Change of Political Narrative in West Bengal—A New Dialectics

Abstract

This article analyses the transformation of political narratives in West Bengal through the concept of a “new dialectics” emerging from the interaction among the Trinomial Congress, the Bharatiya Janata Party, and the CPI(M). It argues that political contestation has shifted from a predominantly class-based framework to a dynamic interplay of welfare populism, identity mobilization, and developmental discourse. The CPI(M)’s attempt to construct a broad-based, secular, and programmatic alternative is examined as a counter-hegemonic project within a polarized landscape. The study demonstrates that political narratives are relational, continuously reconstituted through conflict, adaptation, and strategic rearticulating in an evolving democratic context

xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

Abstract

This article interrogates the transformation of political narratives in West Bengal and advances the argument that the state is witnessing the emergence of a “new dialectics” shaped by the dynamic interplay among the Trinamool Congress (TMC), the Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP), and the Communist Party of India (Marxist) (CPI(M)). Moving beyond conventional explanations rooted in identity politics or populism alone, the paper conceptualises political contestation as a relational and evolving process in which competing narratives continuously redefine one another. The TMC’s welfare-centric and subaltern-oriented discourse, the BJP’s mobilisation around nationalism and religious identity, and the CPI(M)’s attempt to reconstruct a broad-based, programmatic and secular alternative together constitute a triadic field of ideological and strategic interaction.

The article particularly focuses on the CPI(M)’s recent efforts to expand its support base by incorporating other Left forces and mobilising anti-TMC and anti-BJP constituencies, thereby reconfiguring its earlier class-centric narrative into a more inclusive socio-political platform. It argues that this reorientation is not merely electoral pragmatism but reflects an attempt to produce a counter-hegemonic narrative within a polarized political landscape. By situating these developments within a dialectical framework, the paper demonstrates how political narratives in West Bengal are no longer static or unidirectional but are instead co-constituted through contestation, adaptation, and ideological recalibration. The notion of a “new dialectics” thus captures both the structural shifts in political discourse and the strategic rearticulation of competing actors in the state’s evolving political arena.

Conceptual Clarity and Originality

The title “Change of Political Narrative in West Bengal—A New Dialectics” captures a transformation that is neither linear nor unidirectional, but fundamentally relational and dynamic. The notion of “change” refers not simply to a shift from class-based to identity-based politics, but to a reconfiguration of the very terms through which political competition is articulated. The phrase “political narrative” emphasizes that contemporary electoral mobilisation increasingly operates through constructed meanings—around identity, demography, welfare, governance, and development—rather than through fixed ideological alignments. The use of “new dialectics” signals that these narratives do not exist in isolation; rather, they interact, contest, and reshape one another in a process marked by tension, contradiction, and mutual constitution. In the context of West Bengal, this dialectical interplay is most visible in the simultaneous processes of welfare-driven legitimacy, minority consolidation, majority counter-mobilisation, and the re-emergence of development-oriented discourse. The title therefore reflects an analytical claim: that the political field is structured by a dynamic interaction of competing narratives rather than by a single dominant ideological axis.

Introduction

This article examines the transformation of political discourse in West Bengal through the lens of a “new political dialectics” characterized by the interaction of identity, demography, welfare, and competing modes of electoral mobilisation. It argues that the contemporary political field is no longer structured predominantly by class-based politics, as was the case during the long tenure of the Left Front, but has undergone a qualitative reconfiguration in which multiple narratives coexist, overlap, and contest one another.

At the center of this transformation are three principal political formations: the Trinamool Congress (TMC), the Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP), and the Communist Party of India (Marxist) [CPI(M)] along with the broader Left. Each articulates a distinct narrative. The TMC deploys a hybrid strategy combining welfare populism with selective identity accommodation; the BJP foregrounds religious identity, nationalism, and demographic anxieties; and the CPI(M) is attempting to reconstruct a counter-narrative rooted in development, secularism, and broad-based democratic mobilisation. The interaction among these narratives produces a dialectical political field in which each formation both responds to and reshapes the strategies of the others.

