Bihar’s 2025 election promised a fresh slate of coalition politics, but the real story lies in how those politics will translate into governance. The National Democratic Alliance (NDA)—comprising the Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) and the Janata Dal (United) (JD U)—has unveiled a novel “1:6 MLA formula” to allocate ministerial portfolios. This mechanism, which assigns one minister for every six elected members (MLAs) in the coalition, is a bid to balance power, appease smaller partners, and control the size of the cabinet. Below we unpack the math, the political maneuvering, the historical precedents, and the potential fallout.
1. The Numbers Behind the Formula
At a glance, the 1:6 MLA rule looks straightforward: if a coalition has 12 ministers, it must have 72 MLAs. In Bihar, the NDA presently holds 111 seats out of the 243‑member legislative assembly (JD U – 66, BJP – 45). Dividing 111 by six yields 18.5, which rounds down to 18 ministers. That would appear to limit the cabinet to 18 ministers, a sharp contraction from the 36 ministers the NDA had in the previous government.
However, the coalition’s calculations are layered. The NDA has also agreed to include a “special ministry” for minority representation (often allocated to the RJD or the Congress), ensuring that every major stakeholder has a voice. Moreover, the formula is meant to be a *starting point*—the parties can negotiate rounding adjustments or special portfolios. In practice, the NDA is likely to settle on 20 ministers: 18 from the 1:6 base plus two “special” ministries for key allies.
2. Why 1:6? A Tale of Historical Compromise
The idea of linking ministerial numbers to legislative strength is not new in Bihar. In the 2015‑2020 coalition, the seat‑share method was used: every party with more than 10% of seats got a proportional slice of the cabinet. That approach, while mathematically elegant, often led to bloated cabinets—Bihar had 36 ministers, averaging 1 minister per 6.75 seats.
Critics argued that such a structure bred “ministerial clutter,” hampering decision‑making and increasing state expenditure. The BJP’s 2025 manifesto, on the other hand, promised a leaner government with “strategic portfolios” for each minister. The 1:6 formula is a middle ground: it keeps the cabinet relatively small while ensuring representation for all coalition partners.
3. The Democratic Tapestry of the NDA
Bihar’s NDA coalition is a dance of personalities and power plays. Nitish Kumar, the JD U’s chief, is a veteran of the state’s politics, having governed for 15 of the past 20 years through a series of alliances. The BJP, under the new face of Gopal Jee Yadav, is eager to cement its presence in the state while respecting Nitish’s legacy.
The 1:6 rule is a concession designed to satisfy both. For Nitish, it guarantees a predictable share of ministries (18 or 20). For the BJP, it ensures that its relatively smaller number of seats (45) does not translate to an outsized influence in cabinet appointments. The formula also protects the BJP from the risk of being sidelined by a more dominant JD U, a scenario that played out in 2015 when the BJP felt marginalized.
4. The “Special Ministry” and Minority Representation
Bihar’s demographic mosaic—especially its sizeable Muslim population—has always been a critical factor in coalition politics. The NDA’s 1:6 formula includes a “special ministry” for minority representation, which is an innovation aimed at addressing this concern.
Historically, minorities in Bihar felt under‑represented. In 2015–20, the “special ministry” for minority affairs was headed by a JD U minister, which was perceived as tokenistic. The new formula will allocate this ministry to a BJP minister, giving the party a direct role in minority outreach. This move is expected to placate the BJP’s core base while maintaining the coalition’s stability.
5. Skirting the “Ministerial Overload” Dilemma
One of the primary criticisms of Bihar’s past governments was the sheer size of the cabinet. The 36‑member ministry of NCP‑JD U took a toll on public finances: ministers’ salaries, travel allowances, and administrative costs swelled. The 1:6 rule directly addresses this by limiting the cabinet to 18–20 ministers, a 50% cut compared to the previous size.
Beyond cost containment, a lean cabinet theoretically improves policy coordination. Fewer ministers mean fewer conflicting agendas, quicker decision‑making, and a clearer chain of accountability. The NDA hopes to capitalize on this by promising “efficient governance” to the electorate. Whether the promise translates into reality will depend on how well the coalition can translate the numbers into functional ministries.
