‘Jungle Raj’ Never Existed In Bihar During The Lalu-Rabri Tenures

The 15-year long tenure from 1990 to 2005 Lalu Prasad Yadav and his wife Rabri Devi in Bihar is quite often demonized as ‘Jungle Raj’ by their critics, mostly so-called ‘Swarn’ citizens, who account for the state’s 10.6 per cent population only, as per a survey conducted by the state government.

Though a miniscule chunk of them doesn’t subscribe to the ‘Jungle Raj’ theory, they were never vocal in airing their dissent as well, barring a few exceptions.

Yadav took oath first as the Janata Dal Chief Minister in 1990 with the Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) supporting him from outside. It was the dawn of a new era in Bihar politics. A full-fledged non-Congress government, after 1977, was headed by a leader from the ‘Awarn’ Bahujan community, which dominates the state’s population landscape.

As Bihar is heading for a high voltage electoral campaign as usual for the coming assembly polls scheduled by the end of the year, let us decode the nefarious design behind the ‘Jungle Raj’ sobriquet. According to ‘Crime in India – 1995’ report of the National Crime Records Bureau (NCRB), an organization in the Union Ministry of Home Affairs, the state reported 1,24,414 incidents of cognizable crimes in 1990, 1,19,932 in 1991, 1,31,007 in 1992, 1,25,642 in 1993, 1,15,622 in 1994 and 1,15,598 in 1995. The average for the period 1990 to 1994 was pegged at 1,23,323 as compared to 1,18,390 in Gujarat, 1,04,744 in Karnataka, 1,99,430 in Madhya Pradesh, 1,88,110 in Maharashtra, 1,27,041 in Tamil Nadu, 2,05,415 in Uttar Pradesh and 69,510 in West Bengal.

The data shows that Bihar was much better placed in terms of crime control as compared to other major states under Yadav. That is the truth which none can deny. However, crimes under any regime and circumstances must not be rejoiced on parochial considerations. Crime control is a collective responsibility of police, society and other stakeholders, who should work harder and make concerted efforts to evolve an ecosystem that acts as a deterrent.

Unfortunately, as a nation we have failed in being firm, committed and inclusive in matters of crime control, and Bihar is certainly not an exception at all. Now let us look at the crime figure for the period of 1996 to 2000 when Jharkhand continued to be a part of Bihar. According to the NCRB report, total incidents of cognizable crimes under the Indian Penal Code (IPC), now Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS), Bihar reported 1,17,017 such cases in 1996, 1,17,401 in 1997, 1,16,045 in 1998, and 1,18,648 in 1999. Jharkhand, India’s 28th state, was formed on November 15, 2000.

Let us see how many cognizable crimes were recorded in other major states during 1996, 1997, 1998, and 1999? Andhra Pradesh reported 1,0,9759, 1,14,963, 1,22,536 and 1,20,364 cognizable crimes during the period under review, Gujarat 1,17,821, 1,17,823, 1,25,892 and 1,24,786, Madhya Pradesh 1,96,779, 2,05,026, 2,01,544 and 2,05,964, Rajasthan 1,61,621, 1,65,469, 1,67,463, and 1,68,189, while Uttar Pradesh 1,72,480, 1,52,779, 1,84,461, and 1,73,647.

The proponents of ‘Jungle Raj’ term state that the period from 2000 to 2005 was the worst in Bihar’s history, while supporters of Lalu Prasad Yadav vouch for the fact that that was the period when the people belonging to SC, ST and OBC communities were made to realize their power in a democracy and right to life with dignity.

Bihar reported 124082 cognizable crimes in 2000, 88432 in 2001, 94040 in 2002, 92263 in 2003, 108060 in 2004. It was 97850 in 2005, as compared to 157123 in Andhra Pradesh, 113414 in Gujarat, 117580 in Karnataka, 189172 in Madhya Pradesh, 187027 in Maharashtra, 122108 in Uttar Pradesh, and 66406 in West Bengal. Bihar’s contribution to total crimes against women during 2000 was 4.7 per cent as compared to Gujarat’s 4.5 per cent, Madhya Pradesh’s 13.2 per cent, Rajasthan’s 9.6 per cent, Tamil Nadu’s 10.1 per cent, UP’s 14 per cent, and Andhra Pradesh’s 10.5 per cent.

Now, let us have a look at the state of crimes in Bihar during the much-touted good governance of Chief Minister Nitish Kumar.

According to the report of NCRB, Bihar reported 1,67,455 cognizable crimes in 2013, 1,77,595 in 2014, 1,76,973 in 2015 and 1,64,163 in 2016 as compared to 97,850 in 2005. It shows that there was no respite for the people of the state from the so-called ‘Jungle Raj’ despite the ‘Sushasan’ of BJP-JDU regime in the state. The state registered 13,891 crimes against women in 2015, notwithstanding tall claims from various quarters. The subsequent years too did not show any improvement. Approximately, 1,80,573 cognizable crimes were reported in 2017, 1,96,911 in 2018, and 1,97,935 in 2019. Similarly, the state recorded 1,94,698 IPC crimes in 2020, 1,86,006 in 2021, and 2,11,079 in 2022. The details of 2023 and 2024 are yet to be released by the NCRB.

The million-dollar question is: Why was the regime of Lalu Prasad Yadav and Rabri Devi demonized as the ‘Jungle Raj’ despite the fact that data suggest the situation has worsened during the past 20 years?

Needless to say, the demonization of their rule needs deeper scrutiny, especially when viewed against empirical data from the last two decades that suggest worsening socio-economic and crime indicators in the state. The Yadav duo’s regime disrupted the hegemony of upper-caste elites, giving voice and representation to the backward classes. This socio-political upheaval challenged traditional power structures, which in turn invited resentment and an orchestrated media campaign, often driven by dominant caste interests that labelled the era as anarchic.

Ironically, despite promises of good governance and development by successor governments, data from recent years paints a grim picture. Bihar continues to rank among the lowest in education, healthcare, and per capita income.

The NCRB data reveals persistent or even rising violent crimes, including crimes against women. Infrastructure improvements, while visible, have not fundamentally transformed the quality of life for the majority. This dissonance highlights a selective memory in public discourse.

While Lalu-Rabri’s tenure had real governance challenges, the “Jungle Raj” label ignored the deeper structural inequalities they attempted to address. Today’s worsening indicators question the efficacy of the so-called post-Lalu “development” era.

The demonization, therefore, seems less about objective governance failures and more about discomfort with social justice politics disrupting entrenched hierarchies.

(The writer is a senior journalist, author and columnist. The views expressed are strictly his personal)