When Nitish Kumar emerged from the JD(U) headquarters, bathed in camera flashes and flanked by jubilant supporters, it marked the beginning of one of the most controversial electoral victories in Bihar’s recent history. The National Democratic Alliance (NDA) had not just won; it had bulldozed its way to 202 out of 243 seats, a landslide that stunned political observers, contradicted pre-poll surveys, and left Opposition parties crying foul. For the first time ever, the BJP became the largest party in the state, and Nitish Kumar secured his position with an authority not displayed in over a decade.
But as the celebrations continued, allegations of massive, systemic, and coordinated vote rigging began to overshadow the official narrative. From manipulated electoral rolls to suspicious counting practices, from unexplained vote swings to strategic welfare payouts, the Opposition alleged that this was not an election; it was an operation.And it had succeeded on a scale few expected.
The Verdict That Didn’t Match the Ground
Most independent surveys and on-ground assessments pointed that INDIA bloc has certain edge over the NDA. In many rural areas, public anger over unemployment, price rise, and governance failures suggested potential losses for the ruling alliance. The RJD, which held 80 seats in the previous Assembly, was widely expected to retain its dominance.Instead, it collapsed to just 25 seats; its second-worst performance in 20 years. Congress sank to six, its worst showing since 2010. The entire Mahagathbandhan managed only 35 seats.
And yet, curiously, the RJD maintained the highest vote share in the state at 23%. The NDA as a whole secured 46.7% vote share, just nine points ahead; but ended up with a seat share nearly six times larger than the Opposition.
“This is not a mandate,” a senior RJD strategist said. “This is mathematics multiplied by manipulation.”
The first red flag was the unprecedented discrepancy between vote share and seat share. The second was the sudden decline in Muslim representation – from 18 MLAs to just 11– in one of India’s most Muslim-populated states.
“This cannot be explained by voter behaviour alone,” the strategist said. “It points to structural tampering.”
The BJP leadership celebrated the results as a “victory over anti-nationals,” a phrase many leaders interpreted as code for minorities. The PM’s reference to the Congress as “Muslim League Maoist Congress” added fuel to the fire.Against this backdrop, the decline in Muslim MLAsraises serious questions about representation and the health of Bihar’s pluralistic democracy.
The All India Majlis-e-Ittehadul Muslimeen, led by Asaduddin Owaisi, with a 2% vote share, won five seats. But its candidates at several seats spoiled the chances of the Grand Alliance.
“A state with one of the highest Muslim populations not having adequate representation is not good for democracy,” said Khagaria-based activist Sarfaraz Alam. “This is deliberate marginalisation through electoral engineering.”
SIR: The Quiet Operation Behind the Scenes
The Special Intensive Revision (SIR) of the electoral rolls is at the heart of Opposition allegations.Months before polling, the Election Commission suddenly initiated a largescale revision exercise that Opposition parties claimed was used selectively to delete genuine voters from Opposition strongholds, add “ghost voters” in key constituencies, inflate numbers in NDA belts,and allow out-of-state migrant workers aligned with NDA to be enrolled at speed.
Congress leader Udit Raj put it bluntly: “This is not a victory for the NDA. This is a victory for SIR and the Election Commission. Votes were stolen. Our objections were ignored. This was a pre-planned operation.”
Opposition parties said thousands of Muslim, Dalit, and extremely poor voters found their names mysteriously missing on polling day. In contrast, several districts reported unusually high numbers of last-minute additions in constituencies where the NDA eventually posted record margins.
“Names disappeared like they never existed,” said a Congress functionary in Kishanganj. “We filed complaints, but the EC didn’t give us a single written response.”
The Mystery of the ‘Imported Voters’
A serious allegation that has barely been discussed in mainstream media is the accusation that out-of-state voters were brought into Bihar on special trains days before voting. Opposition candidates reported unusual spikes in voter turnout in certain booths, disproportionate to the local population.
A former JD(U) MP, now with the RJD, said:“Entire train compartments arrived in border districts. These were not local voters. But the EC refused to even acknowledge the complaints.”
If proven, this would constitute one of the most audacious instances of vote manipulation in recent Indian electoral history.
Counting Day: When the Leads Began to Flip
What happened on counting day has become central to the Opposition’s claim of massive rigging. Across dozens of seats opposition candidates led in the first 10-12 rounds.Their leads suddenly evaporated in the late evening.Final rounds showed dramatic swings – sometimes of 20,000 to 40,000 votes.Counting continued unusually late into the night in several districts.
These patterns mirror what happened in the Haryana and Maharashtra Assembly elections just last year.The most glaring example in Bihar was Rupauli, where JD(U) candidate Kaladhar Prasad Mandal won by a staggering 73,572 votes, a margin that analysts say is “statistically abnormal” in a competitive state election.