6. Potential Pitfalls: Fragmentation vs. Unity
While the 1:6 rule aims for balance, it risks fragmenting the coalition. If a party feels its allocated share is insufficient, it may withdraw support or push for a ministerial reshuffle. The formula itself grants the NDA an implicit “floor” that cannot be easily breached. However, the NDA’s internal power dynamics—especially the JD U’s dominance—mean that the BJP’s 8 ministries might feel under‑represented, especially when their policy priorities clash with those of Nitish Kumar.
Moreover, the “special ministry” for minority affairs, while a concession, could ignite intra‑party rivalry. Should other minority‑focused parties (e.g., Rashtriya Janata Dal, RJD) perceive the allocation as biased, they might threaten the NDA’s majority, even with a stable cabinet.
7. The Role of the Chief Minister in Cabinet Formation
In the 1:6 formula, the Chief Minister (CM) retains the final say in cabinet formation. Nitish Kumar’s longstanding stature means he will have significant leverage over ministerial appointments. The formula’s mathematics are just a baseline; the CM can negotiate, shuffle portfolios, or elevate ministers based on political loyalty, performance, or regional balance.
This flexibility is both a strength and a weakness. It allows the CM to fine‑tune the cabinet to match the coalition’s strategic priorities. Conversely, it can lead to perceived favoritism, especially if smaller parties see their ministers being assigned to less influential portfolios.
8. Implications for Policy Implementation
With a smaller cabinet, the NDA is poised to streamline policy implementation. Yet, the formula’s implications ripple beyond numbers. For instance:
Budget Allocation: A leaner cabinet can focus on a narrower set of portfolios, allowing for deeper specialization. This could accelerate infrastructure projects or social welfare schemes.
Public Accountability: Fewer ministers enhance visibility. Citizens can hold specific ministers accountable for their domains.
Political Stability: The formula reduces the temptation for cabinet reshuffles over personal gains—a common phenomenon in Bihar’s past governments.
However, the efficacy of these advantages hinges on the coalition’s ability to maintain consensus on policy priorities. Divergent agendas between JD U and BJP could stall projects, especially if ministries with overlapping responsibilities are held by different parties.
9. Comparisons with National and Other States
The 1:6 formula is not unique to Bihar. Similar principles have been adopted by other states in India, such as Uttar Pradesh’s “one minister per 10 seats” rule during the 2017 coalition, or the “seat‑share” method in Gujarat. Nationally, the BJP has advocated for “lean cabinets” across its states, arguing that fewer ministers mean better governance.
Bihar’s adoption of a 1:6 rule follows this trend but also reflects a localized adaptation. The state’s high MLA-to-population ratio (243 seats for 124 million people) makes a court‑packed cabinet especially unwieldy. By contrast, in states with more efficient governance models (e.g., Tamil Nadu’s “one minister per 8 seats” rule), cabinet sizes are more palatable.
10. Public Perception and the Road Ahead
The NDA’s 1:6 formula will inevitably be scrutinized by voters. In a state where governance deficits often translate into anti‑incumbency, the narrative of a “lean, efficient cabinet” could sway opinions. Yet, the public will also judge the coalition on deliverables: job creation, sanitation drives, and infrastructure upgrades.
If the NDA can demonstrate that the 1:6 rule translates into faster policy roll‑outs, reduced corruption, and lower public expenditure, it will reinforce the coalition’s legitimacy. Conversely, if the cabinet remains opaque or if ministers are perceived as puppets, the formula will be called into question.
More Read
11. Conclusion: Balancing Numbers with Politics
The 1:6 MLA formula is a sophisticated attempt to blend mathematical fairness with the messy realities of coalition politics. By tying ministerial share to legislative strength, the NDA seeks to prevent dominance by any single party while ensuring representation for all partners. The formula’s success hinges on a few variables:
1. Cabinet Cohesion: The ability of JD U and BJP to work collaboratively despite differing priorities.
2. Effective Governance: Translating fewer ministers into clearer, more actionable policies.
3. Public Trust: Maintaining transparency and accountability to dispel skepticism about “ministerial shortages.”
If the NDA can navigate these waters, Bihar might witness a new era of streamlined governance. If not, the 1:6 rule could become a footnote—an ambitious mathematical exercise undone by the inevitable fractures that coalition politics breed. Only time, and the state’s political and administrative machinery, will decide.
