REELS, REALITY & RIGMAROLE!

The recently concluded Bihar election campaign offers a revealing case study of how political communication in India has evolved — or perhaps devolved — into a theatre of spectacle where image overwhelms intent, headlines overshadow policy, and perception is shaped less by governance records than by the ability to dominate narrative space. The contest between the ruling NDA (primarily the BJP in alliance with the JD(U)) and the Mahagathbandhan of the RJD and Congress unfolded not as a debate on competing development blueprints, but as a struggle over symbolism, identity and emotional appeal.

Even the manifesto releases reflected this larger communication pattern. The NDA’s manifesto launch — lasting barely a minute and a half and functioning more as a photo moment than a policy articulation — suggested that symbolism would outweigh substance in its campaign messaging. In contrast, the Mahagathbandhan held a full press conference, outlined its priorities point-by-point, and took questions from the media. The difference conveyed more than contrasting styles: it pointed to differing attitudes toward public scrutiny and the role of democratic accountability in electioneering.

One might have expected the NDA to foreground the outcomes of nearly eleven years of shared governance in the state. Instead, the campaign leaned heavily on personalised attacks. The BJP repeatedly targeted Rahul Gandhi and Lalu Prasad Yadav, framing the election as a moral and historical reckoning. Rahul Gandhi, on his part, centred his messaging on what he described as the “crony capitalism” and anti-poor economic orientation of the Modi–Shah leadership. The result was a campaign rich in confrontation and light on detailed reflection on governance performance or future direction.

An early point of contention came with the Bihar government’s rollout of the Mukhya Mantri Mahila Rojgar Yojana, under which ₹10,000 was transferred directly to beneficiary women just before the Election Commission announced poll dates. The opposition argued that the timing amounted to influencing a critical voter segment — women who maintain families and local economies while male members migrate for work. Congress leader Priyanka Gandhi called it a “direct bid to buy votes.” RJD spokesperson Priyanka Bharati said the women she spoke with believed short-term relief cannot substitute for long-term livelihood security. The government maintained that the scheme had been budgeted earlier and was not election-linked. The episode showed how welfare becomes politically contested when framed as reward rather than entitlement.

The campaign then returned to a familiar refrain. The NDA sought to resurrect the memory of “Jungle Raj” associated with the Lalu Prasad era. Prime Minister Narendra Modi and senior BJP leaders used past law-and-order failures as a central warning. Yet this argument sat uneasily with the fact that the BJP itself was a key governing partner through major spans of the post-2005 period. If governance deficits of the past remain unresolved, the responsibility cannot be externalised entirely to the opposition.

Youth outreach became a focal point but unfolded unexpectedly. The Prime Minister told young voters that, in an era of cheap data, they could earn income through social media reels. Rahul Gandhi countered that this narrative distracted from employment scarcity, underfunded educational systems, recurring exam paper leaks and the absence of stable job pathways. “Reels cannot replace real livelihoods,” he said, cautioning that constant digital engagement can become an addiction that diverts attention from systemic issues rather than addressing them.

Meanwhile, the most defining feature of Bihar’s economic reality — the continuous migration of its youth to other states in search of work — received limited attention. Entire households and local economies depend on remittances from labourers across India. Families are separated not by choice but necessity. Yet this live reality was largely overshadowed by rhetorical combat, the quiet endurance of migrant households pushed to the background.

As polling neared, the “infiltrator” narrative resurfaced. Modi and Home Minister Amit Shah promised firm action against illegal immigration. During the Special Intensive Revision of electoral rolls, some reports attributed to unnamed officials suggested the presence of doubtful voters. However, no such entries appeared in the final rolls, and the Election Commission did not confirm the claims when asked. The issue remained political rather than evidentiary.

Accompanying this was the return of the bulldozer metaphor — governance projected through visible punitive force. Shah stated that those labelled infiltrators would face bulldozer action, echoing tactics used elsewhere. Religious invocations also became more pronounced, with chants of “Jai Shri Ram” heard in rallies across Sitamarhi, Champaran and Darbhanga. The weaving of faith and electoral appeal remains a structured strategy within the BJP’s communication framework.

The ruling alliance attempted to foreground infrastructure — roads, bridges and connectivity — as proof of progress. Modi argued that development was visible “to those who wish to see.” However, reports of bridge collapses and road deterioration tempered the persuasive power of this narrative. If infrastructure is presented as transformation, its material reliability becomes central to credibility.

While government leaders often point to Bihar’s improved GDP growth rates, the critical question remains their impact on households. Has growth translated into stable local employment, reduced distress migration, or eased dependence on subsidised rations? The continued scale of outmigration and reliance on welfare suggests that gains have not yet translated into broad-based uplift.

As the campaign moved toward its conclusion, the NDA argued for continuity, presenting development as ongoing and requiring stability. The Mahagathbandhan focused on present economic hardship — unemployment, migration and the strain on public services. The divergence lay in whether the election was framed around a promise of future progress or the urgency of present needs.

Questions regarding electoral neutrality surfaced as well. Senior advocate and Rajya Sabha MP Kapil Sibal raised concerns about reports of “special trains” arriving in Bihar just before polling. Tejashwi Yadav questioned the deployment of security forces from BJP-ruled states and asked the Election Commission to clarify assignment criteria. Both emphasised that democratic legitimacy depends not only on fairness, but on the perception of fairness.

Rahul Gandhi emphasised redistribution and public investment to address inequality, while Tejashwi Yadav centred his pitch on employment guarantees and strengthening basic services. They foregrounded employment and economic dignity, while the NDA leaned on continuity and a campaign style that frequently drew on law-and-order rhetoric and cultural-religious slogans such as “Jai Shri Ram” during rallies.

As Bihar awaits the result, the broader issues remain: employment, migration, public health, education and the cost of living. The election outcome will determine not only who governs, but whether governance can meaningfully address the everyday realities of households. The measure of leadership will lie not in rhetoric, but in whether daily life changes for the people of Bihar.

(The columnist is a Mumbai-based author and independent media veteran, running websites and a youtube channel known for his thought-provoking messaging)