The exit of Nitish Kumar from the centre of Bihar’s politics marks the closing of a long chapter that began with the Jayaprakash Narayan movement of the 1970s. That movement produced a generation of leaders who came to dominate the state’s political landscape for nearly four decades – Ram Vilas Paswan, Lalu Prasad Yadav and Nitish Kumar. Each emerged from the socialist tradition and rose on the promise of social justice and political change. Paswan built a Dalit political platform of national visibility, Lalu mobilised backward caste assertion and overturned the old upper-caste political order, while Nitish projected himself as the administrator who would restore governance after years of instability. With Paswan gone, Lalu largely out of active politics, and Nitish stepping away from executive power, the era of Bihar’s JP-movement leaders effectively comes to a close. It is therefore an appropriate moment to step back from political narratives and examine what their long stewardship has ultimately delivered for the state.Nitish Kumar’s rise in 2005 was greeted with relief in a Bihar fatigued by years of administrative drift and deteriorating law and order. He came to power promising the restoration of governance and the revival of public institutions. In the early years there was indeed a perceptible change. Crime rates declined, policing improved and the state administration regained a degree of credibility. Roads were built, electricity supply expanded and governance became more predictable. Many commentators hailed Nitish as the leader who had rescued Bihar from a period of disorder.But after two decades in power, the question is whether these improvements translated into a deeper economic and social transformation of the state.On the economic front, Bihar has undoubtedly grown – but largely from an extremely low base. Per capita income in the state has increased several times since 2005. Yet, Bihar continues to remain at the bottom of India’s economic rankings. Its per capita income is roughly one-third of the national average and the lowest among Indian states.Also read: Nitish’s Exit from Bihar has Seeds in 2025 Poll Trail, Ends Long Arc of BJP’s Bait and WaitIndustrialisation remains limited, with very few large manufacturing clusters. Private investment has been hesitant and employment opportunities within the state, scarce. The most visible sign of this structural weakness is the continuing migration of millions of Bihari workers to other states in search of livelihood. In many respects, migration has become the state’s informal economic model.Other development indicators tell a similar story. Public health infrastructure has expanded but remains weak in both capacity and quality. Bihar continues to struggle with shortages of doctors, hospital facilities and specialised care. See the plight of AIIMS hospitals in the state. Education has seen improvements in enrolment, aided by welfare programmes and incentives such as the well-known bicycle scheme for girls. Yet the quality of schooling and higher education remains poor, leading large numbers of students to leave the state for studies elsewhere. Urbanisation – often the engine of economic transformation – has barely taken off. Bihar remains one of India’s least urbanised states, with a vast majority of its population still living in rural areas and only a handful of cities capable of attracting investment or generating employment.It is therefore difficult to argue that Bihar’s underlying developmental trajectory changed significantly over the past two decades under Nitish. Governance may have stabilised compared with earlier periods, but the economic transformation that lifts states out of poverty and dependence has remained elusive.Politically, the period under Nitish, also saw the entrenchment of caste-based mobilisation in new forms. While earlier decades witnessed the rise of backward caste assertion under Lalu Prasad Yadav, the Nitish era refined the arithmetic by carving out new political constituencies – extremely backward castes, Mahadalits and other sub-groups. Welfare schemes and targeted benefits became tools of political consolidation.File Photo: From left, RJD chief Lalu Prasad Yadav, West Bengal chief minister Mamata Banerjee, Delhi chief minister Arvind Kejriwal and Bihar chief minister Nitish Kumar during the swearing-in ceremony of the then Bihar government in Patna on November 20, 2015. Photo: PTI.To be fair, one policy decision that had lasting social impact was the expansion of women’s participation in local governance through reservation in panchayats and welfare initiatives aimed at female education. This move broadened women’s political presence and helped reshape local power structures in parts of rural Bihar. But beyond this, politics often revolved around the careful distribution of patronage across caste blocs rather than structural reform.Nitish Kumar’s political legacy is also marked by an extraordinary ability to remain in power through shifting alliances. Over the years he parted ways with several political colleagues and partners – from George Fernandes and Sharad Yadav to repeated realignments with different national parties. These moves ensured his political longevity and kept him at the centre of Bihar’s power structure for nearly two decades. Yet longevity in office does not necessarily translate into institutional change. Bihar still operates under the worst police Act, administrative reforms have been limited, and entrenched vested interests in sectors such as education, health services, sand mining and other local economies have proven remarkably resilient. In many areas, Nitish favoured accommodation rather than disruption, keeping multiple interests satisfied but rarely challenging entrenched power structures.Also read: An Election Without a Mandate, a Mandate Without an ElectionThe question is whether the Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP), which has steadily expanded its influence in Bihar, can alter this trajectory. Realistically, dramatic change appears most unlikely. The BJP’s immediate political strategy is likely to focus on building a coalition of non-Yadav backward castes while retaining the support of extremely backward communities that were once the backbone of Nitish Kumar’s political base. Electoral arithmetic may change, leadership may change, and the balance within alliances may shift, but such changes do not automatically translate into deep economic or institutional transformation.For the ordinary citizen of Bihar, therefore, the transition will hardly alter everyday realities. Governance may continue broadly along the same lines, political narratives may evolve, and new leaders may emerge. But unless the state finds a way to generate industrial employment, strengthen institutions and build vibrant urban centres, the underlying challenges will remain the same.The end of the JP-movement generation in Bihar politics closes an important historical chapter. Yet history will judge that era not merely by the longevity of its leaders but by whether it succeeded in transforming the conditions of life for the people of the state. On that question, the verdict remains far less certain. Nitish lasting contribution leaves much to be desired.Yashovardhan Jha Azad is a former IPS officer who has served as Central Information commissioner, Secretary Security GOI and Special Director, Intelligence Bureau.