For most of Nitish Kumar’s long political career, his son Nishant Kumar remained invisible in public life. While many regional leaders openly groomed their heirs, Nitish maintained a careful distance between family and politics.
Now, as he steps aside from the chief minister’s office after nearly two decades, the future of the Janata Dal (United) will increasingly depend on his son.
That is the burden Nishant will have to carry: not only to prove himself, but also to preserve his father’s legacy and the party he built. It is not the first time a son has been introduced on the political scene as an heir to a legacy.
Across the country, the sons and daughters of prominent leaders have discovered that a famous surname may open the door to politics, but does not guarantee authority once inside, as it has to be constantly earned. The careers of several second-generation politicians illustrate this tension.
In Bihar, Nishant will face ready comparisons with two other young leaders upholding their fathers’ legacies—Tejashwi Yadav, the son of Rashtriya Janata Dal founder Lalu Prasad Yadav, and Chirag Paswan, who inherited the Lok Janshakti Party after the death of his father Ram Vilas Paswan.
Tejashwi has struggled to emerge on his own, but has often had to bear the burden of his father’s era, frequently termed jungle raj by opponents. Chirag has even described himself as Modi’s Hanuman in order to remain relevant in the state’s electoral politics.
In Uttar Pradesh, Akhilesh Yadav succeeded Mulayam Singh Yadav but had to establish his independence through internal party battles and electoral setbacks before stabilising his leadership. He may still need an electoral victory and a return to the chief minister’s office to emerge fully on his own.
Elsewhere, similar patterns are visible. Omar Abdullah inherited the National Conference in Jammu and Kashmir, but has had to rebuild the party’s relevance in a vastly altered political landscape. A similar story unfolds in southern states, where political heirs are waiting in the wings, whether in Tamil Nadu, Telangana, or Andhra Pradesh.
These examples underline a basic rule of India’s politics: legacy may be inherited, but legitimacy must be earned.
For Nishant Kumar, that challenge may be particularly difficult. Unlike many heirs of political dynasties, he enters politics relatively late. By the time he has stepped into the public arena, his father’s generation of leaders is already exiting the stage and a new generation of competitors has firmly established itself.
More importantly, Nishant inherits not merely a party, but a political system built almost entirely around one individual. For nearly two decades, Nitish Kumar defined Bihar’s political order.
Since coming to power in 2005, he shaped the state’s politics through governance reforms, welfare programmes and a complex balancing of caste coalitions, earning him the trust of women voters and the Extremely Backward Classes. The biggest fear among many Biharis today is whether anyone will be able to fill Nitish’s shoes.
The party’s organisational strength also grew around Nitish’s central authority as its grassroots structure remained intact. That structure now faces its most serious test.
Without Nitish Kumar at the centre of state politics, the JD(U) must find a new basis of cohesion. Nishant will have to step out of the protective anonymity that has defined much of his childhood and youth. How he engages with people, party workers, and elected representatives will be critical to the survival of the JD(U).
Comparisons with his father and with Nishant’s contemporaries will be inevitable. Voters tend to prefer firm leaders who remain accessible to them. Political heirs often grow up in the protective glow of their fathers’ influence and struggle, but they falter when those towering personalities are no longer present.
Apart from the mainstream parties, there are not many success stories where regional political parties have retained their relevance once the patriarch is no longer on the scene. That predicament awaits several parties, including the BJD, BSP and AIADMK. This will also be Nishant’s litmus test.
His challenge will be slow and unforgiving.
Carrying a famous surname may keep the party together for a while, but it will not command loyalty indefinitely in Bihar’s competitive politics.
Whether Nishant can do that will determine not only his own future, but also whether the Janata Dal (United) survives beyond the man who created it.