As the West Bengal Assembly election enters its decisive phase, the issue of women’s reservation has emerged as a major political flashpoint, shaping both narrative and strategy on the ground.
The debate intensified after Narendra Modi, during a rally in Barjora, accused opposition parties, including the Congress, DMK, All India Trinamool Congress (TMC), and Samajwadi Party of effectively committing a “Bhrun Hatya (foeticide)” by opposing what he described as a genuine constitutional effort to fast-track women’s reservation in legislatures. He reiterated that his government remains committed to ensuring representation for women and positioned the quota push as a necessary democratic reform.
However, Mamata Banerjee has not taken a defensive stance. Instead, she has turned the issue into a counter-narrative. The TMC is actively highlighting that it has fielded one of the highest numbers of women candidates in the state, arguing that its commitment to women’s empowerment is not merely rhetorical but already visible in practice. Mamata Banerjee has repeatedly pointed out that long before this national debate gained momentum, her government had implemented reservations for women at multiple levels, from panchayats to legislative representation. She has also emphasised the presence of women MPs from her party in Parliament.
On the ground, this political messaging is visible in her outreach efforts. Mamata Banerjee has been conducting ‘padayatras’ alongside women leaders across constituencies, turning the campaign into a direct engagement with women voters. It has now become a clear case of tit-for-tat politics, where both sides are attempting to claim moral and political ownership over the issue.
In a statement posted on her X handle, Mamata Banerjee directly challenged Narendra Modi’s position. She reiterated that while she supports women’s reservation in principle, a stance she has maintained since 1996, her party believes that the quota should be 50%, not 33%. This position has also been echoed by TMC MP Kakoli Ghosh Dastidar, who publicly demanded a higher share of representation for women.
The political complexity deepens when one looks at the legislative timeline. In September 2023, when the Women’s Reservation Bill was passed in Parliament with an overwhelming majority (454–2 in the Lok Sabha), the TMC had supported it. The only dissent came from two MPs of All India Majlis-e-Ittehadul Muslimeen. However, even while supporting the bill, the TMC had raised two concerns: the absence of a sub-quota for OBC women and the delay in implementation, which was linked to the Census and delimitation process.
The situation changed in April 2026, when the Constitution (131st Amendment) Bill was introduced. This time, the TMC voted against it, and the bill failed to pass (298–230). Mamata Banerjee argued that the Centre had strategically linked women’s reservation with the delimitation exercise, which she believes is aimed at increasing Lok Sabha seats from around 550 to nearly 850. According to her, such a move could disrupt the federal balance of the country. She described the bill as a “disguise,” suggesting that women’s reservations were being used as a front to push through a politically motivated delimitation agenda.
To strengthen her argument, Mamata Banerjee has also highlighted her government’s track record. In the 2024 Lok Sabha elections, the TMC sent 11 women MPs out of 29, approximately 38%, significantly higher than the national average of around 14%. She has also pointed to flagship welfare schemes such as Kanyashree, Rupashree, and Lakshmir Bhandar as evidence of her long-standing focus on women-centric governance.
Her stance has found support among opposition leaders. Sonia Gandhi reportedly reached out to Mamata Banerjee, appreciating her role in maintaining opposition unity on the issue. Rahul Gandhi has also expressed satisfaction with the coordinated opposition response. In effect, this has brought multiple opposition parties onto a common platform, at least on the question of how the reservation policy is being framed and implemented.
Senior Congress leader P. Chidambaram added another layer to the debate by criticising the government’s narrative around the 131st Amendment Bill. He argued that the framing of the issue was based on “distorted facts and dubious interpretations of law.” According to him, the original constitutional amendment passed in September 2023 had already inserted Article 334A, making the legal framework clear. The delay in notifying and implementing the provision, followed by its sudden revival in April 2026, raised legitimate questions.
He further suggested that the move may have been politically timed to serve multiple purposes: disrupting election campaigns in states like Tamil Nadu and West Bengal, creating an impression of fairness in the delimitation process, and introducing changes that could disproportionately affect southern states. Once these underlying motives were exposed, he argued, the government’s narrative began to collapse.
Mamata Banerjee, echoing similar concerns, has been consistently questioning why the 2023 amendment was not implemented earlier if the intent was genuine. For her, the timing of the move right before crucial state elections raises doubts about its political motivations.
As things stand, the women’s quota issue is no longer just a legislative debate; it has become a central electoral tool. The BJP is projecting it as a commitment to women’s empowerment at the national level, while the TMC is countering it with its on-ground record and by questioning the Centre’s intentions. In the final stretch of the campaign, this confrontation has added another intense layer to an already high-stakes election battle.
Whether voters see this as a genuine policy debate or as strategic positioning by both sides will ultimately determine how much impact it has on the electoral outcome.
