West Bengal Political Stalemate, How Historical Binaries Shape a State’s Trajectory

West Bengal Political Stalemate, How Historical Binaries Shape a State’s Trajectory

The political landscape of West Bengal is a theatre of intense, often polarized, drama, where every electoral battle and administrative skirmish is framed not just as a contest of policies, but as a deeper civilizational clash. The recent incident involving Chief Minister Mamata Banerjee’s direct intervention in an Enforcement Directorate (ED) raid on the political consulting firm I-PAC is a microcosm of this larger, enduring struggle. It encapsulates the core dilemma of contemporary Bengali politics: is such an act a legitimate stand for federal autonomy and regional pride, or is it blatant administrative interference to shield corruption? This question cannot be answered through a simple legal or ethical lens; it must be understood through the prism of the historical, cultural, and social binaries that have long defined Bengali identity and, by extension, its politics. These deeply ingrained dichotomies have created a political ecosystem where nuance collapses, alternatives wither, and the electorate is perpetually forced to choose between two seemingly irreconcilable poles.

The Culture of the Binary: From Football to Fish

To comprehend Bengal’s politics, one must first appreciate its cultural predisposition towards binaries. This is a society that often thinks in pairs. In sports, the rivalry between East Bengal and Mohun Bagan is not merely about football; it is an identity marker, historically mapping onto the Partition refugee (Bangal) versus native West Bengali (Ghoti) divide. In culinary debates, the superiority of hilsa versus prawn is argued with theological fervor. Intellectual and artistic circles have historically vacillated between fierce nationalism and cosmopolitan internationalism, between reverence for tradition and zeal for radical reform.

This binary tendency, as scholar Abhik Bhattacharya notes, constricts liminal space. The middle ground is culturally uncomfortable; allegiance, passion, and identity are often expressed through opposition to a clear “other.” Politics, absorbing this cultural grammar, has naturally evolved into a similar dualistic arena. For 34 years, it was the CPI(M)-led Left Front versus the Congress. Since 2011, it has been reconfigured as the Trinamool Congress (TMC) versus the Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP), with the Left and Congress pushed to the margins. The political discourse offers little room for a third axis built on alternative governance paradigms; it is instead a clash of overarching narratives.

The Insider vs. Outsider: The Master Narrative of TMC

The TMC’s most potent political weapon since its resounding victory in 2021 and its recovery in the 2024 Lok Sabha elections has been the “insider vs. outsider” binary. After a period of internal turmoil and corruption scandals (Saradha, Narada, teacher recruitment) that threatened its credibility, the party successfully pivoted to a politics of ethnic and regional identity. Mamata Banerjee’s frequent invocation of “outsiders” to describe BJP leaders—painted as Hindi-speaking, North Indian impositions on Bengali sanskriti (culture)—resonates with a deep-seated historical anxiety.

This anxiety has roots in the colonial and post-colonial economic history of Bengal. The Bengal Renaissance of the 19th century, while producing a celebrated bhadralok (gentleman) class of intellectuals and professionals, also fostered, as Bhattacharya points out, a “clerk mentality.” Figures like scientist-entrepreneur Prafulla Chandra Ray urged Bengalis towards business and industry, but many in the educated middle-class preferred the security of salaried jobs in offices and companies that were often owned by “Marwaris” or other non-Bengali business communities. This created a lingering, subconscious sense of economic displacement within one’s own homeland—a feeling that the levers of commerce and capital were controlled by “others.” The BJP’s image, despite its growing Bengali leadership, is often filtered through this historical lens and portrayed as the latest wave of “colonising outsiders,” making inroads not through cultural affinity but through organizational machinery and connection to Delhi’s central power.

The Communal vs. Secular: The BJP’s Counter-Narrative

The BJP, in turn, has masterfully engaged with another potent binary: the communal versus the secular. It has tapped into the unresolved traumas of Partition and the 1971 Bangladesh War, invoking memories of displacement and violence to consolidate a pan-Hindu identity among Bengali Hindus. The narrative that paints many Bengali Muslims as “infiltrators” from Bangladesh is a direct play on fears about demographic and cultural change, offering a stark, religiously-defined idea of belonging.

This creates a powerful counter to the TMC’s regionalism. Where Banerjee speaks of Bangla and Bengali, the BJP speaks of Hindu and Bharatiya. It frames the TMC’s secularism as “appeasement” and its own politics as the defence of a Hindu homeland. This binary is especially effective in border districts and among refugee communities, where the pain of losing bhitamati (homeland) is a living family history. Ironically, as historical accounts attest, this period also saw countless instances of Hindu-Muslim solidarity, with neighbours helping each other escape mobs. Yet, in the political memory curated for mobilization, the unifying, complex human stories are often submerged by the divisive, singular narrative of victimhood.

The Failure of Alternatives and the Corruption Conundrum

The tragic consequence of this TMC-vs-BJP binary is the utter collapse of any credible political alternative. The Left Front and the Indian National Congress, which once defined the state’s politics, have “miserably failed to transcend this and create an alternative space.” Their decline is not just organizational; it is ideological. They have been unable to offer a compelling vision that breaks free from the either/or of ethnic regionalism and religious nationalism. This failure traps the electorate in a repetitive loop. Disillusionment with the TMC’s governance—especially its stark corruption allegations—does not naturally flow to the Left or Congress, but is forced into the binary funnel, often benefiting the BJP as the only viable “anti-incumbent” force.