The article further argues that the CPI(M), in its contemporary phase, is attempting to transcend its earlier class-centric limitations by building a wider oppositional platform that includes other Left-oriented parties and diverse anti-TMC and anti-BJP forces. This effort reflects a strategic shift toward coalition-building and narrative expansion aimed at both dislodging the TMC from state power and mounting a credible ideological challenge to the BJP at the national level.

Literature Review and Theoretical Framework

The transformation of political discourse in West Bengal must be situated within broader debates on identity, democracy, and political mobilisation. Recent scholarship highlights a shift toward complex identity articulations, though this transition remains uneven and layered. Electoral competition in West Bengal now reflects a hybrid structure where welfare populism, identity mobilisation, and institutional legacies coexist.

The Gramscian concept of hegemony is particularly relevant in understanding this transformation. Political dominance is achieved not merely through coercion but through the construction of consent and the shaping of common sense. In West Bengal, each political formation seeks to establish narrative hegemony by organizing popular perceptions around identity, welfare, and governance.

Laclau’s theory of discursive construction further illuminates how political identities are formed through the articulation of flexible and contingent signifiers such as “development,” “appeasement,” and “national interest.” These terms function as political anchors around which broader narratives are constructed.

Chatterjee’s concept of political society provides a grounded understanding of how marginalized populations engage with the state through group-based claims rather than abstract citizenship. Welfare politics in West Bengal exemplifies this dynamic, where identity and redistribution operate within a shared political logic.

Taken together, these frameworks suggest that political transformation in West Bengal is not a simple transition from class to identity politics, but a dialectical interaction of multiple coexisting narratives.

Methodology

This study adopts a qualitative, interpretive, and analytically integrative research design to examine the transformation of political narratives in West Bengal as a dialectical process shaped by competing political forces. The methodological framework combines electoral analysis, critical discourse analysis, and policy evaluation in order to capture both material shifts in political behaviour and the construction, circulation, and contestation of political narratives. Rather than treating these dimensions in isolation, the study proceeds on the assumption that electoral outcomes, discursive strategies, and policy interventions are mutually constitutive and must be analysed relationally.

First, electoral analysis is employed to map shifts in voting patterns, party performance, and spatial variations across constituencies over successive Assembly and Parliamentary elections. This involves a comparative reading of constituency-level data to identify trends such as the erosion or consolidation of party bases, the emergence of new voter alignments, and the changing socio-political geography of support. The purpose here is not merely descriptive but explanatory, linking electoral outcomes to broader narrative shifts articulated by political actors.

Second, the study undertakes a critical discourse analysis of political texts, including party manifestos, leaders’ speeches, campaign materials, and public statements. This component focuses on how different parties construct and deploy narratives around development, identity, governance, welfare, and secularism. Particular attention is paid to the rhetorical strategies, symbolic framing, and ideological repositioning adopted by the Trinamool Congress (TMC), the Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP), and the Communist Party of India (Marxist) (CPI(M)). The analysis seeks to uncover how these narratives are not only articulated but also reconfigured in response to one another, thereby producing a dynamic field of political contestation.

Third, policy evaluation is incorporated to assess the substantive grounding of these narratives. Key welfare schemes, governance initiatives, and development policies are examined to understand how they reinforce or contradict the discursive claims made by political actors. This allows the study to bridge the gap between rhetoric and practice, situating narrative formation within concrete socio-economic interventions.

In addition, the study draws upon media reports, opinion polls, and secondary survey data to capture public perception, voter attitudes, and the reception of competing narratives. These sources are critically engaged to avoid uncritical reproduction of media biases, while still providing insight into how narratives are mediated and internalised within the public sphere.

