International Journal of Multidisciplinary Research and Development

www.allsubjectjournal.com
Online ISSN: 2349-4182, Print ISSN: 2349-5979
Received: 20-09-2021, Accepted: 05-10-2021, Published: 21-10-2021
Volume 8, Issue 10, 2021, Page No. 48-51

The politics of Bihar after Independence from 1947 to 1977

Supriya Kumari
Magadh University, Bodh-Gaya, Bihar, India

Abstract
Empowerment is condition of loving power, and being able to exercise it and obtain the benefits thereof. The Indian way of
Securing empowerment for un-empowered is to Provide Quota of community casts and Gender. There are six (6) resources viz
economic, social, political International, moral and physical that led to empowerment of Weaker Sections.
After independence, the objective of the state has been to move local government in the direction of democracy. The ideal was
formally enshirined in the constitution (article 40). But the path from feudal type to the democratic type has occasionally led to
anomie and fragmentation, as in Bihar, where local government lies paralysed in the midist of vicious caste wars.
The complex nexus of the national, the regional, and local has been possible through a number of national legal and political
initiatives, and has been more successful in those parts in India where a competitive party system has successfully integrated
the local with the national. By extension of the same argument, the experimentation in local democracy has been the least
successful in those regions where no autonomous empowerment of subaltern groups has taken place.
The politics of Bihar maybe divided into two phase. In the first phase, which extends up to the 1967, it is principally a story of
the use of political power by the upper castes to retain their social domination. The second phase that began from 1967 is
marked by the rise of upper backward caste people as major contenders of state power and forceful protest movements of the
marginalized Schedule Castes (SCs) and neglected Scheduled Tribes (STs).

Keywords: politics, loving power, SCs, STs

Introduction  To study the combination of three Mr. K. B. Sahay,

 To lead the empowerment of weaker sections. Chief Minister, Sushil Kumar Bage a Scheduled tribe
 Securing empowerment for un-empowered to provide MLA as the right ward Rama Lakhan Singh Yadav as
upto of community casts and Gender. my left hand was the significant is Traditional of Bihar
 The economic social, political, internationals, moral politics. The combination of Three made by the
and physical. Government extremely un popular.
 The Local Government in the direction of democracy.  During the traditional period the Bihar Politics was
 To Autonomous empowerment of subaltern groups. articulated with term of Backward virus Upper Casts.
 The State power and force protest movements of the  To observe the backward class movement led by
marginal = casts (scs) and neglected treble (STS) Karpoori Thakur as the Organization of the poor in the
double assault on the cast system and class structure.
Objectives of the Study  To analyze of the 1995 Assembly elections Laloo
The basic objectives of the study are Prasad Yadav was subbing with confidence.
 To study the Politics of Bihar towards an  To Identify the Tactful alliance of the Janta Dal United
understanding.
and the Bhartiya Janta Party dissolved the R.S.P. from
 To find out the story of the use of political power by the
upper casts to retains their social domination. the Power Assembly Election of 2005.
 To Find out that The began from 1967 is marked by the
rise of upper back ward casts people as a major The Political Development of Bihar has been divided
contenders of the state power. into Eight Phases as Shown is the Table below

Table 1: Political Development of Bihar

Phase Period Party Chief Minister
1. First 1947-1961 Congress Shri Krishna Sinha
2. Second 1961-1971 Congress Jagannath Mishra
1961-1962 Do B. N. Jha
1963-1967 Do K. B. Sahay
Mahamaya P. Sinha
1967-1969 Three coalition ministries of Opposition parties S. P. Singh
B. P. Mandal
One Ministry backed by Congress which was in power for four days Five B. P. Shastri
1969-1971 coalition ministries In two of which mainstream Congress, i.e. Congress (R) Harihar Singh
was partner B. P. Singh

