badlygovernedas it wasin
the1990sunderhimand
RabriDevi.
Prof. Sanjay Kumar
seemsto havemade much
lessuseof the above-men-
tionedstudiesto explain
the pre-1990stateof polit-
ical, administrative and
economic affairsin Bihar.
Thosedecadessawa much
strongerholdof the upper
castesin Bihar.Prof.San-
jay Kumardoesadmitit,
though in passing: “In
pre-1990 Bihar,the upper
castes(Brahmins, Bhumi-
hars, Rajputs and Kay-
asthas) dominated not
onlythe socialandpolitical
spacebutalsothe bureau-
cracyandthejudiciary...
whodominatedtheinsti-
tutions of Biharandsub-
vertedthelandreforms...
thatwouldhavebeenad-
vantageousto the back-
wardcastes andtheSC
[ScheduledCaste]popu-
lations” (page5).
He leavesouttheme-
dia.He doesnotelaborate
uponthefactthat Bihar’s
upper caste hegemons
wenton to ignorepublic
investmentsanddevelop-
mentsin agriculture,irrig-
ation, industry, power
production, governance,
education, research, and
infrastructure.
TheyreducedBiharto
an “internalcolony”. Prof.
SanjayKumar shirksfrom
givingexplicitandelabor-
ate detailsabouthowun-
derperformance in
governanceanddevelop-
ment during the Lalu-
Rabriyearsdidnotcom-
pareas unfavourablywith
the predecessors.
Thevolumeunderre-
viewconcentrateson the
25 yearsbetween 1990 and
2015,whenthe fulcrumof
politicalpowerrestedwith
theYadavs(11percent)
andlaterthe Kurmis(7 per
cent), withother groups
largely playing second
fiddle.However, he does
notprovidedetailson the
economic andeducational
profilesof thetwocom-
munities to explain the
electoralrivalriesbetween
the two,whichmanifested
themselves withinjustfour
yearsof Lalu Prasad’srule.
There is merelya short
footnote, without citing
anyevidence(page75).SUB-REGIONAL
CLASSIFICATION
Thesub-regionalclassific-
ationof Biharby the CSDS
in election studiesas also
in thisvolumeis slightly
problematic. These sub-
regionsare Magadh, Mith-
ila, Tirhut,Bhojpur and
Seemanchal. It excludes
the regions now (after
2000) comprising
Jharkhand. What the
CSDSandthe authormisshereis the factthatCham-
paran and Saran speak
Bhojpuri just as the
Shahabad (Bhojpur, Ar-
rah,Buxar) region. Simil-
arly,onlyfourdistrictsare
identified as Seemanchal.
These arePurnea, Ararai,
Kishanganj and Katihar,
whereastheCSDSwould
include Supaul, Saharsa
and Madhepura too in
Seemanchal.
Prof. Sanjay Kumar
identifies theAshrafseg-
ment of Muslimsto be of
foreignorigin (page12).
He ignoresthefactthata
vastsegment of Sheikhs
and Pathans were also
convertsfromuppercaste
Hindus;also,manyAjlaf
segments of Muslims,
more particularly in the
Census of 1901, entered
themselves as Sheikhs.
Thiswassomethingthat
was noticed by ethno-
graphersandcensusbur-eaucrats suchas HenryM.
EliotandW.G.Laceyand
taken up by Dr B.R.
Ambedkar in his book
Pakistanor Partitionof
India. He took“cultivating
Sheikhs”as AjlafMuslims,
althoughmorein thecase
of Bengalthanelsewhere.
Overall, the Ashraf-
Ajlaf andintra-Ajlafdi-
vides (mainly Ansari
versustherest),or their
absence, in Bihar’select-
oralpoliticsremainlargely
ignored or un(der)ex-
ploredby Prof.SanjayKu-
mar.Forthe partsof Bihar
now comprising
Jharkhand, this volume
doesnot offermuchdetails
andinsightsregardingthe
stratificationsamongtri-
bal people andothersocial
groupspertainingto their
electoral behaviour.
Prof. Sanjay Kumar
touches uponeducational
development in Bihar
since Independence (in
pages21-23).But he ig-
noresthefactthatlanded
elites-cum-politicians-le-RASHTRIYAJANATA DALleaderLalu Prasad
addressinganelectionrally in Gopalganj, Bihar.
Afile picture.PTI