Patna: The general secretary of the opposition CPI(ML) Liberation, Dipankar Bhattacharya, on Sunday described the outcome of the Bihar assembly elections as “abnormal” and attributed it to three major “experiments” conducted in the run-up to the polls. Speaking to reporters, Bhattacharya asserted that the recent election results—where the Left party managed to secure only two out of the 20 seats it contested—represent a significant deviation from both expectations and historical trends.

Bhattacharya explained that these experiments, according to him, had a direct impact on the electoral process and outcome. The first, he said, involved the transfer of ₹10,000 to women as the first instalment under the Mahila Rojgar Yojana, a welfare scheme introduced by the state government. “The poll dates were not announced until all the targeted welfare schemes, including the provision of ₹10,000 for women, materialized. This is unprecedented and unique in India’s electoral history,” he claimed. Bhattacharya suggested that the timing and execution of these welfare measures were strategically linked to influencing voter sentiment and consolidating political advantage.

The second experiment, Bhattacharya said, pertained to the deletion and addition of names in the Special Summary Revision (SIR) exercise conducted prior to the elections. He alleged that 65 lakh votes were initially deleted, while 3.5 to 4 lakh votes were added later, just before the polls. “This is the second big experiment in the laboratory of Bihar,” he said, implying that manipulation of voter rolls could have affected the distribution of votes and consequently the number of seats won.

The third experiment, according to Bhattacharya, was the transfer of a piece of land at a “throwaway price” to a corporate house. While the opposition had raised the issue in public forums, he noted that it did not seem to resonate significantly with the electorate. However, he warned that such actions could pave the way for the corporatisation of Bihar’s resources, potentially shaping the political and economic agenda of the state for years to come.

Reflecting on the election results, Bhattacharya noted that CPI(ML) Liberation’s performance this year represents a sharp decline compared to the 2020 assembly elections, when the party had won 12 out of 19 seats it contested. “From November 18 to 24, our candidates and party workers will engage with the people as part of a feedback and public relations exercise. We need to stop these experiments; otherwise, there will be no level-playing field in politics,” he said.

Bhattacharya also drew parallels with the 2010 Bihar elections, when the NDA had registered a decisive victory. “Back then, Nitish Kumar was on the rise. But this time, his government, along with sentiments towards the NDA government at the Centre, is on the decline,” he observed, suggesting that electoral outcomes are increasingly shaped by factors beyond simple vote share.

The CPI(ML) Liberation general secretary further highlighted a structural anomaly in Indian electoral politics: the mismatch between vote percentage and the number of seats won. He emphasized that despite the party’s vote share remaining largely consistent since the 2020 elections, the number of seats secured has plunged dramatically. This, he argued, underscores systemic issues in the electoral process and calls into question the fairness of certain political strategies employed during elections.

Bhattacharya concluded by stressing that the three experiments—targeted welfare transfers, manipulation of the voter rolls, and corporatisation of state resources—may set precedents that could influence Indian politics in the years to come. “The election results are abnormal, beyond our hopes and comprehension. The party and the alliance will deliberate on these aspects to decide the future course of action,” he said, signaling that CPI(ML) Liberation intends to recalibrate its political strategy in response to the Bihar polls.

The remarks come at a time when political analysts across Bihar are examining the state’s electoral dynamics in greater detail. While the NDA achieved a resounding victory, securing 202 of the 243 assembly seats, the opposition—including the RJD-led Mahagathbandhan and CPI(ML) Liberation—has faced unexpected setbacks. Bhattacharya’s observations underscore the challenges faced by smaller opposition parties in the context of a dominant alliance that leverages both welfare measures and strategic administrative interventions in its campaign.

By identifying these three “experiments,” Bhattacharya has not only critiqued the conduct of the elections but also highlighted potential structural and systemic vulnerabilities in the way state resources, welfare schemes, and administrative mechanisms intersect with political processes. His analysis reflects a broader concern among opposition parties about the balance of power in electoral politics, particularly in states where large alliances have the capacity to significantly influence voter behavior.

In summary, Dipankar Bhattacharya has described Bihar’s 2025 assembly election results as anomalous and the product of deliberate experimental interventions. From the timing of welfare disbursements to the handling of voter lists and the strategic allocation of land, he argued, these factors collectively shaped an electoral environment that disadvantaged smaller parties, raising questions about fairness, transparency, and long-term implications for democratic governance in the state. The CPI(ML) Liberation leader’s remarks signal the party’s intent to engage more proactively with voters in the coming days, seek accountability, and strategize for future elections in Bihar and beyond.