BIHAR, with its 80 million people, is amongst the most important states in Indian politics. The Jaya Prakash Narayan movement that swept Mrs Indira Gandhi out of office in 1977 started from here. Lalu Prasad Yadav, who ruled and looted Bihar for 15 years, is also from this state.

Today Bihar is significant because the state elections have sent the message that it has turned its back on crime and corruption. Chief Minister Nitish Kumar has swept the polls. When he assumed power, his agenda was development and decisive action against criminals.

After finishing his five-year term, he proved through the polls that voters want economic betterment and reliable security, not religious or caste-based slogans. Almost 70 per cent of the population is comprised of the backward classes and Muslims.

Not once did Kumar and his Janata Dal (United) appeal in the name of caste, though he is a Kurmi enumerated among Other Backward Classes (OBC). Nor did he allow the Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP), its ally in government and in the joint front that fought elections, to bring into the campaign parochialism much less anti-Muslim bias.

Kumar rose above the 100 castes in the state, concentrating on the Extremely Backward Classes and Mahadalits and giving 50per cent of the seats in the panchayats to women. Never have women voted in such large numbers as they did in this election.

Kumar stood firm when the BJP put all its pressure on him. But he did not ask Gujarat Chief Minister Narendra Modi to participate in the electioneering. Modi’s hands are tainted with the blood of Muslims. Kumar even refused to attend a party in Modi’s honour at Patna. The Muslim electorate (15 per cent) appreciated this and voted en bloc for Kumar, crushing Congress which at one time appeared to attract them. The two-one judgment on Babri Masjid is considered by them as the Congress’s doing.

Ideally, Kumar would go it alone and part company with the BJP, which rubs its fanaticism on him to damage his image. But the house has a large number of BJP members. It appears as though he cannot constitute the government with the support of his own members and, therefore, has to depend on the BJP. Yet he will have to jettison the BJP if he wants to throw his hat in the ring for India’s premiership.

Kumar has no alternative to this and it seems that he is working towards a situation where he will be his own master and not have to suffer the BJP. By the time the next parliamentary elections take place in 2014, he will have more or less have finished his task in Bihar and be available to lead the Third Force.

The Congress is too steeped in corruption and group politics, the BJP in communalism and the Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh (RSS) in dictated politics. India needs a party or a person capable of helping the country rise above caste, religion and regionalism, the way Kumar has vanquished caste through progressive administration.

Unfortunately, he is part of the National Democratic Alliance (NDA) which the BJP heads. The party’s candidate for premiership is Narendra Modi.

The two men are so different that either can take the country to separate destinations, one towards liberalism and the other towards chauvinism. Both are strong in administration and enjoy the reputation of cleanliness. Yet Kumar as prime minister will mean a pluralistic society, the ideal for which the independence struggle was waged. Modi, however, may take the nationto the pit of darkness.

Kumar’s credentials are known. He is a democrat and secular. The Bihar election has shown that he can bring back to the country the same wave of idealism and parivartan (change) which the JP movement brought and that put the Third Force at the helm of affairs in New Delhi in 1977. True, Kumar has no cadre of his own and depends on bureaucrats for governance. Yet when there is a wave in the country the people become a cadre on their own, as happened during the JP movement.

For that Kumar will have to quit the NDA and come out on his own to harness people’s aspirations for a better and more secure life. Since he has convinced people in Bihar that he can alter their lives, there is no reason to question this ability in the context of the whole country.

The BJP-led NDA will insist on Narendra Modi — he is the party’s poster boy. And he has the ability to change a state like Gujarat — Mahatma Gandhi’s state — into the model that the RSS has in view. The difference between democracy and dictatorship is that in the first people change the top man, in the second the top man changes the people. Modi has changed the people of Gujarat. A democratic country such as India should not be exposed to such dangers.

The lesson taught by the electorate to Lalu Prasad Yadav and his Rashtriya Janata Dal is an example for other leaders and parties. You can fool people for some time but not all the time. He got a chance for a decade and a half but preferred corruption. He also concentrated on playing the Muslim-Yadav OBC card. Little did he realise that the people want to improve their lot and want relief from criminals.

In fact, this is a message for all political parties: people will vote for them if their election manifesto promises development.The biggest drubbing was suffered by the Congress, which has been reduced further in strength from 16 to six. The party should realise that the magic of Rahul Gandhi does not work. He should realise that a few remarks here or a fleeting visit there does not help in the long run. He has to prove his sincerity; the mantra is development, not slogans. Bihar has shown the way.

The writer is a senior journalist based in Delhi.