48
International Journal of Multidisciplinary Research and Development www.allsubjectjournal.com

Daroga Raik
Karpoori Thakur
B. P. Shastri
1947-1977 Congress
1972-1973 Do Kedar Pandey
3. Third 1973-1975 Do Abdul Ghafoor
1975-1977 Do Jagannath Mishra
1977-1979 Janta Karpoori Thakur
4. Fourth
Jagannath Mishra
1980-1990 Congress
Chandrashekhar Singh
1980-1983 Do
5. Fifth Bindeshwari Dubey
1983-1985 Do
Bagwat Jhar Azad
1985-1990 Do
Jagannath Mishra

Laloo Prasad Yadav

Janta Dal supported by some non- Congress parties

1990-2005 Laloo Prasad Yadav
Janta Dal Rashtriya Janta Dal (RJD)
1990-1995
6. Sixth RJD Supported by Congress and other minor parties
1995-2000
Janta Dal United JD (U) + Bhartiya Janta Party (BJP)
2000-2005
Janta Dal United JD (U)
Rabri Devi

Nitish Kumar

Nitish Kumar
7. Seventh 2005 to 2013 Janta Dal United JD (U) Nitish Kumar
8. Eight 2013 to till now Janta Dal United JD (U) Nitish Kumar

The Congress party retained absolute control over loggerheads with the Bhumihar Chief Minister Shri Krishna
government uninterruptedly from 1947 to 1967. The same Sinha until his death. The leadership struggle did not
leadership of the nationalist movement guided the destiny of confine itself only to the top. It percolated down to all
the caste-ridden, semi-feudal and impoverished state for two levels. These inter-and intra-caste rivalry among the
decades. The Congress provided stable government and it Congress leadership, which was the exclusive domain of the
has made no significant contribution to development. The upper-caste, became more intense after the death of Sinha in
Congress ministry headed by the veteran Shri Krishna Sinha 1961. B. N. Jha, a Brahmin, K. B. Sahay, a Kayastha and M.
came to power in Bihar in 1946. Shri Sinha continued as P. Sinha, a Bhumihar, fought among themselves for the
Chief Minister until his death in 1961. There is a general leadership. “Each drew support from a few caste-based
consensus that the period of 1947 to 1961 is the brightest in factions, but none of them was tall enough to mobilize wide
Bihar’s post-independence policy, because the government support cutting [across] the intra-party factions’. This was
was stable and effective under the mature leadership of Shri the beginning of the period of unstable governments and
Krishna Sinha. However, facts do not substantiate this growing crisis in the governability.”2
assessment. The nationalist movement leaders were Until the death of Shri Krishna Sinha in 1961, the Congress
conservative and biased towards the upper castes and the party was the dominant party in the country and Bihar as
landed gentry, so little could be expected from them. In well. The opposition was weak and the social domination of
policies nothing that would disturb the status quo could be the upper castes was matched by their total control over the
expected from them. political system. Leaders of the nationalist movement were
The second point is this that they were themselves involved veterans, which provided enviable political capital to the
in narrow inter-caste conflict. party. The Congress had its organizational network from the
The third point is this they were themselves status quo at national to the district level. The patronage system linked
heart and they sought to build their support base through the local leaders of the upper castes with the organizational
mobilization of people of their fellow caste and by co-opting network of the party. There was discipline within the party
other twice born castes. and the top leaders could resolve conflict at the lower levels
In the tradition society of Bihar, it is only the caste idiom either by writ or persuasion and conciliation.
that worked in politics. Hence, the caste structure became Simultaneously the lower level organization had some
increasingly politicized, leading to intense inter caste political space. Of course, there were factions and conflict
conflicts. The pre-independent Congress forged a link with between the Bhumihar Shri Krishna Sinha and the Rajput A.
the zamindars and landed gentry. “It is this class bias of the N. Sinha within the cabinet were well known. Similar
Bihar Congress that delayed zamindari abolition and cleavages were present throughout the party. Yet, everybody
prevented the government from introducing even a maintained a semblance of discipline and even A. N. Sinha,
modicum of land reforms.” after losing the leadership battle in the 1957 election, did not
Remaining within the same party and government, the attempt to break the party. At the socio-economic level there
heavy-weight Rajput leader, A. N. Sinha, was constantly at was not much turmoil and the supremacy of the upper castes

