“Humpty Dumpty had a great fall”, this line from the nursery rhyme came to mind while describing the political downfall of the once powerful Mamata Banerjee. It was one of her favourite lines: “Humpty Humpty Dumpty Dumpty. Hamba Hamba Ramba Ramba.”A total nonsense poem she was always reciting from the stage and her sycophants were clapping loudly. And ironically in her own political life, a fall like that of Humpty Dumpty has now taken place. It must be said, this was not a sudden event; rather, it is the cumulative result of multiple factors. In politics, decline usually builds slowly. Tughlaq like directives triggered widespread backlash.
First, anti incumbency is a major reason. When a party stays in power for a long time, people’s expectations rise. Even if development work is done, it often cannot mask people’s dissatisfaction or sense of monotony. Bengal has seen so many images of corruption and brutality that the slogan “Joy Bangla” began to sound hollow. The Trinamool Congress tried to portray itself as synonymous with Bengal, and claimed that everyone except the party and its loyalists were outsiders.
There were Goebbels style false propaganda campaigns, even about eating fish. Every year, the so called industrial summits were little more than a show, involving people like Sourav Ganguly and a cluster of opportunistic Tollywood actors and actresses who had minimal political understanding, yet were used to project messages of development. Alongside this came figures like Shahjahan Sheikh, Jahangir, and “Kesto type” strongmen. Orders such as “women should not go out after eight o’clock,” turning the police into party servants, and merging the party with the state machinery—these are things people cannot accept. Hence that famous saying comes to mind: “You can make all people fool for some time or some people for all time, but not all people for all time.”
Trinamool had no real political ideology. Apart from Mamata’s personal inspiration and the leadership of a novice like Abhishek, what ideology did the party have? As a result, for the past decade, there have been incidents of exam, paper disappearance, countless lies about DA for government employees, and the politics of cut money and rice, ration scams. Mamata’s paintings being sold for crores of rupees, and her books being made compulsory in school libraries, these
Second, organizational weakness at the grassroots. The strength of a regional party depends on its local leadership and workers. If there is factionalism, infighting, or allegations of corruption, public trust erodes. Third, the rise of a strong opposition, especially the expansion of the Bharatiya Janata Party. This consolidated the anti incumbency vote and intensified the electoral battle.
Fourth, identity based politics. Issues like nationalism, religion, or regional identity influence voters. If a government fails to align with these trends, its support may decline. The party’s contradictory stance on OBC Waqf and SIR further accelerated its downfall. Fifth, leadership image. Mamata Banerjee’s strong and combative persona was once her greatest strength, but over time, opponents were able to portray it negatively.
Finally, certain specific incidents or controversies, such as economic distress, law and order failures, or major political scandals—have intensified public anger, whether it was Park Street, Kamduni, or the case of 26,000 teachers.
Politics changes in cycles. A leader or party that is weak today may become strong tomorrow. Mamata failed to grasp this truth. Her flatterers dragged her down even further. They even made her sing, “It is time for me to go, bid me farewell,” but she did not deserve such humiliation. I am two years younger than her. I have seen her dancing on the bonnet of Jayaprakash Narayan’s car at the University of Calcutta while I was giving a speech at the university gate about ESMA. What a fighter she once was, she had the courage to uproot the mighty CPM almost single handedly.
She extended our retirement age to 65. But by choosing the wrong friends and supporters, she invited her own downfall as well as that of her party. Imagine, her education minister Bratya Basu had appointed two principals simultaneously at Motijheel College until just a few days ago. Their fall had become inevitable. The BJP merely acted as a catalyst. And perhaps we will no longer hear her say, “Humpty Humpty Dumpty Dumpty.” This downfall was natural.Even Hitle had to succumb to defeat. Hitlers cannot rule for ever.
The defeat of the Trinamool Congress and the Mamata Banerjee government in West Bengal emerged from a convergence of political fatigue, governance controversies, shifting voter loyalties, and a dramatically altered electoral landscape. After nearly fifteen years in power, the TMC faced a level of anti incumbency that had been steadily building beneath the surface. Much like the Left Front’s decline after three decades of uninterrupted rule, the TMC’s long tenure generated a sense of stagnation among sections of the electorate. Complaints about local level interference, the dominance of party cadres, and the perception of a pervasive “syndicate culture” contributed to a growing belief that the government had become unresponsive to everyday concerns. This sentiment was amplified by a record voter turnout, crossing 92 percent—which many analysts interpreted as a clear signal of public desire for change.
A series of governance related controversies further weakened the TMC’s standing. The rape and murder of a trainee doctor at RG Kar Medical College became a defining moment in the campaign, shaking public confidence and deeply affecting women voters, who had long been considered one of Mamata Banerjee’s most loyal constituencies. The government’s response was widely criticized as inadequate and insensitive, and this single incident came to symbolize broader anxieties about women’s safety in the state. Similarly, the events in Sandeshkhali, where allegations of atrocities and administrative failure dominated headlines—reinforced the perception that law and order had deteriorated. These episodes collectively eroded the moral authority that Mamata Banerjee had cultivated over the years as a leader who stood for justice and protection of the vulnerable.
Economic frustrations also played a significant role. Many young people felt that West Bengal was not generating enough opportunities, leading to a steady out migration of skilled and semi skilled workers. This created a sense of hopelessness among first time voters, who were more receptive to alternative political narratives. Businesses, too, expressed concerns about corruption and bureaucratic hurdles, which they believed hindered investment and growth. Over time, these economic grievances blended with political dissatisfaction, creating a broader critique of the government’s performance.
