show that sometimes data can spring some
surprises. Bihar has been a victim of bad press for decades, some of it fully
deserved but, as we will see below, things are changing.
State
of the Economy
I first look at the
size of Bihar’s economy relative to that of Gujarat and Maharashtra as well as India
as a whole. See Table 1.
Table 1: Total Production in Three
States and India
(Rs.
Billion)
Bihar
|
Maharashtra
|
Gujarat
|
GDP: India
|
|
2004-05
|
1,212.10
|
3,822.04
|
1,867.91
|
29,714.64
|
2005-06
|
1,375.39
|
4,154.80
|
2,033.73
|
32,530.73
|
2006-07
|
1,343.14
|
4,709.29
|
2,337.76
|
35,643.64
|
2007-08
|
1,480.66
|
5,346.54
|
2,533.93
|
38,966.36
|
2008-09
|
1,651.51
|
5,948.32
|
2,812.73
|
41,586.76
|
2009-10
|
1,775.41
|
6,101.91
|
3,003.41
|
45,160.71
|
2010-11
|
1,903.98
|
6,669.44
|
3,341.27
|
49,185.33
|
2011-12
|
2,196.62
|
7,420.42
|
3,675.81
|
52,475.30
|
2012-13
|
2,370.70
|
7,777.91
|
3,957.38
|
54,821.11
|
2013-14
|
2,594.32
|
8,258.32
|
4,272.19
|
57,417.91
|
Note: Figures for
the states are Gross State Domestic Product, the state-level equivalent of
GDP
|
||||
Clearly, Bihar is a
much smaller economy as compared to the other states. It seems reasonably clear
that Bihar has lagged behind Maharashtra and Gujarat. In 2004-05, Bihar’s GSDP
was 32% of Maharashtra’s GSDP (65% of Gujarat’s GSDP) while in 2013-14, it was
31% of Maharashtra’s GSDP (61% of Gujarat’s GSDP). The gap between Bihar and
other two states seems to have widened in absolute terms.
Is there hope for Bihar
to catch-up with Maharashtra and Gujarat? The convergence hypothesis[iv]
states that if a poor economy is to catch up with a relatively richer one, it
should, at the very least, grow faster than the richer states. Does Bihar show
any sign that this minimum requirement of convergence is being met?
Table 2: Rates of
growth of GSDP
(%)
Bihar
|
Maharashtra
|
Gujarat
|
|
2004-05
|
0.08
|
7.70
|
13.78
|
2005-06
|
12.64
|
8.35
|
8.50
|
2006-07
|
-2.37
|
12.53
|
13.93
|
2007-08
|
9.75
|
12.69
|
8.06
|
2008-09
|
10.92
|
10.67
|
10.44
|
2009-10
|
7.23
|
2.55
|
6.56
|
2010-11
|
6.99
|
8.89
|
10.66
|
2011-12
|
14.30
|
10.67
|
9.54
|
2012-13
|
7.63
|
4.71
|
7.38
|
2013-14
|
9.01
|
5.99
|
7.65
|
Since 2007-08, Bihar
has been growing, atleast, as fast as Maharashtra and/or Gujarat (with the exception
of 2010-11). In fact, Bihar had the highest rate of growth among all states of
India in 2013-14. The rates of growth for Bihar since 2007-08 are truly
impressive even if one allows for the small base from where the state is
starting off. Of course, it still has a very long way to go before it can catch
up with the other two states. But, in the meantime, the government of Bihar can
take some credit for the performance of the state’s economy.
In per capita terms as
well, Bihar has been performing well. See Table 3.
Table 3: Rate of growth
of per capita GSDP
(%)
Bihar
|
Maharashtra
|
Gujarat
|
|
2004-05
|
-1.03
|
6.59
|
12.67
|
2005-06
|
11.53
|
7.24
|
7.40
|
2006-07
|
-3.48
|
11.42
|
12.83
|
2007-08
|
8.64
|
11.59
|
6.95
|
2008-09
|
9.81
|
9.56
|
9.33
|
2009-10
|
6.13
|
1.44
|
5.45
|
2010-11
|
5.89
|
7.79
|
9.55
|
2011-12
|
10.33
|
8.56
|
6.72
|
2012-13
|
-1.53
|
0.69
|
1.36
|
2013-14
|
7.91
|
4.89
|
6.55
|
Since 2007-08, Bihar
has performed commendably in all years except 2012-13. But, to be fair, even
Maharashtra and Gujarat performed poorly on 2012-13. Once again, much credit is
due to the government for pushing the state out of its low-level equilibrium
trap in which it had found itself for many, many years.