49
International Journal of Multidisciplinary Research and Development www.allsubjectjournal.com

remained almost unchallenged. The government did not face During the transition period the Bihar politics was
any crisis up to the early 1960s. There was stability and articulated in terms of backward versus upper castes. The
political institutions were functioning smoothly. “The party Congress party was split into two in 1969. Various
worked as the cohesive unit and democratic norms were Prominent Congress leaders of Bihar joined the new
observed, even though this democracy was restricted only to Congress led by Indira Gandhi. The new phenomenon of
the upper caste and class. As a result despite tension rigged elections emerged in the midst of extremely unstable
underneath there was a kind of political equilibrium at the politics. Hence forth, booth-capturing and other forms of
surface.”[3] rigging became a normal feature of Bihar election.
Gandhian desires for the dismantling of the colonial
bureaucratic structure, the transformation of the Indian Conclusion
National Congress into an organization for constructive It is crystal that the ruling congress government did not do
work in the countryside, and the creation of a decentralized anything to either strengthen the institution with greater
form of government based on the revival and reorganization devolution of power and resources, or for extending
of traditional forms of local self-government (the democracy to the lower castes and classes through active
panchayats) down to the village level were not taken participation in panchayats. The compulsion of the
seriously by the Constituent Assembly of India. Moreover, Gandhian principle forced the ruling Congress party to
the entire system of British district administration, which establish and sustain the PRIs. But the caste, class and the
both concentrated authority at the district level and provided political strategy of the ruling Congress party to retain state
for very little participation by representatives of the people, power with the help of landed gentry and dominant caste
was retained virtually intact, particularly the central and class prevented the ruling party from taking any radical
importance of the District Magistrate and the district courts step to deepen local democracy. In short as long as the
and the police. strategy worked without creating any problem of
In the period for 1962 to 1967 the first chink surfaced in the governance the PRIs were allowed to exist. As noted earlier,
armour of the Congress party. There are three important the situation took a turn after the death of Shri Krishna
reasons for the emerging tensions in the Congress party. Sinha. The factional rivalry increased considerably within
The first reason is that the upper caste Congress leadership the Congress Party, which led to organizational
was finding difficult to monopolise state power due to the disintegration in the state. During the transition period the
rising aspirations of the backward castes in his cabinet by presence of the upper backward castes presence was felt. K.
limiting the number of ministerial position for the upper B. Sahay who became Chief Minister in 1963 was found
castes. K. B. Sahay who became Chief Minister in 1963 in making concessions to the backwards whose voice had been
his public speech referring to “Sushil Kumar Bage, a practically strangled in the previous period. The internal
Scheduled Tribe MLA as a ‘my right hand’ and to Ram among the backward casts for greater political power,
Lakhan Singh Yadav as ‘my left hand’ was significant in demands of the upper backwards among the backward
traditional Bihar politics.”4 castes for greater political power, growing discontent of the
The second reason is that due to the dependence of Sahay on have-nots in the village, and the extra ordinary food crisis of
political concessions to various factions, he was unable to the 1965 and 1966, resulted against the stability of the
stop the abuse of power by faction leaders occupying Sahay government and completely destabilized the political
ministerial position. Last but not the least the draught of equilibrium of the previous Chief Minister Shri Krishna
1965 and 1966 brought the state to the brink of a famine. Sinha era.
The combination of the three made the government
extremely unpopular. References
The state government was unable to check the tide of 1. B.R. Purohit and Yatindra Singh Sisodia ‘Evolution of
extreme unpopularity, which was expressed through strikes, Panchayat Raj in India’, 22.
demonstration, and bandhs, the government resorted to the 2. Deepa Narayan, (ed.), Mesuring Empowerment Cross-
use of force, which culminated in police firing in the month Disciplinary Perspectives, (New Delhi: Oxford
of August 1966. The assembly elections were held in 1967 University Press), 2006, 219.
and the Congress party for the first time found itself 3. Andre Beteille. “Empowerment”, Economic and
dislodged from power. None of the opposition parties of the Political Weekly, March 6-19, 1999, 597.
state was in the position to form a government on its own 4. See Status of Panchayti Raj in the States and Union
strength. This result could be marked as the emergence of Territories of India, op.cit.
coalition politics based on narrow political gains of various 5. Ibid, 25,
factions. “The period between 1967 and 1972 was the 6. Social Action vol-62 jan-march 2012
‘transition phase’ of Bihar politics and the state had nine 7. Ibid, 33,
Chief Minister’s three separate spells of President Rule and 8. D. N. Nanjundapa, “Concepts, Approach and Juhriques
one midterm election. The state politics witnessed some new of Decentralized Planning” in B. N. yagandhar and
features during the ‘transition phase’. The presence of the Amitabh Mukherjee (eds) Reading in decentralized
backward castes was felt in the legislature and the planning, 199, 34.
government. In the ticket distribution for the 1967 assembly 9. Vijay Ranjan Dutta, “Decentralization and Political
elections the Congress party that was earlier almost Development in India-A gandhian perspective.”
monopolized by the upper castes had to make major Panchyati Raj, Gram-Swaraj and Federal Polity.
concessions for backward castes. Thus, it is not a
10. See Arvind N. Das, Agrarian Unrest and Socio-
coincidence that out of nine governments formed during the
transition period seven governments were led by man of the Economic Change in Bihar, New Delhi: Manohar,
backward of Harijan castes” [5]. 1983. See also Pradhan H. Prasad, op.cit.

