How Bihar Overcame Its Historical Disadvantage : New Grammar of Governance

• The front-ranking States in terms of economy were the southern, western and northern Indian States with better track record of governance, where as, Bihar is the first state to create its own benchmark in the realm of governance.
• Most of the coastal States having a heritage characterised by Ryotwari land tenurial system, absence of intermediaries who siphoned off agricultural resources, and industries and trade that produced a staggering surplus to keep the growth momentum unabated as they followed industrialisation.
• This growth was from “import substitution” strategy of the then national government and from the “freight equalisation” policy in coal, iron ore and cement.
• Punjab was the only State that was outside the coastal trajectory with massive growth contributed by public investment, huge agricultural surplus and substantial  income from the Army.
• The national growth rate leapfrogged after liberalisation with a protected market, making India a developing country. The increasing disparity in the economy (before 1990s) between rural and urban areas was a tragic consequences of this growth. In wake of LPG, this disparity widened to alarming levels of poverty and underdevelopment abounded in some States and recorded massive development in some States, creating a paradox of sorts.
• The first distinctive “model” was Kerala with high social sector achievements in literacy, health, decentralisation etc. Later, Tamil Nadu, Andhra Pradesh, Karnataka & Maharashtra followed suit.
• Gujarat, one of the front-ranking States in terms of industrialisation before Independence, was never known for social sector innovation.
• The pattern of governance in Bihar (last 8 yrs), has been catapulted unintendedly as a “model” because of massive turnaround in the “techno-managerial” component of   governance.
• In Bihar, the institution of “state” had the weakest authority among Hindi heartland States,where as other States like Madhya Pradesh, Rajasthan and Chhattisgarh had semblance of governance.
• In Bengal Presidency (including Bihar), Permanent Settlement was introduced(1793) which resulted in “limited governance” and also aborted any incentive structure for production and productivity in the region.The “tax farmers”, called “zamindars”, appointed by East India Company, did not have a sense of ownership and looted, & created mayhem, unlike the princely states.
• The Permanent Settlement was unsettled in Bihar after 1947, but land records with intermediaries were not confiscated by the State government which converted “civil”  strife into criminal conflagrations and massacres. In the absence of state’s capacity to mediate those conflicts, several criminals/criminal gangs and radical organisations emerged and filled the space of governance.
• An oiled state structure was needed to enforce the “rule of the law” for social justice and economic development. Nitish Kumar accomplished this in the last 8 yrs by providing a new grammar of governance in Bihar. For example, the rate of convictions has been high in Bihar in recent years due to speedy trials in courts. It is reported that between January 2006 and June 2013 around 83,000 criminals were convicted recording the largest number of convictions in the country.
• This social tranquillity led to huge public investment (mainly in roads and bridges), resulting in a medium-term growth of 12% in gross State domestic product (GSDP)  between 2008-09 and 2012-13.
• Secondly,the social sector departments were streamlined and their budget increased manifold to cause visible improvement in health and education.
• Bihar’s growth with a new model of governance recorded substantial gains in education, health and other social indicators. The literacy rate increased by 16.8 %  points and female literacy by 20 % points (2001-2011). A decline in infant mortality rate, now equals the national average with a dramatic decline in the poverty ratio by 21 % points (2004-05 & 2011-12). This is human development-centric, where growth and equity command equal attention.
• Nitish Kumar during his first term introduced positive discrimination for lower backwards, Dalits and women were given  representation in Panchayati Raj Institutions (PRI). With the “social justice” movement reaching a decisive stage, this new reservation broke the hegemony of the traditional elite in the lower centres of power.
• In the second term, rural power centres were in retreat. The emergence of women’s constituency in the PRIs further encroached on the lower power centres. The “coalition of extremes” completely collapsed with break-up of the NDA, in the second term.
• Now the powerful upper social groups are trying to regain their lost authority.

Exams Perspective:

1. Permanent Settlement System
2. Freight Equalisation
3. Import Substitution
4. Ryotwari System
5. Liberalisation
6. Privatisation
7. Globalisation
8. Social Justice
9. Rule of Law
10. Panchayati Raj Institutions (PRI)