Jungle
Raj?
Prime Minister Modi,
while campaigning in Bihar, called for the end of ‘jungle raj’ that has thrived
under the Nitish Kumar government.[v]
Bihar had, indeed, become synonymous with violence and corruption at the time
that Nitish Kumar took office in 2005. See Rohan Mukherjee’s article for a good
description of the steps taken by Nitish Kumar to tackle this problem.[vi]
Mukherjee describes the success that was achieved over the period 2005-09 as a
result of the measures taken. BJP’s Policy Research Centre, however, points out
that Bihar suffered after the JD(U)
split with the BJP in 2013.[vii]
It is claimed that Bihar’s rate of growth fell in 2013-14 and that crime
increased.[viii]
Tables 2 and 3 above show no evidence of a decline in performance of the state
after the BJP parted with Nitish Kumar. Let us see if there is any evidence of
increase in crime.
I first consider all
cognizable crimes. Table 4 presents rate of cognizable crime.[ix]
Table
4: Number of Cognizable Crimes per 100,000 Population
1995
|
2004
|
2014
|
|
Bihar
|
121.8
|
122.4
|
174.2
|
Gujarat
|
276.9
|
197.3
|
213.3
|
Maharashtra
|
273.3
|
173.3
|
212.3
|
All States
|
181.9
|
165.8
|
220.5
|
Quite surprisingly, for
each of the three years for which data have been presented, only Bihar has a
rate below the all states average. There has been a disturbing rise in the rate
from 2004 to 2014, but this is true for Gujarat and Maharashtra as well.
Focusing on all
cognizable crime can be misleading since it includes violent as well as
non-violent crime such as cheating, criminal breach of trust and counterfeiting.
It makes sense, therefore, to focus on violent crime. In the next few tables, I
present information in specific violent crimes.
Table
5: Number of Murders per 100,000 population
1995
|
2004
|
2014
|
|
Bihar
|
5.32
|
4.47
|
3.34
|
Gujarat
|
3.21
|
2.08
|
1.82
|
Maharashtra
|
3.38
|
2.65
|
2.27
|
All States
|
4.09
|
3.10
|
2.73
|
Clearly, Bihar does
worse than the other two states as well as the all states average. But is the
rate of murder in Bihar the worst in India? Not at all and numerous states do
worse than Bihar in 2014: Chhattisgarh (3.9), Haryana (4.1), Jharkhand (5.0),
Odisha (3.5) and Telangana (3.6).
Table
6: Number of Attempted Murders per 100,000 population
1995
|
2004
|
2014
|
|
Bihar
|
4.84
|
3.39
|
4.30
|
Gujarat
|
1.72
|
0.88
|
1.23
|
Maharashtra
|
1.56
|
1.44
|
2.22
|
All States
|
3.21
|
2.56
|
3.36
|
Once again Bihar does
worse than Gujarat and Maharashtra and, barring Odisha (5.6), it is the worst
performer in this category in 2014.
Table
7: Number of Rapes per 100,000 population
1995
|
2004
|
2014
|
|
Bihar
|
1.38
|
1.57
|
1.11
|
Gujarat
|
0.69
|
0.63
|
1.37
|
Maharashtra
|
1.59
|
1.36
|
2.92
|
All States
|
1.48
|
1.65
|
2.83
|
There has been a
persistent decline in rate of rapes in Bihar while the trend has been in the
opposite direction for Gujarat and Maharashtra, both of which show a poorer
record than Bihar. There are many states with a worse record than Bihar in 2014:
Andhra Pradesh (1.9), Chhattisgarh (5.7), Goa (5.0), Haryana (4.4), Himachal
Pradesh (4.0), Madhya Pradesh (6.7) and Rajasthan (5.3).
Table 8: Number of Kidnappings per 100,000 population
1995
|
2004
|
2014
|
|
Bihar
|
2.18
|
3.86
|
6.44
|
Gujarat
|
2.51
|
2.12
|
4.42
|
Maharashtra
|
1.35
|
1.03
|
3.22
|
All States
|
2.12
|
2.06
|
5.73
|
Kidnapping is certainly
a major issue in Bihar and its rate is well above that of Gujarat and
Maharashtra. But it is worth pondering over why the rate has doubled in Gujarat
between 2004 and 2014 and tripled in Maharashtra over the same time period.
