Since the evening of November 6, after the first phase in the Bihar assembly election ended, analysts, pundits, and assorted experts went into a tizzy. The single point of discussion was why and how did the voter turnout increase by about 10 per cent this time. They ascribed several reasons for it. One view stated that there is an anti-incumbency wave, which will benefit the opposition. Another school of thought maintained that recent experiences prove that voter turnouts zoom during the pro-incumbency waves.
A third view includes those who believe in the Prashant Kishore effect, according to which the young voters deserted their castes and other identities, and sought changes because they were desperate. Now, I do not know what the Bihar election results will be, and I am unaware why the turnout increased this time. What I can say with certainty is that the youth of Bihar have reasons to be frustrated, and yearn for changes that will help their livelihoods.
This is because beyond the debates about electoral equations, political parties, and castes, the stark reality is that Bihar is, in some senses, living in the past. There are several reasons for this. One, as per the available macro-economic data, the per capita GDP of the state is 30 per cent or so of the national average. This is bad. When Laloo Yadav became the chief minister of Bihar in 1990, he rode on a social justice campaign, riding on the Mandal agitation wave, and he and his wife remained the chief ministers for 15 years.
I am not interested in how good or bad the governments were, or how good or bad governance was during the period. I am interested in the data. The per capita income growth between 1990 and 2005 was a big fat zero. You read it right. It was a big fat zero. There was no growth in per capita income in Bihar. This was at a time when the Indian economy was catalysed by economic reforms, and other states grew at more than decent paces, and began to lower poverty levels.
In the two decades since then, one may contend that Nitish Kumar, as chief minister, made gallant efforts to improve infrastructure, law and order, road connectivity, and provide basic governance services. However, the net result is almost the same as the Yadav rules. As stated earlier, the state’s per capita income is less than a third of the national average. The reason is simple and statistical. Other states and the national economy grew at faster rates.
There is another set of data which is even more shocking for the discerning analysts, who track economic data, and measure economic performance. All of us know that GST collections are an important barometer to measure the extent, intensity, and depth of economic activity in a state. The figure for Bihar is one-fourteenth of the number in the neighbouring state of Odisha. In 2000. Both the states were the two of the poorest states of India.
Now look at where Odisha is, and where Bihar is stuck. Despite a population which is more than three times the size of Odisha, Bihar’s overall GST collections are lower. In terms of the human development indicators, let us compare Bihr with Kerala. The figure for infant mortality in Kerala is five per 1000 life deaths, which is better than the United States, and is admirable. In comparison, the rate in Bihar is 27, going up in some years and declining in others.
These two simple indicators reflect how far behind Bihar is in comparison with the other states. Sometimes, there is a feeling among the old Bihar experts that including it among the Bimaru states is not relevant anymore. Bihar lags such states too, although it is a part of the group. A series of surveys by C Voter after the ongoing elections were announced came up with startling responses from the respondents. For instance, close to 60 per cent felt that the state faces lengthy power cuts every day.
Another 60 per cent of supporters of BJP-led NDA thought that they do not get piped water in their households. Most shockingly, close to 60 per cent of the NDA supporters added that they always need to pay bribes to get access to the welfare schemes. This sums up the state of Bihar, and reveals why the youth of Bihar have given up on governance, and governments. They are banking on the new government, whichever may be the party. They do not care who is in power, if things get done, and done speedily.
According to a recent report by NITI Aayog, Bihar’s real GSDP grew by an average of five per cent between 2012 and 2022, or lower than the national average. During the last three decades, Bihar’s share, in nominal terms, in the national GDP reduced from 3.6 per cent to 2.8 per cent between 1990 and 2022. While the GVA for the services sector was 57 per cent, the figure for manufacturing was just above 18 per cent. However, between 2013 and 2023, manufacturing grew at an average rate of 8.6 per cent, and services by 6.4 per cent.
Bihar’s debt-to-GSDP ratio is higher than that of a median state. Its contingent liabilities are higher similarly, as of 2022-23. The state’s fiscal deficit, nearer to four per cent, is higher than a median state. “Bihar collects less in own-tax, and non-tax revenues compared to a median state. Transfers from the Centre are significantly above the level of a median state, and constitute around 75 per cent of the total revenue receipts. Its expenditure-to-GSDP ratio is higher, as both revenue and capital expenditure as a percentage of GSDP… were higher than a median state,” states the report.
A recent CAG report highlighted the fiscal and financial problems. During the years from 2017 to 2022, the state could meet its revenue deficit in two years, and the fiscal deficit targets in three. In terms of debt too, it could meet the targets in two years. Hence, there are issues related to managing revenue, expenditure, and debt. According to NITI Aayog, CAG recommended several action points such as “review of budget preparation exercise, devising a mechanism to collect revenues expeditiously, steps to improve the financial health of the state public sector… and restructuring loans.”
The author has worked for leading media houses, authored two books, and is now Executive Director, C Voter Foundation; views are personal
