The Jan Suraaj failure in the 2025 Bihar elections has forced political observers to rethink how new parties survive in India’s rigid political landscape. Leaders, on both sides of the political spectrum, have looked to him for assistance. Yet, as Kishor has ventured into electoral politics this past year, he is discovering the limits a strategy can have without structure. He was very committed to the creation of a political party called Jan Suraaj and talked quite a bit about changing the status quo in Bihar. Yet, on election day, Jan Suraaj did not even win a single seat. Having developed a sufficiently strong brand and embraced a large padayatra would not turn enthusiasm into commitments to vote for Jan Suraaj.
Why Political Start-Ups Face a Jan Suraaj-Style Failure in India
Recent political history indicates how dismissive Indian politics are of startups. New parties rarely succeed, except under circumstances of a clear split. There are some obvious instances of succeeding differently, either coming from a larger organizational disunity or arising from aspirational movements that occurred in a moment against corruption or political abuse (e.g., Trinamool Congress, Biju Janata Dal). Even the Aam Admi Party and Assam Gana Parishad are examples of aspirational movements against corruption and political abuse. Jan Surraj had none of these. Bihar voters were highly unlikely to be in a position of being pushed to think about new alternatives entailing new parties. Without that impetus, Kishor’s enterprise was unlikely to gain sufficient credibility.
Organisational Gaps That Led to the Jan Suraaj Failure
Some political analysts judged that Jan Suraaj came across as more of an orchestrated social experiment than an expansive people-driven movement. Kishor endeavored to turn his padayatra into something more broad-based, but lost that all-important emotional energy that typically leads to substantial political change and thinking rethinking. Analysts asserted the party had a sense of intellectualism, but not about organic support, where real voting energy will come from. Voters could wrap their heads around the message of Jan Suraaj, but did not think it had enough strength to build their support.
No Ground Network and No Loyal Base Fueled the Jan Suraaj Failure
Jan Suraaj stalled with the necessary, bare minimum of creating a network to establish an electoral presence. Candidates will win and deserve success, voting in Bihar, where booth agents, community anchors, and hyper-local volunteer workers create visible improvement and then win elections. Kishor created a visible celebrity status, but little of the organizational component. Candidates were able candidates, but only within the context of reachable urban professionals, and not compatible with local roots. Many candidates were also first-time candidates and lacked the experience of connecting with voters. Far too much of the infiltrating vacuum meant the party could not translate goodwill and awareness into the voting process.
Kishor’s Choice Not to Run Contained His Credibility
Kishor did not run for any seat. Obviously, it was a choice that prevented him from personal accountability, undermining his durability with voters, political observers say. They point to the fact that voters are accustomed to public politicians taking personal risks, particularly when they ask for public service. His not running made Jan Suraaj appear as a project rather than a credible effort. The winter 2013 electoral success of the Aam Aadmi Party (AAP) under Arvind Kejriwal’s nomination against then Chief Minister Sheila Dixit, based on early political success in Punjab, is a good concrete example of the importance of symbolic policy issues in real life. Symbolic policy issues develop credibility and trust based on notions of sacrifice at the most personal level. Kishor never made that issue symbolic or not controversial enough- absent his candidacy.
Why Voter Perceptions May Have Been Against the Party
The voters in Bihar responded positively to Kishor’s campaign but cautiously voted to install a government. Analysts speculated that while voters appreciated the agenda Kishor offered, they seriously doubted that the party had the capacity to win. They were comfortable placing their vote with a political coalition or coalition with the relevant experience and organizational history rather than with an unused or untested party. They also did not identify or see a relevant caste base or organizational history that Jan Suraaj was an outsider to, which is relevant to consider in thinking about how momentum faltered ahead of the starting blocks.
What Might Happen Next. We do not indicate that this loss was the end of Kishor’s project, and he promised to continue to be engaged in Bihar and expand the party’s ground operation. Political analysts believed Jan Suraaj could develop if it invested in leaders at the local level and continued to engage in ground work. Voter loyalties in Bihar have continued to shift, albeit slowly, and if Jan Suraaj deeply engages and organizes the party better, they could develop as a competitive force by 2030.
For more- https://civiclens.in/category/politics-news-today-india/
About the Author