There are states which perform worse than Bihar 2014: Chhattisgarh (7.9), Goa
(7.9), Haryana (11.5), Madhya Pradesh (10.3), Odisha (7.3) and West Bengal
(6.6).
What can one conclude
after looking at the data on crime in Bihar and comparing this with other
states? The proverb “give the dog a bad name and hang him” comes to mind. Bihar
has acquired a reputation as a lawless state and, even though the situation is
changing, and even though other states have been performing worse than Bihar on
some indicators, jaundiced views are difficult to overcome. Hence, there is
hardly a murmur of protest when the pejorative “jungle raj” is hurled at Bihar.
With such high rates of rapes and kidnappings, why is the epithet “jungle raj”
not applied to Madhya Pradesh or Haryana or Odisha?
Conclusion
The main conclusion
that I draw at the end of this note is that entrenched prejudices do not die
easily. Certainly, Bihar had a well-justified reputation as a basket case in
terms of economic performance and crime and it is still not a state that is
performing well consistently. However, it is important to recognize the efforts
that have been made in the last decade to improve the situation.
Separately, I am
uncomfortable with Union cabinet ministers jumping into the fray and making
strongly partisan statements directed at elections in Bihar. When the Indian
Finance Minister gloats that Bihar is ranked number 21 in terms of ease of doing
business, it is a bit disturbing. Should it not be his responsibility, as
Finance Minister of the entire nation, to work along with the government of
Bihar (whichever may be the ruling party in the state) to improve the
situation? It is a similar situation when the BJP fields Narendra Modi as its
star campaigner. I realise that BJP needs to do all it can to win elections and
Modi is its best bet. We saw what happened when Modi stayed away from
campaigning during the Delhi elections. So, when Modi labels Bihar as jungle
raj, is it not his responsibility, as Prime Minister of the country, to help
improve the situation, given that the state is a significant part of the nation
he rules over? Is it too much to expect Union ministers to rise above partisan
politics?
In some ways the recent
complaint by the Congress to the Election Commission about the Prime Minister’s
radio show “Mann ki baat”[x] captures
the point I have raised above. Of course, the Congress was more concerned with
muting the oratory of Narendra Modi against which the party was quite helpless.
The Congress had absolutely nothing in common with the issue that I am
concerned about. The Election Commission allowed the radio show to go on with
the proviso “…nothing is said [in the radio
show] that may be construed as inducement to voters or having an impact on
poll-bound Bihar where model code of conduct is in force till November 12”.[xi]
In effect, the Election Commission was reminding Narendra Modi that only his
persona as Prime Minister was to be revealed during the radio show and not his
persona as BJP’s election campaigner. When Narendra Modi addresses an election
rally in Bihar, exactly the opposite situation should prevail: only the persona
of BJP’s star campaigner should be revealed while that of Prime Minister should
remain hidden. Does this happen? Does anyone believe the fiction that a mere
BJP functionary is addressing the rally and not the Prime Minister? How does
a voter distinguish the two personas of the same individual, Modi as Prime
Minister and Modi as BJP campaigner? At the very
least, the security that surrounds Narendra Modi would remind the audience that
the Prime Minister is present at the rally. The Election Commission’s diktat about
keeping the two personas separate just does not work at an election rally and
the audience listens to and reacts to the Prime Minister’s criticism and
diatribes directed at Nitish Kumar and JD(U). This, as I have stated above, I find
deeply disturbing. Is it possible to imagine a law that prohibits a Union
minister, including the Prime Minister, from campaigning in assembly elections?
[iii]
http://www.ndtv.com/bihar/debate-settled-gujarat-is-1-bihar-21-arun-jaitley-tells-nitish-kumar-1218747
[iv]
http://www.ssc.wisc.edu/econ/archive/wp2003-06.pdf
[ix] All data in
this section are from the National Crime Records Bureau (http://ncrb.gov.in/).
[x] http://www.ndtv.com/india-news/ban-pm-modis-mann-ki-baat-till-bihar-polls-are-over-congress-to-ask-1218111
[xi] http://www.newindianexpress.com/nation/Election-Commission-Approves-Airing-Modi%E2%80%99s-Mann-Ki-Baat-During-Bihar-Elections/2015/09/18/article3034850.ece
