A political confrontation has intensified in Bihar after Leader of the Opposition Tejashwi Yadav accused the ruling National Democratic Alliance government of failing to deliver development in the state despite years of what he described as “double-engine” governance at both the state and central levels.
In a detailed post on social media, Tejashwi Yadav argued that Bihar continues to lag behind most other Indian states on key socio-economic indicators even after decades of rule by parties aligned with the NDA. According to him, Bihar remains one of the poorest states in the country and records high levels of migration, unemployment, crime and corruption.
He further claimed that the state ranks low in multiple development indicators, including literacy rate, per capita income, farmers’ income, electricity consumption and investment levels. Tejashwi also alleged that Bihar continues to struggle with weak educational outcomes, inadequate healthcare infrastructure and slow industrial development. He accused the ruling establishment of avoiding accountability and relying heavily on bureaucratic control and caste-based political mobilisation rather than structural reforms.
The allegations were strongly rejected by leaders of the Bharatiya Janata Party, which forms part of the ruling alliance in the state. BJP spokesperson Neeraj Kumar responded by arguing that the current conditions in Bihar must be viewed in comparison with the period between 1990 and 2005, when the state was governed by Lalu Prasad Yadav and Rabri Devi.
Kumar said that during that period poverty in the state was above 60 percent and literacy levels were significantly lower, at around 47 percent. He claimed that measurable improvements began only after the NDA government led by Nitish Kumar came to power in 2005.
Citing data from NITI Aayog, BJP leaders argued that multidimensional poverty in Bihar has declined sharply over the years. According to the figures presented by the ruling side, the poverty rate dropped from about 54.4 percent in 2005–06 to roughly 26.59 percent by 2022–23. The government also claimed that around 3.77 crore people have moved out of poverty during this period, the second-highest number among Indian states after Uttar Pradesh.
The BJP also highlighted improvements in employment generation and industrial development. Party leaders said approximately 10 lakh government jobs have been created while another 10 lakh employment opportunities have emerged across different sectors. They further claimed that more than 3,500 industrial units have been established in Bihar over the past two decades.
According to the ruling alliance, the state’s export performance has also improved significantly, rising from roughly ₹25 crore in earlier years to nearly ₹17,000 crore today. BJP leaders additionally cited employment statistics indicating that the unemployment rate in Bihar stood at around 3.9 percent during 2023–24, which they claimed is below the national average.
The debate also extended to law and order conditions in the state. Neeraj Kumar referred to data from the National Crime Records Bureau to argue that serious crimes have declined compared with earlier decades. He noted that more than 3,600 murders were recorded in the state in 2001, whereas recent figures suggest the number has fallen to around 2,500.
On education, the government said literacy levels have improved considerably over time. According to official figures cited by the ruling side, Bihar’s literacy rate has increased from roughly 47 percent in 2001 to nearly 74 percent today. The government also said it has expanded the number of schools, introduced information and communication technology laboratories and strengthened educational infrastructure.
Economic indicators were also presented as evidence of improvement. BJP leaders claimed that per capita income in Bihar has risen sharply, increasing from about ₹8,000 in 2005 to approximately ₹76,000 at present.
The exchange of statistics between the opposition and the ruling alliance has turned the political debate in Bihar into a numbers-driven contest, with both sides presenting competing narratives about the state’s development trajectory and governance record.
