The Mahagathbandhan’s Defeat: A Result of Fragmented Politics

The 2025 Bihar Assembly Elections have become one of those rare events in Indian electoral history, seen not only as a political event but also as a profound socio-political experiment. It was an election in which neither a single ideology nor a single face won decisively. The real victory was a complex electoral arithmetic that redefined the fundamental structure of Bihar politics. The magnitude of the election results not only stunned the opposition but also created an atmosphere of surprise and disbelief within the NDA camp itself.

The NDA won an unprecedented 202 out of 243 seats, while the Grand Alliance was reduced to 35. Interestingly, the difference between the two camps in vote share was not as stark as it appeared in seats, but this is the mystery of Indian electoral politics: when majority is determined not only by vote percentage, but by the distribution and geography of that vote.

Congress General Secretary K.C. Venugopal's statement that it's unbelievable for any party to have a 90% strike rate aptly captures the surprising nature of this election, but behind this seemingly lopsided outcome lies a longer political story. A story of the rise of third and fourth fronts, subtle fragmentation of votes, and the division of organized versus scattered votes.

This Bihar election wasn't a traditional battle between two alliances. It was a three-, four-, and five-cornered contest, where every third player indirectly proved decisive in the game of power. The Mahagathbandhan's combined vote share may have been around 23-24%, but it didn't translate into seats. In contrast, the BJP and JDU, with a combined vote share of around 20% each, secured more than three times the number of seats. This contradiction is the core message of this election. This disparity wasn't just a matter of vote share, it was a matter of the dispersion of those votes, their concentration booth-by-booth, and the fragmentation of opposition votes in each seat.

The NDA's vote was united, but the Mahagathbandhan was fragmented, and fragmentation in politics always leads to defeat. The most discussed name was Prashant Kishor and his party, the Jan Suraj Party. This party, contesting elections for the first time, may not have won any seats, but it disrupted the electoral equations. A 3.4% vote share and presence in 238 seats made Jan Suraj a powerful force. Data shows that Jan Suraj's influence wasn't merely symbolic, but decisive. The party finished second in one seat, third in 129, and fourth in 73. In dozens of seats, its vote share was so high that it changed the entire arithmetic. Most importantly, Jan Suraj's vote share exceeded the margin of victory in 33 seats. Of these, the NDA won 18 seats and the Mahagathbandhan won 13. This clearly means that Jan Suraj eroded votes on both sides, but the NDA ultimately benefited far more. Prashant Kishor's youth-oriented, campaign-based model was attracting a new political class: young people who were not attracted to Nitish Kumar's politics or Tejashwi Yadav's. However, this new class was not united; it was looking for an alternative, and this fragmentation proved fatal for the opposition.

Meanwhile, the BSP often underperforms in Bihar, but it certainly makes an impact. This time too, Mayawati's party fielded candidates in 181 seats. Winning a single seat doesn't reflect its reach, but its vote share had a profound impact on electoral victory or defeat. Statistics show that the BSP's vote share exceeded the winning margin in 20 seats, with 18 of these seats going to the NDA and only two to the Mahagathbandhan. This is why the opposition has consistently targeted the BSP as a "B-team." While this is a political statement, the statistics in this election partially proved it correct. The BSP's vote base lies within the Dalit-Bahujan community, which was considered potential voters for the Mahagathbandhan. But when these votes split, the opposition's core integrity was shattered, and the NDA capitalized on this.

Asaduddin Owaisi's AIMIM once again established its hold in Seemanchal. By winning five seats, it nearly replicated its 2020 success. AIMIM finished second in one seat, while its vote share exceeded the winning margin in nine. Of these nine seats, 67% were won by the NDA and 33% by the Grand Alliance. This clearly indicates that AIMIM's presence blocks the opposition's vote transfer and weakens the Muslim-Yadav alliance. The Mahagathbandhan's greatest strength, the fragmentation of the M-Y community, became its biggest weakness.

The biggest lesson from the Bihar elections 2025 is that this election was not about ideology, but about ruthless vote arithmetic. The Mahagathbandhan's strategy was based on ideas, and the NDA's strategy was based on equations. The opposition was hit from three sides: first, by emerging alternatives like Jan Suraj, second, by the decisive presence of the BSP, and third, by the regional strength of AIMIM. Meanwhile, the NDA succeeded in the art of organized vote transfer. This is the art that gives any alliance in Indian politics greater strength in terms of seats, even if the vote percentage is low.

The NDA once again created an atmosphere of fear and suspicion among young voters by making Lalu Yadav's past an issue. Tejashwi Yadav was unable to respond effectively. Tejashwi is popular, but the Grand Alliance lacked leadership that could unite the entire alliance and present a clear roadmap. The Congress and Left parties appeared sluggish in the field. Discontent over ticket distribution spread in many seats. Disgruntled leaders resorted to sabotage or contested as independents, disrupting the overall equation.

The BSP, Jan Suraj, and the BJP—all three—made inroads into Dalit-Bahujan voters in different areas. The most decisive factor was that the Mahagathbandhan's vote was scattered in various directions, while the NDA's vote remained concentrated.

The NDA's victory wasn't solely due to the opposition's failure; it was also the result of well-organized organization and strategy. The BJP's machinery, from the PC level to the booth level, was active. Micro-management and cadre strength secured seats. Nitish Kumar's women's vote bank, the Extremely Backward Classes, and rural support were decisive in this election. Components like the LJP and RLSP broadened the NDA's social alliance. Prime Minister Modi's popularity was also fully evident in rural areas. The impact of joint central and state schemes was reflected in voting patterns. Another important lesson from this election was that political power doesn't come solely from winning seats; sometimes, a party can influence the overall equation even without winning seats. Jan Suraj politicized the "search for an alternative," the BSP deepened the opposition's defeat, and the AIMIM turned Seemanchal into a triangular contest. Together, these three proved decisive in the 40-45 seats where even a small swing could have changed the outcome.

The Bihar Assembly Elections 2025 have made it clear that elections are no longer won solely by the might of major parties, but by meticulous distribution of votes, strategic coordination, and a sound understanding of socio-political trends. While the NDA's victory is a story of disciplined organization and precise strategy, the Mahagathbandhan's defeat is the result of a fragmented opposition politics. Bihar politics will no longer remain static; it has entered a new era of smaller parties playing decisive roles and triangular contests. In this new era, the power to rewrite history lies not only with the major parties but also with those small votes that can change any electoral arithmetic overnight.