By Jayanta Ghosal
In any election, there is never just one reason behind how people vote. Outcomes are shaped by multiple forces working together over time. West Bengal has a population of roughly ten crore, with around six crore voters, figures that can be verified, but the larger point remains: no single factor explains such a political shift.
Over the past two years, I have travelled across almost every district in the state. Based on those observations, a clearer picture begins to emerge. There are 5 reasons for Mamata’s setback.
The most visible factor was strong anti-incumbency against the All India Trinamool Congress government. Fifteen years in power had inevitably created fatigue. Anti-incumbency, after all, is almost a law of nature: what rises eventually faces decline.
This factor was something I noticed consistently across districts: the rise of local strongmen. In many places, groups of ‘goons’ evolved into politically protected enforcers. They exercised control, often through intimidation, and gradually a culture of extortion took root. This was particularly visible in sectors like real estate; everything from sand supply to cement distribution became part of a larger network. For many, this system turned into a livelihood, but it also created a coercive structure where ordinary people had to pay “cuts” not just to local political figures but, in some cases, even to the police.
Small party offices often became centres of local authority, with individuals acting as power brokers. This was not hidden; it was visible on the ground. Even something as everyday as running e-rickshaws became tied to informal payments. Many drivers, sometimes without proper registration, paid local intermediaries to operate. And once such systems took hold, they became difficult to challenge. People endured it, but there was a growing desire to break free from it.
The major factor was a sense of disillusionment among sections of civil society. This was not always loud, but it was there. Closely linked to that was the impact of the education scam controversies, which significantly affected public perception.
The RG Kar issue further intensified concerns, especially around women’s safety. This had a crucial impact as women had been one of Mamata Banerjee’s strongest support bases. That support did not emerge overnight. It had been built over the years. Even during her tenure as railway minister, long before she became chief minister, she had introduced measures that benefited working-class women, especially those commuting daily for domestic work. Later, as Chief Minister, schemes like health coverage in women’s names, travel allowances for patients, and direct financial assistance such as Lakshmir Bhandar (₹1,500 per month) helped consolidate that base. However, this time, there was visible erosion.
Here comes the ten factors behind the BJP’s win
One reason was the counter-campaign led by Narendra Modi, who has his own strong appeal among women voters across India. Issues like safety and high-profile incidents began to weaken the earlier consolidation. He emphasised women’s safety and also highlighted that this time they would provide ₹ 3000 per month to women, which he had never promised before. During the 2021 election, he was completely against these schemes, indicating it was one of the reasons for unemployment, but that was not the right strategy to pick, he realised. The BJP are not shy to go for the same system.
The other point is about law and order, massively decorated with the increase in violence by the TMC goons. After Congress, CPM won the election, in which the goons of Congress shifted to the CPM as well. After CPM, the TMC again became an extension of bad CPM with goons, mafias, and lumpens. These decorations started increasing the violence in the state, especially during elections.
Another important shift came from the urban, educated middle class, the so-called ‘bhadralok’. Historically, this group had supported the Congress. They were typically against the Left, later shifting towards the Left during movements like Singur and Nandigram. Mamata had emerged as a political entrepreneur of that discontent. But over time, particularly after industrial setbacks such as the exit of the Tata project, that confidence began to erode again.
This erosion was visible even in constituencies like Bhawanipur, cosmopolitan, elite, and politically prestigious. Leaders like Syama Prasad Mukherjee and Siddhartha Shankar Ray had once contested from here. Yet, the shift in voter sentiment became evident.
The role of Suvendu Adhikari also stands out. Despite not coming from an elite urban background, he emerged as a strong and credible face, particularly in consolidating Hindu votes.
This brings us to another critical factor: religious polarisation. Traditionally, Muslim voters had strongly supported Mamata Banerjee. There was an expectation that this would continue, especially given concerns within the community about national-level politics under Modi and Amit Shah.
The BJP’s campaign strategy intensified polarisation. Labels and narratives were used aggressively, and in response, Mamata attempted a counter-balance through visible religious outreach, visiting temples and invoking cultural symbols, but they did not fully neutralise the narratives.
Moreover, the BJP managed to consolidate a large section of Hindu voters. There was also a perception, particularly in urban areas, that the state government was overly accommodating towards certain groups, even when issues of law and order were involved. Whether accurate or not, this perception had electoral consequences. Even symbolic issues such as state involvement in temple construction became talking points, further feeding into the broader narrative.
The next important factor is education. The sector has seen excessive politicisation over the years, followed by corruption and serious irregularities in recruitment, especially in teacher appointments. These issues have had a significant impact. It is not that the impact was absent earlier, but it was not clearly visible in the previous election. This time, however, the effect has become evident.
Additionally, the BJP’s organisational capacity was quite weak. Because of that, it could not effectively reach out to people or communicate these concerns on the ground. This time, however, the BJP has strengthened its organisational structure considerably. There has been a coordinated effort with the RSS. Leaders like Sunil Bansal and Amit Malviya played crucial roles in strategising and executing the campaign effectively.
In fact, where the party earlier struggled to appoint booth agents, it adopted a more professional approach this time. Recruitment was done in an organised manner, almost like a formal selection process, where young men and women were brought in after proper screening and evaluation. As a result, booths that were once left unattended now had workers present. This significantly improved their outreach and ground-level presence.
Because of this stronger organisational setup, the dissatisfaction that had not translated into votes earlier, especially regarding the education sector, has now clearly been reflected in the ballot box. There has also been widespread discontent about the deteriorating condition of the education system. Even the governor had, on multiple occasions, raised concerns about the functioning of universities. All of this contributed to a growing sense of frustration among people.
The next major point is industry and de-industrialisation. Since the exit of the Tata project, there has been a visible stagnation in large-scale industrial development in the state. Investment summits were organised, announcements were made, and proposals came in, but in reality, very few of them materialised into substantial investments. Many large industrialists initially showed interest but eventually backed out.
As a result, the state has witnessed a steady decline in industrial growth, leading to fewer job opportunities and increasing economic dissatisfaction. This lack of industrial progress has further deepened public discontent, adding another layer to the reasons behind the electoral outcome.
Finally, structural factors also played a role. Processes like voter list revisions (often referred to in political discussions as SIR) are believed by the BJP to have influenced outcomes, especially in border districts. Without such factors, many of these shifts may not have translated as effectively into votes.
In the end, it was not one wave but many currents converging. Anti-incumbency, organisational fatigue, shifting voter loyalties, identity politics, and strategic campaigning all combined to reshape the electoral landscape.
Mamata Banerjee did not lose the plot because of a single misstep. It was the cumulative weight of BJP’s strategic uplift, along with Mamata’s multiple changes, some gradual, some sudden, that altered the outcome.