50
International Journal of Multidisciplinary Research and Development www.allsubjectjournal.com

11. Mahila Chetna Manch. Decentralization through

Panchayati Ra: Impact on Good Governance in Madhya
Pradesh, MCM and NPPD unpublished. Narayan
Swamy. 1996. ‘Gram Sabha in the New Panchayati Raj
System’ in G. Palanthurai (ed). Empowering People:
Issues and Solutions, Kanishka Publishers, 2010, 147-
160.
12. B.R. Purohit, op. cit, 35
13. B.R. Purohit, of cit, 27.
14. NIRD 2005, 33.
15. Status of Panchyati Raj in the States and Union
Territories of India, op.cit, 79-80
16. Ibid p. 35,
17. “Decentralization and Rural Government” op cit, 21
18. See Subrata K. Mira, “Making Local Government
Work: Local Elites Panchayati Raj and Governance in
India”, in Atul Kohli, (ed.), The Success of India’s
Democracy, (New Delhi: Cambridge University Press),
2001.
19. Vadiraju and all, 2004, 76
20. Ibid, 99.
21. Craig Johnson. Decentralization in India: Poverty,
Policies and Panchayati Raj, Department of PS,
University of Guelph. Dreze, Jean and Amartya Sen.
2003, 2002.
22. Singh SS. “Legislative status of Panchayat Raj
Institutions in India.” (New Delhi: IIPA, 1957).
23. Report of the Tram for the study of Community
projects and National extention Service, New Delhi,
1957.
24. Nahipal. ‘Panchayati raj in India: Issues and
Challenges,’ 1997, kurukshetra, Ausut.
25. BR. Purhohit of cit, 32.
26. See the analysis in the Hindustan Times, August 15,
1986.
27. Report of the Committee on Panchayati raj institutions,
Ministry of Agriculure, Department of Rural
development, New Delhi, 1978.
28. Ibid, 94.

51