An Analysis of Prashant Kishor’s Political Career.
Prashant Kishor worked hard for 3 years in Bihar and result was a big fat zero. He did not win a single seat. His Jan Suraj Party could not open any account in Bihar assembly. Prashant Kishor’s failure in Bihar revealed the difference between political visibility and political machinery. He approached the election with the skills of a strategist, not the instincts of a leader. A strategist can build a narrative, manage optics and generate attention. A politician must build a structure beneath that narrative. Kishor excelled at the first and failed at the second.
In his press conference, held 4 days after results were announced, he did not share any reasons for his defeat except the Rs. 10,000/- paid to women for self employment by present Government. He said he need to analyze and self reflect to understand his huge loss. Let me save him trouble. Here are the plain reasons for his severe drubbing. Let him reflect upon it. Hopefully his family members will also reflect upon it and persuade him to use his time for some creative endeavor instead of blind pursuit of ambition and egotist zeal to be in power. It is only a technicality that every person can do anything. Prashant Kishor’s chance to become a politician in power is as much as my becoming a boxing champion in any category. Here are the detailed reasons:
No Cadre
Prashant Kishor traveled across Bihar, met people, gave interviews and created the impression of momentum. But the foundations that win elections were missing. He has paid coterie but no volunteers. He did not establish ward committees or panchayat networks. He did not create a dependable team of booth agents or poll day workers. There were no caste anchors, no local power brokers and no reliable financial pipeline. He worked with the tools of marketing, not the tools of electoral mobilisation. Narrative may generate crowds, but votes require a system that pushes supporters to the booth.
This gap was visible in voter behavior. People recognized Prashant, but they did not feel connected to him. They attended his meetings, shared his videos and appreciated his commentary. None of this translated into loyalty because attention is not the same as allegiance. Indian voters respond to leaders who give them access, identity or emotional presence. Kishor offered observations and analysis, not belonging or personal commitment.
Charisma
Smile is a unique human trait. No other creature can smile. Prashant Kishor rarely smile. When he does, it goes unnoticed. Try to find his picture in which he is smiling. His presence also lacked the element of memorability that defines Indian political charisma. Some leaders appear ordinary yet acquire an aura that draws people toward them. Others appear ordinary and remain unnoticed. Kishor fell into the second category. He had no distinct style, no signature gesture, no familiar humour, no visual or vocal marker that made him stand out. In a political culture where recognisability is currency, he blended into the background. He looked less like a mass leader and more like a consultant passing through. Look at him in the press conference in the youtube link below. See for yourself.
An Outsider
How many people know that full name of Prashant is Prashant Kishor Pandey and his family, in all likelihood has a connection with Varanasi, Uttar Pradesh, even if that connection existed many generations ago.This is the reason he does not use his family name suffix.
Prashant was born in Bihar but he appeared to voters as an outsider who had returned for a project rather than a purpose. His changing outfits, his corporate speech patterns and his body language all signaled distance. Villagers have a sharp instinct for authenticity, and they read his persona as temporary and performative. He displayed the rootlessness that comes from lack of social presence, extended family ties and a long-standing local identity. People often accept a stranger who settles. They do not accept a local who behaves like a visitor. His family remains private and nobody knows about it. A politician can not be so private.
The Void
He never created a symbolic centre of gravity. Most successful leaders demonstrate their capacity by transforming at least one area before claiming they can transform the whole. Kishor never adopted a village or demonstrated concrete change in any locality. There was no improvement in infrastructure, sanitation, health or education that voters could point to. Without such an anchor, he had no myth of competence. Great leaders often begin with a signature achievement. Kishor provided tours, speeches and commentary but no tangible proof of action.
He took upon himself to be one man army of public connect in entire State? He has no other leader. Yet he did not contest from any seat and expected that political nobody will win? He was unrealistic. Is there a word like “non-prophatic”? The void was there. It was visible and staring back. Only Kishor could not see.
Ambivalent Disclosure
Kishore is an election strategist. This is what is told. What does that mean, anyway? Does a common person on street understand that profession? Especially in a state where per capita income is half of West Bengal and one fifth of Maharashtra. Bihar has miserable education standard. So who is Prashant? What is education? What is is qualification? We know nothing about the man except his not so smiling face.
His credibility suffered further because his public statements about his income, past work and personal background kept shifting. Inconsistency does more damage than wrongdoing. Voters can forgive corruption when it is familiar and predictable, but they do not forgive uncertainty about a leader’s basic story. Doubt corrodes trust faster than scandal. In a state fragmented by caste loyalties, trust is the only strong currency. Without it, no network forms around a leader. As state earlier, his family remain strictly private.
Oratory
His lack of oratory sealed the problem. Indian politics is fundamentally oral. Leaders rise because people repeat their lines and absorb their voice. Kishor never produced a line, slogan or catchphrase that stayed in public memory. His speech resembled a corporate briefing rather than a political address. It was flat and functional, not musical or emotional. A leader in India must be heard into power. Kishor spoke, but his voice never traveled.
Social Skills
The clearest confirmation of his political mismatch came with the final results. Winning even one seat in India requires a circle of loyalists, a committed community and a booth-level organisation willing to fight for the candidate. Kishor had none of these. His supporters were employees, not believers. They were urban, well-dressed and disconnected from the caste and community networks that drive rural politics. When the campaign ended, their loyalty ended with it. His awkwardness is also revealed in his Press Conference. Watch it:
Notice the clapping in chorus. Notice the faces of people sitting with Kishor. Does any person looks connected to him? They are here on duty not out of devotion of a cause. Prashant has no cause. Making Bihar great again is a cheap copy of President Trump’s slogan in USA. Causes have a blue print not just rhetoric.
The absence of even a single victory revealed that he had no natural allies anywhere in the state. No community cluster adopted him. No village stood with him. No local leader risked reputation on his behalf. A politician needs to be loved, feared, respected or trusted. He was none of these. He was known, but he was not followed.
When all these layers come together, the conclusion becomes unmistakable. Kishor is not built for mass politics. He lacks the charisma, authenticity, grassroots demonstration, credibility, oratory and emotional connections that create leadership. He can understand politics, advise politicians and influence campaigns, but he cannot embody political leadership himself. His natural space is the background, not the battlefield.
See Also: