The Seat-Sharing Storm: NDA’s Bihar Gamble and Nitish Kumar’s Calculated Defiance

The NDA’s pre-poll arithmetic in Bihar has turned into a political algebra of ambition, mistrust and legacy-building. With assembly elections due in October–November 2025, the alliance that once projected seamless cohesion now grapples with internal fault lines—chief among them seat-sharing.

The epicentre of this tension is Patna, where a series of closed-door meetings between Union Home Minister Amit Shah, BJP president J.P. Nadda and Chief Minister Nitish Kumar has produced no clear formula. Even the choice of venue—the Maurya Hotel rather than either party’s office—speaks to the transactional nature of these talks, stripped of ideological warmth.

Nitish Kumar, the JD(U) supremo, is hardly new to political recalibration. His 2024 return to the NDA was widely read as a tactical retreat; today his posture signals strategic assertion. Sources say he is demanding parity with the BJP—101 seats each of the 243 total—despite JD(U)’s modest 2020 showing of 43 seats and just over 15 per cent vote share. The BJP, which then won 74 seats, is unwilling to concede equal footing when its organisational muscle and cadre strength far exceed JD(U)’s.

Junior allies add more complexity. Chirag Paswan’s Lok Janshakti Party (Ram Vilas) wants anywhere from 40 to 75 seats, with Jamui MP Arun Bharti hinting at an audacious claim of 137. Jitan Ram Manjhi’s Hindustani Awam Morcha seeks no fewer than 20, while Upendra Kushwaha’s Rashtriya Lok Morcha quietly lobbies for at least seven. The BJP’s internal plan is to contest the maximum number itself, offering token representation to partners—a strategy that collides head-on with Nitish’s vision of a balanced alliance.

The memory of 2020 still stings. Nitish had then accommodated Manjhi from his own quota, while Chirag fought independently, damaging JD(U) more than the BJP. Mukesh Sahni received a few seats from the BJP, but the configuration left JD(U) diminished. Yet Nitish emerged as chief minister thanks to post-poll bargaining and BJP restraint. This time he shows no appetite for such compromise. By excluding Manjhi from his quota and resisting the BJP’s seat-maximisation plan, he signals an intent to hold Bihar tightly even if his relevance in Delhi fades.

For Nitish, Nadda is a messenger, not a decision-maker. Multiple visits failed to break the deadlock, and he reportedly waited for direct engagement with Amit Shah. Their 30-minute meeting on September 18 was officially a “courtesy call,” but insiders say seat-sharing dominated the conversation.

This standoff is more than electoral—it is existential. Nitish’s moves are shaped by the Congress-led opposition’s revival, powered by Rahul Gandhi’s “Vote Bachao Yatra” and other mass-contact programmes. The BJP first dismissed these as symbolic, but their ripple in Bihar’s caste-sensitive landscape has forced a rethink. Sensing the shift, Nitish is consolidating his base and easing his son into party affairs—a clear act of legacy-building and insurance against future isolation.

The NDA’s “problem of plenty” now threatens to become a strategic liability. With five parties—BJP, JD(U), LJP(RV), HAM-S and RLM—jostling for space, the alliance risks fragmentation unless seat-sharing is resolved with unusual tact and transparency. Historical data gives Nitish some cover: BJP and JD(U) have long displayed comparable strength, the former averaging 98 seats with a 30-plus per-cent vote share, the latter 97. On first- and second-place finishes JD(U) even edges ahead, 116 to 110.

Ultimately, the NDA’s Bihar strategy hinges on whether ambition can be accommodated without alienating allies. Nitish Kumar’s defiance is about more than numbers; it is about narrative. He wants to project strength, resist marginalisation and remind voters he remains the axis of Bihar politics. Whether the BJP yields or recalibrates will shape not just the state’s election but the very future of the NDA.