Why Nitish Kumar could end “Jungle Raj” in Bihar but Mamata Banerjee could not replicate the same in Bengal

Why Nitish Kumar could end Jungle Raj in Bihar but Mamata Banerjee could not replicate the same in Bengal

1. Law-and-order situation inherited at the time of taking power

Bihar (2005 onwards)

• Nitish Kumar inherited a state widely regarded as suffering from high crime, weak policing, and politicized gangs.
• Because the situation was extreme, any strong improvement looked very dramatic.
• The baseline was so low that rapid visible progress was possible with administrative tightening.

West Bengal (2011 onwards)

• Mamata Banerjee did not inherit a state in open criminal breakdown.
• Bengal already had:
• A functioning police structure
• Lower violent crime rates compared to Bihar
• But a deeply entrenched party-cadre system from 34 years of Left rule
• This made crime more political and less gang-based, which is harder to clean up quickly.

---

2. Nature of criminality in both states

Bihar

• Criminality was individual-gang centric (bahubalis, kidnapping mafias).
• Nitish targeted:
• Quick trials
• Strong policing
• Jailing of powerful gang leaders
• Dismantling these groups produced visible results.

Bengal

• Criminality is political-cadre centric, not independent gangs.
• TMC's rise depended on taking over the existing local cadre networks built by the CPI(M).
• These networks controlled:
• Local disputes
• Land acquisition
• Elections
• Welfare distribution
• Because these networks were part of how the party governed, they couldn't be easily dismantled.

---

3. Administrative style of leadership

Nitish Kumar

• Governance-focused, technocratic image.
• Used bureaucracy strongly:
• Police modernization
• Judicial fast-track courts
• Ending political interference (at least initially).

Mamata Banerjee

• Populist, mass-contact leadership style.
• Relies heavily on party workers rather than bureaucracy.
• The police system is often politicized rather than insulated.

---

4. Party structure differences

JD(U) + allies in Bihar

• Less dependent on local muscle power (post-2005).
• Bureaucracy was empowered over party workers.

TMC in Bengal

• A cadre-driven party.
• Local strongmen became essential for political control.
• Removing them would weaken the party's own machinery.

---

5. Federal and political opposition landscape

Bihar

• Opposition was fragmented.
• Nitish had stable alliances for long periods.
• Less competitive elections meant less incentive for strong-arm political methods.

Bengal

• Highly competitive political environment:
• Violent political clashes historically between CPI(M), TMC, and now BJP.
• Competitive politics → party cadres used for mobilization, sometimes leading to violence.

---

6. Sociopolitical legacy

Bihar

• Jungle Raj was a stigma that Nitish had to defeat to build legitimacy.
• Public opinion strongly supported tough reforms.

Bengal

• Political violence existed for decades (Congress vs Left, then Left vs TMC).
• Seen as part of political culture rather than a single-issue mandate.
• There was no statewide demand for a law-and-order overhaul equivalent to Bihar 2005.

---

Summary

Factor	Bihar (Nitish Kumar)	Bengal (Mamata Banerjee)
Type of crime	Gang-based	Party-cadre based
Inherited system	Weak policing, high crime	Entrenched political networks
Strategy	Strengthen state machinery	Rely on party machinery
Political culture	Reform-oriented	Cadre-oriented, competitive
Visibility of change	Highly visible improvements	Hard to dismantle existing networks

---