Congress leader Jairam Ramesh summed it up sharply on his handle X:“Without doubt, the Bihar results reflect vote-chori on a gigantic scale – masterminded by the PM, the HM, and the Election Commission.”
Congress MP Tariq Anwar asked the essential question:“When margins change so dramatically in the last rounds, what exactly is happening inside the counting rooms?”
The ₹10,000 Cash Transfer: Welfare or Bribery?
Perhaps the most debated element of the election was the ₹10,000 direct transfer to 1.25 crore women under the MahilaRojgar Yojana, credited barely 24 hours before the Model Code of Conduct came into force.The move cost the state ₹12,500 crore, or 2.36% of its annual budget.Yogendra Yadav called it:“The institutionalisation of bribery.”
Opposition parties argue the scheme served three critical purposes: pre-poll inducement on an unprecedented scale; voter consolidation among women who were economically vulnerable; and a distraction from unemployment, crime, and governance failures.A CPI(M) leader put it candidly: “When your stomach is empty, ₹10,000 before elections feels like salvation. The NDA used poverty as a political weapon.”Women’s turnout surged to record highs. But whether this represented empowerment or engineered dependency remains heavily contested.
A Media That Looked Away
As Opposition leaders sounded the alarm on rigging, the mainstream media, now dubbed as servile media, projected the election as a celebration of “Nitish-Modi magic,” “women’s empowerment,” and “a triumph of welfare politics.”The CPI(M) accused the corporate media of ignoring complaints of tampered EVMs and blacking out Opposition press conferences and amplifying communal rhetoricpresenting BJP press releases as news.
One example stood out: the mention of the 1989 Bhagalpur massacre by a BJP minister from Assam, an inflammatory comment that many believe was designed to polarise the electorate. Most major channels repeated the statement without critique.
“This election was not just fought on the ground,” said a Patna-based political analyst. “It was fought in newsrooms.”
Opposition Leaders Speak Out
Rashid Alviof Congress said: “When the BJP, JD(U), bureaucracy, RSS, money power, and the Election Commission join hands – what result do you expect?”
Yashwant Sinha, former Union Minister bluntly said: “If Gyanesh Kumar continues as CEC, the Opposition should stop contesting. Elections are pointless without neutrality.”
Bhupesh Baghel, former Chhattisgarh CM, took a strong dig at the Chief Election Commissioner: “Congratulations to CEC Gyanesh Kumar for the NDA’s victory.”
While Manoj Kumar, Congress MP also took a jibe at the poll body: “We respect people’s love. But we cannot ignore what happened inside the polling booths.”
CPI(M) Central Committee said: “The NDA misused state machinery, manipulated systems, and drowned out issues with caste and communal polarisation.”
Their statements reflect a common sentiment: the Opposition believes the electoral machinery has been captured.
The Disappearance of Muslim Representation
Amid the alleged manipulation, the most alarming trend was the decline in Muslim MLAs, from 18 to 11. This came against a backdrop of anti-Muslim rhetoric from top BJP leaders targeted communal messaging, polarising campaign speeches, and aggressive use of “anti-national” and “illegal infiltrator” narratives.
Khagaria-based activist Sarfaraz Alam said: “This is engineered marginalisation. When representation falls this drastically, it is not accidental.”
Opposition parties argue that Muslim-heavy seats witnessed disproportionate deletion of names under the SIR process – another sign of systemic bias.
Was This a Mandateor a Message?
Nitish Kumar insists the verdict reflects “trust” and “public confidence.” His post-election message on X credited welfare schemes and governance.But political observers remain divided: Some see it as sharp political strategy, others as a manipulation of state resources. Still others as part of a broader national pattern of controlled democracy. What is undeniable is that Bihar has become the third major state – after Haryana and Maharashtra – where Opposition parties allege the real mandate was stolen.
They cite a familiar list of patterns ofmanipulated electoral rolls, selective deletion of voters, unexplained lead reversals, delayed counting,controlled media narrative and aggressive communal polarisation.EC’s silence on complaints onstrategic welfare payouts timed to influence voters.
Can democracy survive without trust?Did Bihar vote freely?Or was democracy reduced to performance?These questions now dominate Bihar’s political discourse.
For the NDA, the story is simple: the people have spoken.For the Opposition, the truth is stark: the people were never allowed to speak freely.But for Bihar’s 12 crore citizens, the implications run deeper. A democracy can survive unpopular governments. But can it survive rigged mandates backed by compliant institutions, selective welfare, aggressive propaganda, and manipulated voter rolls?That is the question Bihar asks today – not just of its leaders, but of the country itself.