Nitish Kumar Government is in saddle in Bihar for the last one and a half month. But within this short span, it is creating waves, especially in the media, both print and electronic, and at both the provincial and national level. Possibly he is the first Chief Minister of the state since independence who is trying to build the 'brand' of Bihar in right earnest. It is very interesting that not only the President of India, but even the Prime Minister of the country from the rival political formation, are both showing keen interest about the development of Bihar. Both of them are also struck by the demeanor of the Chief Minister. The national middle class which makes and breaks the public opinion, after long eclipse, have found an icon who could lead the economic renewal in the most benighted state of the country. It is no mean achievement for Nitish Kumar that he has become a national icon in spite of being engaged with a provincial agenda, that too of Bihar which is not a front rank sunrise state of the country. All other national political icons, whatever might have been their duration of adulation, like Indira Gandhi, Rajiv Gandhi, V.P. Singh or Atal Biharee Vajpayee have all operated on the national spectrum with an all-India agenda. The achievement of Nitish Kumar is, thus, a spectacular one. The adulation for him reached its pinnacle in the recent Pravasi Bhartiya Sammellan, the conference of NRI in Hydrabad.

The task of Nitish Kumar is formidable. Now that 'brand Nitish' is trying to build the 'brand Bihar', one is bound to ponder whether these two brands are independent or synonymous. The brand Nitish was built over the years, from a socialist activist to a JP acolyte to an architect of social justice renaissance, and finally an able administrator. It got further reinforcement after the stunning electoral victory in the 2005 assembly election. Now, this substantive brand of Nitish is in the path of building the brand of Bihar, as yet unsubstantive. Infact, over the years, Bihar has emerged as a counter brand. Not only by all economic indices it is at the lowest level of development, but it also has emerged over the years as a crucible of all types of plebian ideologies. It is not only the home of million mutinies, but it is here that the most subaltern class, unrecognizable nationally, was in the seat of the political power, even though without the road map of governance. Further, the reach and the command of the government over the state here have always been practically non-existent. Even during the British period, the 'Raj' over the state was limited. So Nitish Kumar's task of converting this counter brand to a mainstream brand, which could be sold globally, will be extremely challenging.

Even an established brand cannot hope to be permanent, it is always ephemeral unless it continuously seeks to renew, reinvent or refashion. A brand cannot be built entirely through propaganda; it always demands a substantive content. In history, many brands have one shone like a meteor, to be thrown in the dustbin much too soon, unsung and unwept. But political family brand like Nehru or Kennydy or country brand like England or Japan have much enduring image, sold for long at substantial premium. Even USA, with all its economic and military might, always has to innovate or update technologically to keeps its brand above others. Similarly, in India, some of the states like Tamilnadu or Gujrat command huge brand premium. Interestingly, the brand building of Nehru's started from the first quarter of the 20th century. Since then, Nehru brand has traversed a long journey from folklore of opulence of "regular laundry of house linen from Paris" to grand sacrifice of refusal of Sonia Gandhi for the national mantle. In between, the family concern and agenda changed from state to market at one hand, from unflinching commitment to democracy and secularism to benevolent autocracy to soft communalism on the other. Infact, from Motilal to Jawaharlal, or from Indira Gandhi to Rajeev Gandhi, they always innovated and reinvented themselves. While Jawaharlal built the mammoth edifice of the state, Rajiv started its initial dismantling. While the grandfather insulated the economy, the grandson not only attempted economic integration internationally but also started the flattening of country through wired connections and computerizations. Just as a family brand like Nehru needed so much reinvention to keep itself on the helm, the country like Japan also traveled from the days of imitator to an unprecedented innovator, which completely upset the balance of global economic power. The innovation spree of the Japanese now seems to have taken over by the Chinese so much that there is a prognostication that this century will be known as that of China. It is reported that, in anticipation of the new brand from Asia, the American elites in New York prefer to keep Chinese nannies for their offspring so that they can learn Mandarin from their cradle. Brand building and its constant updating is one of the most important global agenda in the increasing market centric economy.

However, the brand building of the state by Nitish Kumar has to follow a provincial path. The core strength of the state has to be identified and promoted with full vigor. The Guzrat model for the state cannot be replicated here. The hallmark of a state brand is now determined by the number of SEZ (Special Economic Zone) that has been created which act as the fulcrum of investment, both national and international. It is erroneous to believe that the brand Gujrat has been created by the personal predilection of the present Chief Minister. Infact, Gujrat was on the threshold of industrial revolution even before the advent of the British. After the British came, while Gujrat escaped the plunder and extermination of artisans and traders, Bihar was subjected to systematic de-industrialization. Later, open sea front, resources from its non-residents and above all Gujrati sub-nationalism created unique industrial revolution. A similar process for Bihar did not materialize for several reasons like the absence of authentic indigenous entrepreneurs or its land locked location. Prior to the division of the state in 2000, emergence of some isolated pockets of public sector units as well as limited private sector investments by outsiders, gave illusions of industrialization in the state. Even in the realm of institution building, other than the contribution of Sir Ganesh Dutt, there has not been any significant effort in that direction. The first Chief Minister of the state, Srikrishna Sinha, contrary to the general impression, could not set the agenda of building modern Bihar which could have created the brand of the state. Even if the fiction of Appelby is to be believed, the state was considered to be 'good governed' because it could keep in check the rising popular aspirations in the realm of policing. Benchmarking in the realm development had not then begun. But when the development agenda got initiated, the chink in the armory of good governance got revealed. By 1961, Bihar was the second last in the realm of Per Capita State Domestic Product and, by 1971; it was at the very bottom among all Indian states. This unenviable position remains unchanged even now, though it was governed by three sets of elites - traditional, vernacular or cockneys - one after the other since independence without altering the development trajectory of the state. Where others failed, Nitish Kumar should succeed. He has to build the brand of Bihar not only for those who are above the threshold, but also for the rest who are outside the market structure and below the threshold. This would demand a 'coalition of extreme', a difficult task indeed. At the national level, this was achieved by M K Gandhi during the independence struggle, with its nuts and bolts being worked out by Nehru. Later, in the immediate post-independence era for nation building. In the context of Bihar, this agenda will also need plethora of institution building, strengthening of the existing institutions, and also crafting of sub-national cohesion. The strengthening as well as simultaneous dismantling some part of the state, both have to be done with vengeance, and then only, the market can expand which in turn can ultimately link the state with the national and international industrial grid. For this, the brand Nitish will need further reinvention. He has to be the 'Nehru' of Bihar, not only by co-opting the marginal and the minorities but also by building provincial institutions, which can give authentic name to the Bihar brand. Nitish Kumar should also remember that Nehru tried to build India through promoting industrialization, quite often ignoring agriculture. He cannot possible do that. He should focus on agriculture, as Charan Singh had tried to do in sixties and seventies, turning the term of trade between agriculture and industry in favour of the farmer. While brand 'Nehru' was of immense help in building the nation immediately after independence, the brand 'Nitish' can act as a catalytic agent not only for building the state but also branding Bihar to sub-national cohesion.
This article has also appeared in The Indian express.