Bihar Chief Minister Samrat Choudhary has come under criticism after making a remark about crime in the state that quickly became a subject of political debate and online ridicule. Speaking at an official event in New Delhi on Tuesday, November 3, Choudhary said that crimes might occur in Bihar, but there was no “apraadh” and no criminals in the state. The apparent distinction between the English word “crime” and its Hindi equivalent “apraadh” prompted questions about what the chief minister intended to convey.
The comment drew a sharp response from Rashtriya Janata Dal (RJD) working president and Bihar Assembly Leader of Opposition Tejashwi Yadav. He shared a video of the chief minister’s speech on social media platform X and questioned the statement, turning the remark into a fresh political confrontation between the ruling National Democratic Alliance (NDA) and the Opposition.
What exactly did Samrat Choudhary say?
Choudhary made the statement while addressing an event in Delhi organised around an agreement involving the Bihar government and the Union Ministry of Road Transport and Highways. Union Minister Nitin Gadkari was also present.
While discussing the law-and-order situation in Bihar, the chief minister said: “Hamare yahan koi apraadh nahi hai. Apraadh ka concept hi khatam ho chuka hai. Crime ho sakte hain, lekin apraadh nahi, koi apraadhi nahi hai.”
In English, the statement means that there is no offence or criminality in Bihar, that the concept of such offences has ended, and that crimes may happen but there are no criminals.
The choice of words attracted attention because “crime” and “apraadh” carry essentially the same meaning in this context. As a result, listeners questioned how the two could be treated as separate categories.
The video of the speech circulated widely online. The remark became a talking point not only because of its wording but also because it came from the state’s chief minister, who is responsible for the administration and law-and-order machinery.
It remains unclear whether Choudhary intended to make a distinction between the two words or made a verbal error while describing his government’s position on crime control.
Tejashwi Yadav targets the chief minister
Tejashwi Yadav responded by sharing the video and using the chief minister’s own words to criticise him. In his post, the RJD leader wrote that crime might occur in Bihar but “apraadh” did not, repeating the phrase to highlight what he considered a contradiction.
Yadav also questioned whether the IAS and IPS officers who were present on the stage felt comfortable working with the chief minister. His post included a reference to an old murder-related case in which Choudhary had been named.
The RJD leader further questioned Prime Minister Narendra Modi’s decision to appoint Choudhary as Bihar’s chief minister, alleging that the state’s interests were being harmed under his leadership.
These remarks are part of the continuing political confrontation between the RJD and the BJP-led government over governance, public safety and the state’s law-and-order situation.
Choudhary, who began his political career with the RJD before moving to other political formations and eventually joining the BJP, has maintained that he was falsely implicated in the case registered in the 1990s in his home district of Munger. The allegations raised by political opponents should therefore be understood as political claims, not as established findings of guilt.
Chirag Paswan backs the government’s crime-control approach
Union Minister Chirag Paswan, an ally of the BJP in the NDA, was also asked about the chief minister’s controversial statement. He avoided directly joining the argument over the wording but expressed confidence in Choudhary’s approach to controlling crime.
Paswan said that Choudhary, who holds both the chief minister’s and home portfolios, should have facts and figures to support his position. He added that he wanted Bihar to become a crime-free state and an attractive destination for investors.
His response was more supportive of the government’s stated objective than a direct defence of the phrase used by Choudhary. It also brought attention to the connection between public safety and Bihar’s efforts to attract businesses and investment.
The wider debate over law and order in Bihar
The controversy has reopened a familiar political debate in Bihar: whether the state’s law-and-order situation has improved sufficiently and how the government measures its performance.
The NDA government has maintained that stricter policing and the use of technology have helped bring crime under control. Opposition parties, particularly the RJD, have continued to raise concerns over incidents of violence, policing and public safety.
A meaningful assessment of the situation requires more than political statements from either side. Official crime statistics, comparisons across years, investigation outcomes, conviction rates and information about police response can help provide a clearer picture. Different categories of offences also need to be examined separately rather than treating all incidents as one measure.
The chief minister’s statement has not, by itself, provided such figures. Nor does the criticism from the Opposition establish the overall condition of law and order. Both the government’s claims and the Opposition’s allegations need to be considered against verifiable public records.
Why the remark matters politically
For a chief minister, statements about crime carry particular importance because the public expects clear communication about safety, policing and accountability. The use of two words with essentially the same meaning has shifted attention away from the government’s policy claims and towards the wording of the speech itself.
The controversy also comes at a time when the government is seeking to highlight Bihar’s development potential. Choudhary spoke at the event about the state’s economic challenges, water management and industrial growth. He argued that better management of river water could help Bihar address a major obstacle to development.
However, the political discussion following his speech has largely centred on the crime remark rather than the development issues raised at the same event.
The episode is likely to remain part of the political debate between the ruling alliance and the Opposition as they contest each other’s claims about governance in Bihar. For residents, the central question goes beyond the choice of words: whether policing is effective, whether people feel safe and whether the government can demonstrate measurable improvements in public safety.
Until the government presents detailed evidence to support its claims, the debate over Bihar’s crime situation is likely to continue.
