IMPLICATIONS OF JAN SURAJ’S FAILURE TO BUILD LASTING OR IDENTITY-BASED TRUST AMONG VOTERS: DEVANAND SINGH

IMPLICATIONS OF JAN SURAJ’S FAILURE TO BUILD LASTING OR IDENTITY-BASED TRUST AMONG VOTERS: DEVANAND SINGH

21-NOV-ENG 16

RAJIV NAYAN AGRAWAL

ARA--------------------------The 2025 Bihar Assembly elections became historic for several reasons. This election was not only a test of the state's traditional politics and caste equations, but also a decisive opportunity for the Jan Suraj Party, which was contesting for the first time, and its leader Prashant Kishore. Prashant Kishore himself had predicted before the elections that his party would either rise to the top or fall to the bottom. As bold as this statement was, the results proved equally harsh, with the party completely decimated. But this failure was not just an electoral defeat; it is also the story of a complex mix of Bihar voters' attitudes, social structure, political identity, and suspicion towards new options. The journey of Jan Suraj becomes a subject of study in the sense that despite an extensive public relations campaign, a strong leadership image, and youthful energy, it failed to win the trust of voters.

Jan Suraj's foot march and extensive publicity created the impression that the party had established a strong foothold in the state. Prashant Kishor's extensive travels, village-level outreach, and his frequent media presence created the impression that the party would pose a strong challenge in the elections. According to surveys, four out of ten voters received promotional material directly from the party through phone messages, WhatsApp contacts, or social media. This figure was comparable to that of the BJP, which is known for its organized election campaign. Furthermore, 43 percent of voters reported reaching out to them through the party's door-to-door contact. This clearly demonstrates Jan Suraj's activism and reach.

Yet, this activism failed to translate into votes. A major reason for this was that while the campaigning and outreach expanded, voters failed to develop a lasting or identity-based trust in the party. In Bihar politics, this trust is often built on caste, social identity, decades-old support, and the party's past performance. Jan Suraj was able to penetrate this structure, but failed to establish its foothold. The party attempted to convey a message of development-based politics by focusing its first hundred days on its program. This marked a departure from the caste-based politics prevalent in Bihar, and many young people saw it as a positive initiative. Nevertheless, according to the survey, only 18 percent of voters considered the party's promises to be very influential in their vote. 23 percent said these promises had some influence. This means the majority either considered these promises unimportant or were unaware of them.

According to experts, this was due to Prashant Kishor's image as a strategist, not a traditional leader. Voters found it difficult to understand whether he could truly run the government or was only successful in implementing schemes and campaigns. A section also believed that Jan Suraj was an experiment, not a permanent option.

Social identity, caste structure, and vote banks have deep historical roots in Bihar politics. This is the foundation that has shaped governments here. Jan Suraj attempted to reorient politics by focusing on development, education, health, employment, and good governance, but this effort clashed with the state's existing social structure. The party neither managed to reach a broad caste group nor forge an alliance that could guarantee social representation.

According to experts, a new party can emerge in Bihar only if it either wins the support of a large social group or becomes part of a strong public movement. Jan Suraj failed to turn either of these circumstances in its favor. Surveys showed that when voters were asked whether Jan Suraj was a credible new option or simply another political organization, their opinions were clearly divided. 47 percent considered the party a genuine alternative, 30 percent rejected it completely, and 23 percent were undecided.

This data suggests that the party aroused curiosity but failed to build trust. This lack of trust was more pronounced among older voters. Meanwhile, younger voters were more hopeful, with 55 percent of those aged 18 to 25 expressing confidence in Jan Suraj. This difference suggests that youth desire a new political landscape, but Bihar's electoral outcomes are determined by the preferences of older and middle-aged voters. Therefore, even partial support from the youth was not decisive.

Regarding Jan Suraj, 44 percent of voters believed Prashant Kishore could bring meaningful change to Bihar. However, 36 percent also felt he lacked political experience. This contradiction emerged as the party's biggest challenge. While young voters saw him as a hope for change, older voters doubted whether he would be able to handle Bihar's complex power structure, fraught with coalitions, administrative constraints, and political conflicts.

In politics, not only ideology is equally important, but also struggle, relationships, organization, and years of on-the-ground experience. Jan Suraj appeared weak in these aspects. The decision to field candidates in 238 of the 243 constituencies was certainly ambitious, but it backfired. Fielding such a large number of candidates didn't give voters enough time to get to know their candidates, and the candidates were unable to establish themselves at the local level. The party failed to solidify its identity, and the party's organization was in no position to handle this large turnout.

According to experts, in a state like Bihar, personal connections and long-standing relationships are the key to electoral success. Jan Suraj did not give its candidates this time. When voters were asked whether Bihar needed a new political alternative or whether existing alliances were sufficient, the picture was evenly divided. 42 percent favored a new alternative, while 42 percent were willing to stick with existing alliances.

This means that a large segment of voters desired change, but did not see Jan Suraj as a ready-made alternative.

Even among voters who were eager for change, Jan Suraj received only six percent of the vote, while most chose traditional alliances. This situation clearly demonstrated the wide gap between desire and trust, which the party was unable to bridge. Jan Suraj received relatively greater acceptance among the youth, who voted higher among the younger generation than among the older generation. Positive sentiments about leadership were also high among the youth, but in a state like Bihar, young voters don't play a decisive role unless they vote in large numbers or are united in their choice. Neither condition existed in this election. Consequently, youth support failed to prove decisive.

The Jan Suraj Party's first electoral campaign adds an interesting chapter to Bihar politics. The party generated excitement, attracted the younger generation, campaigned extensively, and established its presence in every corner of the state. Yet, it failed to convince voters that it was ready and capable to govern Bihar. In Bihar politics, where old alliances, caste equations, cadre-based structures, and emotional loyalties still play a decisive role, it is difficult for a new party to make inroads. Jan Suraj experienced this difficulty firsthand. Ultimately, the debut of Prashant Kishore's party demonstrates that extensive campaigning, a well-known leadership image, and youthful energy are only the beginning. Success requires a grassroots base, social representation, organizational strength, and, above all, trust. Jan Suraj still has a long way to go on all these aspects.