Table Turns in Bengal: Modi–Shah Fueling Mamata’s Defiance?

As pressure mounts on Modi–Shah, the BJP–Mamata confrontation begins to resemble Kolkata football’s infamous ‘got-up match’—staged fury, real indulgence

By NIRENDRA DEV

New Delhi, January 11, 2026 — The question West Bengal is being forced to confront today is no longer political—it is unmistakably constitutional.

Law and order has ceased to be merely dysfunctional; it now appears subordinated to political will. When a sitting Chief Minister allegedly obstructs a central probe agency, storms a private office, and then offers the defence that she did so “as party chief, not as Chief Minister”, governance slips into farce—and constitutional anarchy steps in.

West Bengal BJP president and Rajya Sabha MP Samik Bhattacharya finally articulated what many have whispered for years: “What is happening in West Bengal is not merely absence of law and order. It amounts to a total breakdown of constitutional machinery. The custodians of the Constitution must intervene immediately.”

The question is—why now?

Why were these words absent on the very day the ED raid fiasco unfolded? Why did neither Samik Bhattacharya, Suvendu Adhikari, nor the otherwise combative Dilip Ghosh speak with such constitutional clarity then?

Mamata’s ‘Party Chief’ Defence: A Constitutional Joke

Mamata Banerjee now claims she acted not as Chief Minister but as Trinamool Congress supremo. The argument would be hilarious if it were not legally grotesque. A Chief Minister does not shed constitutional responsibility like a shawl before charging into confrontation.

That such a defence is being floated at all reveals a deeper fear—that the Laxman Rekha has been crossed.

Who Are the ‘Custodians’ Samik Refers To?

Samik Bhattacharya’s phrase raises an uncomfortable question.

Is he referring to the Union Home Ministry? The Governor of West Bengal? Or, ultimately, Prime Minister Narendra Modi himself?

If Governors are the “eyes and ears” of the President, why does West Bengal’s Raj Bhavan appear so muted when constitutional red flags are everywhere?

The Modi–Shah Paradox

This brings us to the heart of the matter. Why is Prime Minister Modi—projected as a decisive, muscular leader—tolerating a Chief Minister who openly ridicules the Union Home Minister, calling Amit Shah “nasty” and “naughty”?

Words have consequences. Adjectives stick.

Worse, Mamata Banerjee claims she possesses a “pen drive” on Amit Shah. Few believe her—but the brazenness of the claim itself signals political impunity.

The ‘Got-Up Match’ Theory Returns

Even CPI(M) leaders have now demanded FIRs and immediate arrest, while reviving an old suspicion—that the BJP and Trinamool once played “match-fixing politics”, where confrontation was loud but consequences were absent.

If the President of India—effectively the Modi government—fails to act now, the slogan “Modi hai toh mumkin hai” risks being replaced by a far crueller taunt: “Narendra… surrender.”

And the opponent here is not Pakistan—but a Chief Minister presiding over a governance-starved, lawless state.

Article 356: From Taboo to Test

Article 356 has inevitably entered the debate. Justice V.R. Krishna Iyer once described President’s Rule not as punishment, but as restoration of constitutional propriety when governance collapses.

History is instructive. BJP governments were dismissed post-Babri. The DMK government was dismissed in 1990 without even a formal Governor’s report. Uttarakhand and Arunachal Pradesh witnessed similar interventions in 2016.

Political colour has never been a shield once institutional breakdown is established. President’s Rule remains controversial—but denial in the face of paralysis becomes indulgence.

Modi’s Credibility Is on the Line

West Bengal may not yet be under President’s Rule—but the trajectory is unmistakable. The ED’s explosive court submission alleging “complete subversion of rule of law” raises a constitutional question Bengal can no longer dodge.

Why did Modi not act on January 8? Was timing calibrated around symbolism and ceremonies?

Somnath stands for courage and righteousness. It is time that symbolism translates into governance.

History reminds us—a wheelchair did not save Mamata Banerjee in Nandigram. Bengal’s people may, in fact, breathe easier if authority is restored.

Delay now will only embolden the culture of intimidation, fish-fry journalism, and political theatre that Bengal has grown weary of.

Mr Prime Minister, this is no longer about elections. It is about constitutional courage.

(This is an opinion piece. Views are author’s own)

Is Mamata Pushing Bengal Towards the Edge of President’s Rule?

Follow The Raisina Hills on WhatsApp, Instagram, YouTube, Facebook, and LinkedIn

About The Author