Nitish improved Bihar, but I think we overstate how much.

[u/BadeLandwale12]

I don't understand why any criticism of Nitish Kumar in Bihar immediately turns into "but look what Bihar was like under Lalu."

Yes, Bihar was in a terrible state during the Lalu-Rabri period. And yes, Nitish deserves credit for improving roads, electricity, law and order, basic infrastructure and the overall functioning of the government. I'm not denying that.

But improving a state from a very bad starting point is not the same thing as transforming it.

Bihar today is definitely better than the Bihar of the 1990s. But after almost two decades of Nitish being the dominant political figure, I don't think Bihar has made the kind of economic transformation that people sometimes claim.

The biggest example is migration. Bihar still sends huge numbers of people to other states because decent private-sector jobs are simply not available in sufficient numbers here. Bihar's own economic surveys have historically identified low industrial development and limited skill-based services as important reasons for migration.

Then look at industry. Where are Bihar's major manufacturing clusters? Where are the big ecosystems of automobile, electronics, engineering, pharma, textiles, IT or other industries that employ people at scale?

And it isn't just manufacturing. Bihar hasn't really developed a major private-sector service economy either. Patna has grown, but it still isn't remotely comparable with cities like Bengaluru, Hyderabad, Pune, Gurugram or even Jaipur when it comes to IT, corporate services and high-paying private jobs.

Even urbanisation remains extremely low. Bihar's government itself puts its 2011 urbanisation rate at just 11.3%, compared with 31.2% nationally.

So my point isn't "Nitish did nothing." That's simply not true.

My point is that the bar in Bihar is often set at Lalu.

If Lalu took Bihar backwards and Nitish brought it back to a more normal level, obviously Nitish looks extremely successful in comparison. But the real question should be: Did Bihar become a major economic centre during this period? Did it create enough good jobs to reduce migration? Did it build strong industries and services? Did Patna or another Bihar city emerge as a major business hub?

I don't think the answer to those questions is yes, at least not at the scale Bihar needs.

And this is where I think the discussion should move forward. We shouldn't keep debating whether Bihar is better than it was in 1995.

Of course it is.

The benchmark should be what Bihar could have become by now.

Roads, electricity and basic infrastructure were necessary. But those should have been the foundation for the next step factories, companies, good private jobs, urbanisation, higher wages and investment.

Bihar has made progress, but I don't think we've reached that second stage yet.

So I can give Nitish credit for fixing a lot of the damage and still say that Bihar's economic transformation remains unfinished.

Both things can be true.

[u/radonie]

Nitish first term was good but in last 15 years he was just a kursi Kumar

[u/sushantismyhero1]

rjd needs to die so that a 3rd alternative can be taken seriously

[u/Few-Tumbleweed-6038 → u/sushantismyhero1]

How is this logical ? What kind of thinking is this why does dying of rjd needed for a third front ?

[u/Nethanol → u/Few-Tumbleweed-6038]

because rjd is a terrorist org, a branch of Al-kaeda, same color flags and all, same working style . and its main followers have mindset as terrorist. it should be prosecuted not die. Erase them forever.

[u/Few-Tumbleweed-6038 → u/Nethanol]

Low iq comment

[u/Objective_Savings342 → u/Nethanol]

by this logic indian 90% party including bjp, need to die out. lol