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.
The first and most visible factor was strong anti-incumbency against the Trinamool Congress government. Fifteen years in power had inevitably created fatigue. Anti-incumbency, after all, is almost a law of nature: what rises must eventually face decline.
The second factor was something I noticed consistently across districts: the rise of local strongmen. In many places, groups of 'goons' operated under political protection. 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 patronage network. For many, this system became a livelihood, but it also created a coercive structure in which ordinary people had to pay "cuts" not just to local political figures but, in some cases, to the police as well.
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. Once such systems took hold, they became difficult to challenge. People endured them, but a growing desire to break free was unmistakable.
The third 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 damaged public perception of the government. The RG Kar incident further intensified concerns, particularly around women's safety - and this had a crucial electoral impact, since women had been one of Mamata Banerjee's strongest support bases.
That support had not emerged overnight. It was built over years. Even during her tenure as Railway Minister, long before she became Chief Minister, she had introduced measures benefiting working-class women, especially those who commuted daily for domestic work. Later, as Chief Minister, schemes such as health coverage registered in women's names, travel allowances for patients, and direct financial assistance like Lakshmir Bhandar (₹1,500 per month) helped consolidate that base.
This time, however, there was visible erosion. One reason was the counter-campaign led by Narendra Modi, who commands his own strong appeal among women voters across India. Issues of safety, amplified by high-profile incidents, weakened the earlier consolidation. Modi emphasised women's security and, notably, promised ₹3,000 per month for women - a pledge he had not made before. In 2021, he had actually opposed such welfare schemes, calling them a driver of unemployment; recognising that approach had been a mistake, the BJP quietly changed course. The party is not averse to adopting the same playbook when it suits them.
The fourth factor was law and order - or, more precisely, its deterioration. Violence by TMC-affiliated elements increased markedly, particularly around elections. This pattern is not new to Bengal: when Congress fell, its strongmen migrated to the CPM; when the CPM fell, they migrated to the TMC. The TMC thus inherited and amplified a culture of coercion that previous governments had also relied upon.
Another significant shift came from the urban, educated middle class - the so-called bhadralok. Historically aligned with Congress, this group had moved toward the Left during the Singur and Nandigram agitations, and Mamata had shrewdly channelled that discontent into a political movement. But over time, particularly after industrial setbacks such as the departure of the Tata project from the state, confidence in her government began to erode.
This erosion was visible even in constituencies like Bhawanipur - cosmopolitan, elite, and politically prestigious, the kind of seat once contested by leaders like Syama Prasad Mukherjee and Siddhartha Shankar Ray. The role of Suvendu Adhikari also stands out. Despite not coming from an elite urban background, he emerged as a credible and effective face for the BJP, particularly in consolidating Hindu votes.
This brings us to another critical factor: religious polarisation. Muslim voters had traditionally backed Mamata Banerjee strongly, and there was every expectation that this would continue, especially given anxieties within the community about national politics under Modi and Amit Shah.
But the BJP's campaign intensified polarisation through aggressive labelling and pointed narratives. In response, Mamata attempted a counter-balance through visible religious outreach - visiting temples, invoking cultural symbols - yet these gestures did not fully neutralise the BJP's framing. The party managed to consolidate a large section of Hindu voters. There was also a widespread perception, especially in urban areas, that the state government had been overly accommodating toward certain groups even when law and order were at stake. Whether accurate or not, this perception had real electoral consequences. Symbolic issues - such as state involvement in temple affairs - became talking points that fed into the broader narrative.
Finally, structural factors also played a role. Processes like voter list revisions (referred to in political circles as SIR) are believed by the BJP to have influenced outcomes, particularly in border districts. Without these factors, many of the shifts described above 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 multiple changes - some gradual, some sudden - that altered the outcome.
(The author is Contributing Editor, NDTV)
Disclaimer: These are the personal opinions of the author
