Bihar

Made with NotebookLM

Also Listen in Hindi

During the colonial era

Bihar’s story began on March 22, 1912, when the British established the Bihar and Orissa Provinces. Before this, Bihar was part of the sprawling Bengal Presidency, which came under British rule after the Battle of Buxar in 1764 and became one of its most complex territories. The Biharis had been voicing their dissatisfaction with the Bengal-centric governance model, which they felt marginalised them. This demand found success in 1912 when the British separated the regions of Bihar and Orissa from Bengal to form a new province. Patna was declared its capital, marking the beginning of the state’s modern political consciousness (Fisher, 1993).

Bihar and Orissa remained administratively linked until 1936, when the two were split into separate provinces. Bihar became a distinct province under Muhammad Yunus on April 1, 1936, based on linguistic lines — an early precursor to the post-independence linguistic reorganization of states. This separation gave Bihar a structure that largely resembled its present-day boundaries, minus some later modifications (Khan, 2024).

Post-independence

After India gained independence in 1947, Bihar became a state on its own. It had the same boundaries as before, except for the inclusion of the princely states of Kharsawan and Seraikela (Orissa Tributary States) in 1948, as they were largely non-Oriya speaking. These territories were linguistically and culturally closer to the tribal belt of southern Bihar and were thus merged with the state (Khan, 2024). 

Additionally, twelve non-salute states affiliated with the Bihar States Agency—Mohrampur, Darbhanga, Ramgarh, Ranka, Jagdishpur, Dumraon, Dinghwara, Tajpur, Banaili, Kahra, Bhour, and Chanour—were also integrated into Bihar. (Note: Most of these princely states occupied a very small area and therefore didn’t alter the state boundary significantly.) The process of integration was largely peaceful, with no opposition to Sardar Valabbhai Patel’s wishes (White Paper, 1950).

The state has since worked to preserve its cultural heritage, becoming known for its contributions to art, literature, and education – it has even once been home to the ancient universities of Nalanda and Vikramashila, which once attracted scholars from across Asia. The state also played a pivotal role in the Indian independence movement, producing iconic leaders like Dr. Rajendra Prasad, India’s first President, and Jayaprakash Narayan, who led the ‘Total Revolution’ against the Emergency in the 1970s (Narayan, 1975).

Despite this rich legacy, Bihar faced various challenges in the following years – economic difficulties, corruption, caste-based politics, and social issues. The freight equalisation policy, through which the government subsidised mineral transport in 1952 and thereby encouraged industrialisation near coasts and major markets (instead of mineral-rich regions like Bihar), was a big hindrance to its development (World Bank, 2010). Many Biharis have migrated for work, forming low-income communities in other states. 

The creation of Jharkhand

In 1953, Bihar and its neighbouring states presented several claims to the States Reorganisation Commission (SRC), regarding the separation of Bihar into the state of Jharkhand and some conflicts concerning the border districts with West Bengal. The SRC dismissed all claims but one—the transfer of the Purulia district from Bihar to West Bengal (SRC, 1955). This decision was made for linguistic and developmental reasons, as Purulia had the largest concentration of Bengali-speaking people outside West Bengal. It officially became part of West Bengal in 1956, following the enactment of the States Reorganisation Act.

Despite the rejection of the Jharkhand statehood demand in 1956, the seeds of tribal self-determination had already been sown. The tribal population of southern Bihar, including the Santhals, Mundas, Oraons, and Hos, felt neglected by the state government. Their cultural identities and land rights were under constant threat due to displacement from mining projects as well as a lack of political representation (Tillin, 2013).

The forthcoming decades saw multiple political parties advocating for the separation of Jharkhand. Initially, the Jharkhand Party (formerly the Adivasi Mahasabha) led the campaign. Founded by Jaipal Singh Munda, a tribal leader and former hockey captain who led India to a gold medal at the 1928 Olympics, the party played a crucial role in voicing tribal grievances (Munda, 2004). However, due to internal divisions and co-optation by mainstream politics, the party’s influence faded by the 1960s.

In the 1970s and 80s, a new force emerged—the Jharkhand Mukti Morcha (JMM), led by Shibu Soren. JMM re-energised the movement for statehood, drawing mass support from tribal and non-tribal communities in the mineral-rich but underdeveloped regions (Ghosh, 1993). In the late 80s, even the Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) began supporting, albeit proposing the more politically neutral name Vananchal, meaning ‘forest land’ (Tillin, 2013).

Alongside the movement for Jharkhand’s statehood, Bihar’s internal boundaries also evolved. In 1972, the state underwent district reorganisation to better manage administrative functions and bring governance closer to the people. Over the years, especially between 1951 and 2021, several new districts were created for this purpose (Census of India, 1971).

On 15 November 2000, the state of Jharkhand was officially born, comprising eighteen districts from the southern region of Bihar. The date was symbolically chosen to coincide with the birth anniversary of Birsa Munda, the 19th-century tribal freedom fighter and social reformer (Khan, 2024).

The bifurcation was met with mixed reactions. Many in Bihar mourned the loss of its mineral-rich southern districts, including Ranchi, Jamshedpur, Bokaro, and Dhanbad, which were the economic powerhouses of the state. Bihar had to reimagine its developmental trajectory, and is now reliant on agriculture, human resources, and infrastructure rather than mineral wealth (Bhattacharya, 2000).

Since the bifurcation, Bihar has made measurable progress in education, electrification, rural road connectivity, and governance under successive governments. Yet, challenges like migration, corruption, poor health indicators, and social inequalities persist (World Bank, 2010; Manjhi, 2014).

• 

• 

• 

• 

• 

• 

• 

References

• Bhattacharya, D. (2000). Bihar After Bifurcation. Economic and Political Weekly. 

  
  

• Census of India (1971). Bihar. 

  
  

• Fisher, M.H. (1993). The Politics of the British Annexation of India, 1757-1857. Delhi Oxford University Press.

  
  

• Ghosh, Arunabha (1993). "Ideology and Politics of Jharkhand Movement: An Overview". Economic and Political Weekly. 

  
  

• Government of India (2000). The Bihar Reorganisation Act, 2000. 

  
  

• Khan, M. (2024). Bihar. In The Territories and States of India 2024 (4th ed.). Routledge.

  
  

• Manjhi, 2014. The Bihar Story: Resurrection of the State. IGC. 

  
  

• Munda, J.S. (2004). Lo Bir Sendra: An Autobiography. Prabhat Khabar Publications.

  
  

• Narayan, J. (1975). My Prison Diary. University of Washington Press.

  
  

• States Reorganisation Commission (1955). Report of the States Reorganisation Commission. Ministry of Home Affairs. 

  
  

• Tillin, L. (2013). Remapping India: New states and their political origins. Oxford University Press.

  
  

• World Bank (2010). Bihar, India’s Poorest State, Begins to Turn Around.