Another crucial factor was the shifting composition of the TMC’s voter base. Women, minorities, and rural voters had historically formed the backbone of the party’s support. However, reports suggested that women voters, in particular, felt let down by the government’s handling of high profile crimes and by what they perceived as a lack of empathy from the leadership. Minority votes, once consolidated behind the TMC, showed signs of fragmentation, weakening the party’s hold over several key constituencies. The cumulative effect of these shifts was visible in the unprecedented defeat of twenty two ministers, including Mamata Banerjee herself in Bhabanipur, a symbolic blow that underscored the depth of voter dissatisfaction.
Complaints about local level interference, the dominance of party cadres, and the perception of a pervasive “syndicate culture” contributed to a growing belief that the government had become unresponsive to everyday concerns. This sentiment was amplified by a record voter turnout—crossing 92 percent which many analysts interpreted as a clear signal of public desire for change.
Another crucial factor was the shifting composition of the TMC’s voter base. Women, minorities, and rural voters had historically formed the backbone of the party’s support. However, reports suggested that women voters, in particular, felt let down by the government’s handling of high profile crimes and by what they perceived as a lack of empathy from the leadership. Minority votes, once consolidated behind the TMC, showed signs of fragmentation, weakening the party’s hold over several key constituencies. The cumulative effect of these shifts was visible in the unprecedented defeat of twenty two ministers, including Mamata Banerjee herself in Bhabanipur a symbolic blow that underscored the depth of voter dissatisfaction.
The opposition’s strategy also contributed significantly to the TMC’s defeat. The Bharatiya Janata Party mounted an aggressive, high intensity campaign that penetrated regions previously considered impregnable TMC strongholds. While Mamata Banerjee attempted to frame the election as a battle between Bengal’s identity and “outsiders,” this narrative did not resonate as strongly as it had in earlier elections. The opposition successfully capitalized on governance failures, amplified public anger, and presented itself as a viable alternative at a moment when many voters were already questioning the status quo.
In the end, the TMC’s defeat was not the result of a single issue but rather the culmination of accumulated grievances, emotional turning points, and strategic missteps. It reflected a broader desire for accountability, renewal, and a different political direction. The election became a referendum not only on the government’s performance but also on its ability to respond to crises, maintain public trust, and adapt to a rapidly changing political environment.
Ultimately, the defeat of the Trinamool Congress reflected a deeper shift in the political psychology of West Bengal. For years, Mamata Banerjee had embodied a powerful narrative of resistance,first against the Left Front and later against national level political forces. Her personal charisma, street fighter image, and ability to connect emotionally with ordinary people had been central to the TMC’s rise. But over time, this narrative began to lose its resonance. Many voters felt that the party had grown distant from its original grassroots ethos, becoming increasingly centralized and personality driven. The emotional bond that once defined Mamata’s relationship with the electorate appeared to weaken, especially as controversies mounted and the government struggled to respond with the moral clarity that had once been her hallmark.
The internal dynamics of the TMC also contributed to its decline. Reports of factionalism, infighting, and the growing influence of a small circle of leaders created the impression of a party that had become insular. Several senior leaders defected or expressed dissatisfaction, signaling instability within the organization. These internal fractures not only weakened the party’s campaign machinery but also undermined public confidence in its ability to govern cohesively. The defeat of so many ministers, including the chief minister herself, was a dramatic manifestation of this internal erosion.
Another dimension of the TMC’s defeat was the changing media and communication landscape. The opposition’s ability to dominate digital platforms, shape narratives, and mobilize public sentiment played a significant role. Social media amplified grievances, circulated images and testimonies from controversial incidents, and created a sense of urgency around issues of safety, corruption, and governance. The TMC, despite its organizational strength, struggled to counter this wave of digital messaging. Its communication strategy often appeared reactive rather than proactive, allowing negative narratives to take root and spread rapidly.
The election also highlighted the limits of welfare politics when not accompanied by strong governance. While the TMC had implemented several popular welfare schemes—particularly those aimed at women and rural households, these initiatives were overshadowed by concerns about law and order, corruption, and administrative inefficiency. Voters who had once supported the party for its welfare programs began to question whether these benefits were enough to offset broader governance failures. In this sense, the election became a referendum not just on policy delivery but on the overall direction and integrity of the government.
In the broader context of West Bengal’s political history, the TMC’s defeat marked a significant turning point. It signaled the end of an era defined by Mamata Banerjee’s dominance and the beginning of a new phase in the state’s political evolution. The electorate’s verdict reflected a desire for renewal, accountability, and a break from entrenched political patterns. It also underscored the dynamic nature of democratic politics, where even the most formidable leaders and parties must continually adapt to changing expectations, shifting demographics, and evolving public consciousness.
The fall of the TMC government, therefore, cannot be understood as a simple rejection of a single leader or party. It was the culmination of accumulated grievances, emotional ruptures, and strategic miscalculations. It was shaped by the interplay of governance failures, social anxieties, economic frustrations, and political realignments. Most importantly, it was driven by the collective will of voters who sought a different path for the state’s future. In this sense, the election served as a powerful reminder of the transformative potential of democratic participation and the enduring demand for responsive, transparent, and empathetic leadership.
