Prashant Kishore: ​A new catalyst in Bihar’s upper-caste politics?

By Viday Bhushan Rawat* 

Bihar’s dominant castes have finally found a political leader of their own, and the emergence of Prashant Kishor presents a distinct challenge to the state's established order. His rise poses a far more direct threat to the Rashtriya Janata Dal (RJD) than to the Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP), whose internal leadership will comfortably welcome the resurgence of Savarna political agency. The Congress, too, might find smooth sailing alongside Kishor, given its traditional lingering affinity for upper-caste representation. Although the Congress and RJD have been coalition partners in Bihar for over two decades, their internal dynamic has always been fraught with unease, with many within the Congress feeling that the party has merely served as a vehicle for the RJD's unilateral ambitions. This raises a fundamental question: will Rahul Gandhi eventually repeat in Bihar what he executed with the DMK in Tamil Nadu by reassessing long-standing, asymmetric alliances?

​The historical context of Bihar’s caste calculus explains this current flux. Distressed by the rise of Lalu Prasad Yadav in the 1990s, Bihar’s upper castes collaborated with Nitish Kumar after a decade of RJD rule to dismantle the dominant OBC-Dalit-Rajput-Muslim coalition. Because the BJP could not consolidate power relying solely on a Bhumihar-Brahmin-Kayastha-Bania base, the Kurmi community under Nitish Kumar provided the crucial missing bridge. Nitish astutely harnessed Brahmanical discontent to craft a broader social alliance anchored around Mahadalits and Ati-Pichhdas (EBCs). While infrastructure, road connectivity, and law and order genuinely improved under his tenure, Nitish never faced a crisis of narrative construction precisely because the upper castes backed him so solidly. Meanwhile, the Congress, despite its rhetoric on social justice, largely remained a party of Brahmin-Bhumihar interests in Bihar. Organizing social justice conclaves will yield little electorally for Congress unless leaders from diverse Dalit and backward communities are elevated to front-line leadership.

​In the present landscape, Tejashwi Yadav, who initially generated immense expectations, currently appears subdued and was noticeably absent during recent student demonstrations. These youth protests reflect a broader structural dynamic where dominant-caste voices continue to frame the public discourse. A majority of the vocal Gen Z demographic in major urban centers belongs to these privileged communities—advocating for individual freedoms while remaining hesitant to share institutional power. They may adopt a culturally liberal facade, yet they fiercely resist the rights of marginalized communities as equal partners, translating into vociferous anti-reservation stances. Many social media influencers and journalists have framed these youth movements as an overarching critique of Prime Minister Narendra Modi’s policies. In reality, these protests revolve around narrow interests, highlighting a stark ideological divide between the Gen Z of Delhi or Mumbai—focused on NEET, professional entry, and migration to the West—and the youth of Patna or Prayagraj, who remain primarily focused on securing state government jobs.

​The BJP today is far more politically agile than the Congress was during the anti-corruption movements of 2011. The Anna Hazare protests were fundamentally aligned against the social justice framework and were effectively repurposed by the Sangh Parivar, while a Brahmin-Bania-dominated Congress struggled to defend its secular foundation. Though the UPA administration enacted several rights-based legislations, it remained constrained by powerful interest groups, alienating both Dalits and Muslims while failing to retain the upper-caste base it sought to appease. Today, the BJP understands street politics far better than the opposition and easily bridges the gap between urban upper-caste youth and rural demographics. Meanwhile, anti-Muslim hostility has been increasingly institutionalized into the cultural fabric, just as anti-Dalit and anti-OBC biases surface during debates surrounding reservations and governance.

​Faced with youth discontent, the ruling apparatus routinely revives anti-reservation rhetoric to consolidate its core base and prevent deep fractures. This strategy mirrors the 1990 parliamentary debates over the Mandal Commission report, where Rajiv Gandhi spoke for hours in opposition while the BJP quietly encouraged upper-caste resistance while shifting public focus toward the Mandir movement. Though Northern states like Uttar Pradesh and Bihar once seemed resilient against religious consolidation, they ultimately became major strongholds for the BJP, exposing the strategic limitations of purely identity-driven politics. When social justice politics became exclusive, the most marginalized groups felt abandoned by regional elites who assumed that a simple caste-plus-Muslim arithmetic guaranteed perpetual power. This failure severely harmed Muslim representation, driving voters toward alternatives like Asaduddin Owaisi’s AIMIM out of sheer necessity.

​Navigating these shifts requires the opposition to recognize the distinct realities of each state rather than applying a uniform strategy from Delhi. While Rahul Gandhi’s realignment toward Tamil Nadu's political culture was well received, the DMK’s longevity relies on its deep-seated Self-Respect movement. In the Hindi heartland, opposition unity must be maintained with mutual respect, accompanied by a realistic understanding of local caste arithmetic. Opposition leaders cannot afford to stay silent or alienated from youth issues, yet they must also address foundational priorities that urban protests routinely ignore: public employment, land reforms, natural resource distribution, environmental crises, and the persistent tragedy of sewer deaths affecting sanitation workers.

​The growing resistance from dominant castes, masked as spontaneous urban outrage, often operates within an insensitive political ecosystem that can ultimately serve corporate and centralizing interests. Believing that Western models offer flawless democratic freedom is a misconception; India’s historic strength lay in its pluralistic social fabric. The opposition can effectively harness youth unrest only if it grounds its movement in genuine inclusion, economic justice, protection for marginalized groups, and an unyielding commitment to the Indian Constitution.

---

*Human rights defender