In the Arthashashtra, Chankya states that the actions of a king have a direct bearing on his subjects. And for any wrong that happens the King stands guilty as expected but the subjects are guilty as well of choosing such a leader and following him. Therefore by default they will have to bear the burden of the wrong actions of their leaders. Bihar is a prime example of this fallacy. At the time of independence and a few decades after that Bihar was one of the most developed states in that India. Few people know that apart from the metros Bihar had the highest per capita income at that time and was far more industrialised than the rest of the country. From such a prime position if today it laggers far behind the nation something went very bad. Post JP movement in 1970's Bihar became the epicentre of political rot. People of all hues, no credentials, no ethics, no morality and no statesmanship took up poltics as an occupation of convienece. But in the end who chose these guys, the people of Bihar. And so if they destroyed Bihar the people are responsible for it as well and will have to bear the burnt of their action.Currently the special status is enjoyed by all the north-eastern States, J&K, Himachal and Uttarakhand. These are staes with a hilly terrain and geographical isolation making them unfit for investment or industrialisation. Bihar, thankfully suffers from no such disadvantage, it is located on prime alluvial land and is by no means isolated. A state which once pioneered development in Eastern India cannot become disadvantaged over a few decades. Bihar's problem was and continues to be its leaders superficially. But deep down lies the inability of Bihari to shun identity politics and chose statesmen who can lead Bihar.
From a staunch supporter of Nitish Kumar earlier, today I end up criticising him. This, because of the drama he has propogated of the special status rant. Eight years into his rule and he finds himself at the recieving end of people's ire. Not because he hasn't worked, mind you he has worked much much better than his predecessors, but he is not a statesman. What he tried to do was project himself as one, similar to Indira is India it became Nitish is Bihar. The propoganda was so influential that it raised people's hopes and desires beyond reasonable limits. And he can't fulfil it which he knows clearly, and has therefore brought up the bogey of special status. Eight years of his rule has not attracted the any major investment no has it created any job oppurtunities nor has it changed Bihar. Bihar is what it was 10 years back with some sustainable and some cosmetich changes. Instead of acknowleding this he projects a completely different Bihar which is far from truth.
There are other states similar to Bihar, Orrisa, MP, Chattisgarh, UP, Rajasthan. Does anyone of you think that Bihari is more disadvantaged than Chattisgarh? 70% of the districts there are under Naxal menace, these are areas where the Government of India doesn't rule, the tribals live such a heinous life that you can't even evaluate them. If such a state doesn't deserve a special status, by what logic does Bihar ? Giving Bihar a special status would be injustice to people of these states. Nitish Kumar says that India cannot develop if Bihar doesn't develop. He is again wrong, India is not because of Bihar, India can develop even if Bihar doesn't as it has over the years. It is upto Bihar to become part of that development becuase and for that it needs no special status, it needs young and motivated leaders and not by products of identity politics. Yes Nitish Kumar is a good politician but in the end he too is a by product of identity politics and no statesman. He can't put the welfare of his subjects before poltics because he too has been grooved by the same mantle as Lalu. When Bihar decides to shun identity and chooses development it will itself find itself flying on the wings of growth.
