As Bihar heads toward its assembly elections in November 2025, two of India’s most prominent political voices — Rahul Gandhi (Congress / INDIA bloc) and Amit Shah (BJP) — have launched high-intensity campaigns. Their speeches reflect sharply contrasting narratives on governance, justice, and development.
Setting the Context
Bihar Assembly elections are scheduled in two phases, with results expected shortly after polling. Both leaders opened their campaigns in key districts — Rahul Gandhi in Muzaffarpur; Amit Shah in areas including Darbhanga, Begusarai and Samastipur.
The contest is shaping up not just as a fight for seats, but a duel between two competing visions: one focused on equity, justice, and rights-based politics; the other centred on development, infrastructure promises and warnings against alleged mis-governance.
Rahul Gandhi’s Argument: Justice, Accountability & Inequality
- Gandhi accused the BJP of running Bihar’s government “through remote control”, suggesting decisions are driven by the BJP even if the Chief Minister is nominally from another party.
- He criticised the central government for policies he claims sideline social justice and favour elite or corporate interests.
- He framed his critique in terms of a “Two Indias” narrative — one for the wealthy, another for ordinary people — arguing that Bihar’s potential remains unfulfilled because unequal policies hamper inclusion.
- Gandhi questioned symbolic gestures by the government, suggesting that some political theatre masks lack of substantive work. He also pointed to policies such as demonetisation and telecom regulation as having adverse effects on average citizens.
- He raised concerns about electoral integrity, alleging past incidents of vote-manipulation in other states and warning similar attempts could happen in Bihar.
- Alongside criticism, he appealed to Bihar’s cultural heritage, its people’s success abroad, and urged that that latent potential be tapped for local development.
Amit Shah’s Counter-Narrative: Development Promises & Critiques of “Dynastic Politics”
- Shah sharply criticised opposition leaders for promoting dynastic politics, arguing that key offices are not vacant and questioning attempts to project family lineage in leadership roles.
- He attacked the opposition bloc’s credibility and raised law-and-order concerns, asking rhetorically what would happen to banned organisations or pending cases if the opposition bloc were in power.
- On the development front, he announced or emphasised promises for infrastructure in Bihar — plans for metro rail, a new AIIMS hospital, airport expansion, and cultural-tourism linkage (for example via a “Ram Circuit” idea).
- He used strong rhetoric against opposition alliances, framing them as corrupt or dangerous to governance, invoking identity politics and legacy issues tied to past political leaders.
- Shah also reasserted NDA unity, suggesting his alliance offers stability, welfare measures, and that its leadership is committed to delivering development rather than merely politicking.
What It Means for Voters & the Election
- Voters are being offered a clear choice between rights and accountability-oriented politics vs promise-driven infrastructure & development politics.
- Rahul Gandhi’s pitch may resonate with communities that feel excluded, marginalized, or concerned about fairness, caste-based or economic inequality.
- Amit Shah’s message may appeal to those seeking visible change, better infrastructure, and sceptical of what they see as the disarray or inconsistency of opposition parties.
- Identity, legacy, and leadership style are central — not just what is promised, but who delivers and whether they are trusted.
- The strength and coherence of political alliances (NDA vs Mahagathbandhan / INDIA bloc), campaign execution on the ground, and voter turnout dynamics will likely play a decisive role in outcome.
Final Thought
This election in Bihar is more than a routine political contest. It appears to be a struggle between contrasting world-views: one that emphasises correcting imbalances, protecting the powerless, and asking uncomfortable questions — and another that prioritises large scale projects, governance continuity, and promises of modernization under stable leadership.
Whether development promises outweigh questions of equity or whether citizens demand accountability over mere infrastructure remains to be seen when votes are cast.
