Bihar polls 2025: Why 'jungle raj' has become the phrase Bihar can't escape

Once a phrase for Bihar's breakdown of law and order during the Lalu era, 'jungle raj' is still echoing through the state's politics, shaping narratives and voter perceptions ahead of the 2025 polls

On November 6 and 11, Bihar will vote again, and on November 14, when the results are declared, it will be more than just numbers that decide the state’s future. Old memories will play their role along with the new data about caste identities. As the campaigns heat up in the run-up to the Bihar election, in every rally and roadside conversation, one phrase keeps echoing, 'jungle raj.' As alliances shift and leaders begin trading accusations, the ghosts of that phrase hover over a new generation of voters who know it only from stories. Whether ‘jungle raj’ still shapes Bihar’s choices, or finally fades into history, will be tested at the ballot box this November.

 

 

During his recent rally in Bihar, Prime Minister Narendra Modi gave a slogan for the Bihar voters to keep away from the ‘jungle raj’. “Phir ek baar, NDA sarkar, phir ek baar sushasan sarkar, jungle raj waalon ko duur rakhega Bihar,” PM Modi said during the rally.

 

The phrase 'jungle raj' (rule of the jungle) has been one of the most durable political labels in Bihar’s modern history. It is used to describe the period under the chief ministership of Lalu Prasad and subsequently his wife (1990-2005), when law and order broke down, violent caste conflicts surged, and the state appeared unable or unwilling to protect ordinary citizens. The label first hardened in public debate during the mid-90s and has since been recycled by rivals, reformers and commentators to both blame and defend political regimes.

 

How the phrase ‘jungle raj’ entered public life 

Before the Opposition adopted it as a political slogan, the term ‘jungle raj’ was first used by the Patna High Court in August 1997 while commenting on civic mismanagement in the city. During a contempt hearing on waterlogging and poor drainage in Patna, a Division Bench of Justice V P Singh and Justice Dharampal Sinha remarked that the situation was “worse than the Jungle Raj,” as reported by this paper on August 6, 1997.

 

Critics further argued that the Lalu-Rabri period saw rising criminal activities, multiple caste massacres and an erosion of the state’s capacity to enforce law and order in the state. Meanwhile, Rashtriya Janata Dal (RJD) loyalists and Lalu supporters pushed back, saying the label exaggerated the situation or overlooked social and electoral changes that empowered lower castes. Still, media coverage of violent incidents and policy paralysis helped the phrase stick in popular memory.

 

Why was Bihar’s administration called 'jungle raj'? 

Three practical problems gave rise and a sort of permanence to the tag, including widespread violent conflicts. Central Bihar saw a number of caste-based massacres and retaliatory attacks in the 1990s, often involving private militias such as the Ranvir Sena and Maoist groups. These killings made headlines and fuelled the perception of a state unable to protect vulnerable communities.

 

Political observers and subsequent governments argued that the police were under-resourced, corrupt or politicised and were unable to investigate crimes or control armed groups effectively. Additionally, various studies of Bihar’s administration in the 2000s describe a pattern of institutional decay that contributed to this image.

 

Furthermore, the period saw the rise of local strongmen with electoral clout; many accused of serious crimes stood for office, sometimes using political office to avoid prosecution. These blurred lines between governance and impunity in the eyes of voters and commentators.

 

High-profile incidents that shaped the ‘jungle raj’ label

 

Several violent episodes from the 1990s are repeatedly cited when journalists and historians explain why the term took hold:

 

• Bathani Tola massacre (11 July 1996): Gunmen belonging to the Ranvir Sena killed 21 Dalits and Muslims in Bhojpur district, a massacre widely reported at the time and later the subject of court cases and convictions.
• Laxmanpur-Bathe massacre (1 December 1997): In Arwal district, gunmen killed dozens of Dalits (around 58) in an attack that became a brutal example of the violence between caste militias and left-wing guerrillas. The case produced long legal battles and contentious verdicts.
• Senari massacre (1999): Another episode of mass killing (34 upper castes were killed) that reinforced fears about private armies and unsettled law and order across central Bihar. The massacre was carried out by cadres of the now-defunct Maoist Communist Centre (MCC), as part of the ongoing violent caste conflict in Bihar between Maoist groups and private upper-caste militias, notably the Ranvir Sena.

Other than these large incidents, Bihar also saw a spike in kidnappings for ransom, targeting businessmen, doctors, and students during this period. Criminal gangs operated with impunity, with many high-profile kidnappings and robberies going unresolved. Human rights organisations and international media reported on these incidents at length, making them prominent reference points for the phrase 'jungle raj'.

 

How the term has been used since Lalu’s regime 

After 2005, when Nitish Kumar’s government made law-and-order improvement a central pledge, 'jungle raj' acquired a second life as a political weapon and a measuring metre. Nitish’s administration and allies argued they had ended the 'rule of the jungle' by reforming police and governance. Meanwhile, opponents said the phrase was being used selectively to erase deeper social causes of violence. National parties, especially the BJP, have repeatedly invoked 'jungle raj' in campaign speeches to attack the RJD and its allies.

 

The RJD and Lalu have always argued that their government empowered marginalised groups and that crime statistics in subsequent regimes rivalled or exceeded those during their tenure, accusing opponents of political smear campaigns.

 

Now in the 2025 campaign, the term has resurfaced as both a weapon and a defence. The phrase remains useful because it taps into immediate voter anxieties about safety, governance and landed power. But the effect may not be uniform as younger voters and urban residents who did not live through the 1990s and have only heard stories of the period, often view the debate through different lenses of employment, services and infrastructure, which may test the potency of the label.