This brings us back to the ED raid and the corruption question. For the BJP and a section of the urban middle class, the TMC’s record is indefensible. The scandals are evidence of a deep rot, and Banerjee’s intervention is proof of a government protecting its own. However, for many TMC supporters, the ED itself is not a neutral law-enforcement agency but a political instrument of the “outsider” central government, used to harass and destabilize a defiant regional leader. The corruption case thus gets subsumed into the larger binary fight. The question shifts from “Is there corruption?” to “Whose side are you on? The side of Bengal’s ma, maati, manush (mother, soil, people) or the side of Delhi’s oppressive agencies?” In this framing, administrative and legal details become secondary to the grand narrative of resistance.

The Way Forward: Can Bengal Break the Loop?

West Bengal thus stands at a crossroads, trapped in what Bhattacharya calls a “political loop that repeats old ideals without offering new futures.” The state’s political energy is consumed in this trench warfare between two powerful, emotion-driven narratives, while pressing issues of economic stagnation, industrial decline, youth unemployment, climate vulnerability, and public health languish.

Escaping this loop requires a conscious cultural and political effort to resurrect the liminal space. It necessitates:

1. The Emergence of a Third Force: A political formation, potentially coalescing around issues of clean governance, economic regeneration, and social justice, that consciously refuses both majoritarian communalism and corruption-tainted regionalism. This is a monumental task, given the structural and financial dominance of the two main parties.

2. A Shift in Electoral Discourse: Voters, especially the younger generation, must demand that politics be centered on performance, accountability, and concrete future plans rather than identity-based fear and pride. This requires a vigorous, independent civil society and media that holds all narratives to account.

3. Reclaiming a Complex History: Bengalis must collectively embrace the nuanced, pluralistic, and syncretic strands of their own history—the entrepreneurial spirit of a Prafulla Chandra Ray, the solidarity across communities during Partition, and the intellectual tradition that questioned all orthodoxies, including the tyranny of the binary.

The future of India’s culturally richest and politically most vibrant state depends on its ability to imagine a politics beyond the either/or. The raid on I-PAC is not just a news item; it is a symbol of the old conflict. Whether Bengal can write a new chapter, one defined by synthesis and progress rather than perpetual opposition, remains the most critical question of its contemporary destiny. Until then, it risks being a state forever defined by what it is against, never quite deciding what it is for.

Q&A: Understanding West Bengal’s Political Binaries

Q1: How does West Bengal’s cultural history explain its tendency towards political binaries?
A1: Bengal’s culture has long operated on symbolic dualities, from the East Bengal vs. Mohun Bagan football rivalry (reflecting the Bangal-Ghoti identity split) to debates over cuisine and intellectual traditions. This cultural habit of defining identity and passion in opposition to a clear “other” has deeply influenced its politics. The political arena thus naturally evolves into a polarized space where nuanced middle grounds are culturally uncomfortable and electorally scarce, leading to a system dominated by two powerful, opposing narratives.

Q2: What is the “insider vs. outsider” binary, and how has the TMC weaponized it?
A2: The “insider vs. outsider” binary frames political conflict as a battle between authentic Bengali representatives and external, often Hindi-speaking, interlopers from North India. The TMC, under Mamata Banerjee, has masterfully used this narrative, especially after being besieged by corruption scandals. By portraying the BJP as a party of “colonising outsiders” using central agencies like the ED to undermine Bengal, the TMC shifts the debate from governance failures to a defence of regional autonomy and Bangla pride, consolidating its ethnic vote bank.

Q3: How does the BJP counter the TMC’s regional narrative, and what historical anxieties does it tap into?
A3: The BJP counters with the “communal vs. secular” binary. It taps into the deep, unresolved trauma of Partition and the 1971 war, invoking memories of displacement to consolidate a pan-Hindu identity. Its narrative suggests that the TMC’s “secularism” is actually appeasement of a minority (often insinuated to be infiltrators from Bangladesh), thereby threatening the cultural and demographic integrity of the Bengali Hindu homeland. This politicizes religious identity, offering a powerful alternative belonging to the TMC’s regionalism.

Q4: Why have the Left Front and Congress failed to provide an alternative in this binary clash?
A4: The Left and Congress have failed to transcend the binary because they have been unable to offer a compelling, new vision. Their decline is ideological and organizational. They are perceived as relics of an old order, caught between the two powerful, emotionally charged narratives of ethnic pride and religious nationalism. Voters disillusioned with TMC’s corruption see no viable home in these weakened parties, forcing protest votes primarily towards the BJP, thus reinforcing the very binary they might wish to break.

Q5: What does the recent ED raid on I-PAC and Mamata Banerjee’s intervention reveal about how governance issues are framed in Bengal’s binary politics?
A5: The incident reveals how concrete governance and legal issues are subsumed into the larger narrative war. For the BJP, it is a straightforward case of corruption and interference. For the TMC and its supporters, it is framed as an “outsider” central government using a weaponized agency to target a popular regional leader. The question thus transforms from a legal “Is this corruption?” to a political “Whose side are you on?” This reframing protects the incumbent from accountability based on performance, anchoring the debate instead in the pre-existing, emotionally resonant insider-outsider conflict.