Ganga vs governance: Mamata’s Bengal at breaking point

The political battle in West Bengal has outgrown the confines of a routine electoral contest. It has become a referendum on governance, accountability, and the limits of personality-driven politics. Mamata Banerjee and her All India Trinamool Congress (TMC) are no longer under pressure merely because of opposition attacks—they are weighed down by the cumulative burden of their own governance record.

At a public meeting on Friday, Prime Minister Narendra Modi sharpened this narrative. His critique of corruption, political violence and institutional decay was not new—but it struck a chord because it echoed a growing public sentiment. When he invoked the Ganga, saying it “flows through the soul of Bengal,” it was more than rhetoric. It was a calculated attempt to reclaim Bengal’s civilisational identity from what he implied was administrative neglect and political distortion. The symbolism was potent.

“Jai Shri Ram” chants by the crowd signalled that the Bharatiya Janata Party’s (BJP) strategy in Bengal has moved beyond conventional politics into the terrain of cultural assertion. But the deeper question is not about slogans—it is about why such messaging is gaining traction in a state that once prided itself on ideological clarity and political sophistication.

Part of the answer lies in the vacuum created by the TMC itself. For decades, Bengal’s discourse was shaped by Left ideology and later by Mamata Banerjee’s brand of populist regionalism. Today, that narrative appears fatigued. The BJP has stepped in to reframe the debate through a civilisational lens, positioning itself as the custodian of the State’s cultural ethos. Whether one agrees with this framing or not, its resonance reflects a shift in public mood.

Even Rahul Gandhi has acknowledged, albeit indirectly, that Mamata’s governance failures have created space for the BJP’s expansion. Yet, paradoxically, Mamata Banerjee and Arvind Kejriwal continue to project confidence, claiming that they will push the BJP out not just from Bengal but from Delhi as well. Such assertions may energise party cadre, but they do little to address the governance deficit that is increasingly defining Bengal’s political reality.

The TMC’s discomfort is visible in its shifting political posture. Mamata Banerjee has oscillated between soft cultural outreach and aggressive minority appeasement, creating an impression of inconsistency. In attempting to balance competing constituencies, the party risks alienating both. The rise of overt cultural expressions in political rallies is not accidental—it reflects a vacuum created by this ambiguity.

At the rally, Modi accused the TMC of “ruining” West Bengal. While political language often leans towards exaggeration, the underlying concerns are difficult to dismiss. Bengal today is grappling with persistent allegations of corruption, a compromised administrative apparatus, and a law-and-order situation that inspires more anxiety than confidence.

From recruitment scams to coal and financial irregularities, the steady stream of controversies has severely dented TMC’s credibility. The ED raids on I-Pac, arrests and investigations and the way Mamata personally obstructed them pointed to systemic weaknesses. The perception that institutions are being manipulated for political ends has only deepened public distrust.

Equally damaging has been the government’s response. Instead of addressing allegations with transparency, the TMC has chosen confrontation—questioning the motives of central agencies and framing every investigation as political vendetta. This approach may consolidate a loyal support base, but it fails to convince an increasingly sceptical middle class and youth population that now demands performance over posturing.

Union Home Minister Amit Shah added a layer of electoral confidence by predicting that the BJP would win 110 out of 152 seats in the first phase. Such projections are part of political strategy, aimed at building momentum and shaping perception. They also indicate that the BJP no longer sees itself as an outsider in Bengal—it sees itself as a contender for power.

Once celebrated as a street fighter, who challenged entrenched power, Mamata is now perceived by critics as presiding over an increasingly centralised system. Decision-making is concentrated, dissent is limited, and accountability is diffused. This model may deliver short-term control, but it weakens institutional resilience in the long run.

Her objections to the deployment of central forces and her attempts to politicise security issues have also not gone unnoticed. Such positions, intended to reinforce federal autonomy, risk being interpreted as deflection from governance concerns. When every criticism is framed as an attack on Bengal itself, the line between political defence and administrative responsibility becomes dangerously blurred.

This strategy of perpetual victimhood is not unique. Similar approaches adopted by leaders like K Chandrashekar Rao and Kejriwal have eventually run into electoral resistance. Voters, particularly in urban and semi-urban areas, are increasingly unwilling to accept rhetoric as a substitute for results.

Meanwhile, the shadow of political violence continues to loom large over Bengal. Election-related clashes, allegations of intimidation, and a general atmosphere of tension have become recurring features. The state government’s consistent denial of any deterioration in law and order only widens the gap between official claims and public perception.This perception has real consequences. Investors grow cautious, civil society becomes wary, and citizens feel trapped in a cycle of political confrontation. Governance, in such an environment, becomes reactive rather than proactive. As Bengal approaches the next phase of polling, the TMC stands at a decisive juncture. It can either acknowledge the cracks in its governance model and initiate meaningful reforms or continue to rely on rhetoric and confrontation. The former demands political courage, while the latter offers only diminishing returns.

For Mamata Banerjee, the stakes are deeply personal and also political. She has an opportunity to redefine her legacy by addressing corruption, strengthening institutions, and restoring public confidence. Alternatively, she risks being remembered as a leader who allowed a historic mandate to slip into complacency and decline.

Political speeches—whether by the Prime Minister or opposition leaders—are often dismissed as partisan. Yet, at times, they capture underlying truths that cannot be ignored. The concerns being raised about Bengal today fall into that category.

Bengal, with its rich intellectual and cultural heritage, deserves more than a politics of denial and confrontation. It requires governance that is transparent, institutions that are credible, and leadership that is willing to listen.

The invocation of the Ganga may stir emotion, but the real test lies elsewhere. The time for symbolism is over. What Bengal needs now is accountability, reform, and a decisive break from the politics of deflection.

(The author is former Chief Editor of The Hans India)