Overall, the methodological approach is dialectical in orientation, seeking to trace how political narratives in West Bengal evolve through processes of interaction, contradiction, and adaptation among competing actors. This integrated framework enables a more nuanced understanding of the changing political landscape, moving beyond linear or mono-causal explanations toward a relational analysis of narrative transformation.

Empirical Indicators of Narrative Transformation

Electoral trends from 2011 to 2021 indicate a dramatic restructuring of the political field. The decline of the Left Front and the simultaneous rise of the BJP reflect a shift from class-based mobilisation to identity-driven competition, while the TMC has consolidated its position through welfare-based legitimacy.

The narrative strategies of the three formations can be summarized as follows. The TMC combines welfare schemes with selective identity accommodation and symbolic secularism. The BJP emphasizes religious identity, nationalism, and demographic concerns as central axes of mobilisation. The CPI(M), while historically rooted in class politics, is now attempting to foreground development, employment, democratic rights, and institutional accountability.

Emerging evidence from field interactions, media investigations, and secondary survey data indicates that the Left’s renewed emphasis on education, public health, employment, and anti-corruption has begun to resonate within a wider climate of public discontent surrounding governance practices. In recent years, multiple sectors—including coal and sand extraction, as well as the public distribution system—have been subject to sustained investigative and judicial scrutiny, contributing to a broader perception of systemic irregularities in resource governance. At the same time, the implementation of flagship welfare schemes such as Lakshmir Bhandar, Swasthya Sathi, and Kanyashree has been accompanied, within sections of the public sphere, by recurring claims of partisan mediation, localised gatekeeping, and informal extraction. These perceptions—whether empirically verified in each instance or not—have acquired discursive force through their circulation across media narratives, opposition mobilisations, and everyday political talk.

From a Gramscian perspective, such developments may be read as signalling fissures within an existing hegemonic formation, where the legitimacy of a welfare-mediated political order is increasingly subject to contestation (Gramsci 1971). The durability of hegemonic consent, previously secured through redistributive schemes and subaltern incorporation, appears to be under strain as narratives of corruption and procedural inequity gain traction. Simultaneously, in a Habermasian sense, the expansion and fragmentation of the public sphere—particularly through vernacular media and digital platforms—has enabled the amplification and contestation of these claims, transforming them into politically consequential discourses rather than isolated grievances (Habermas 1989).

Moreover, when viewed through Partha Chatterjee’s distinction between civil society and political society, these dynamics reveal a critical shift: practices once normalised within the negotiated, informal logic of political society—where access to welfare is often mediated through local power structures—are increasingly being problematised and rearticulated as issues of rights, transparency, and accountability (Chatterjee 2004). It is precisely within this transformed discursive terrain that the Left’s attempt to foreground institutional accountability and rights-based delivery acquires renewed salience, positioning itself as a counter-hegemonic project that seeks to reframe the terms of political legitimacy.

While the extent to which this emergent narrative will translate into durable electoral gains remains an open question, preliminary indications suggest a growing receptivity among younger voters, urban peripheries, and segments disillusioned with both patronage-driven welfare regimes and polarised identity mobilisation. This lends further support to the argument that the “new dialectics” in West Bengal is not merely an outcome of inter-party competition but is rooted in a deeper transformation of political consciousness, where questions of governance, legitimacy, and distributive justice are increasingly central to the reconstitution of the political field.

Core Argument: The Dialectics of Competing Narratives

The political transformation in West Bengal can be understood as a dialectical interaction among three competing narratives.

The TMC’s narrative is built on welfare populism combined with strategic identity balancing. Through targeted welfare schemes, it constructs a relationship with marginalized groups while maintaining a broader image of inclusive governance. Critics interpret these policies as “appeasement,” but alternative perspectives view them as corrective measures addressing historical inequalities. The TMC’s narrative thus operates through a synthesis of redistribution and symbolic representation.

The BJP’s narrative represents a counter-mobilisation centered on religious identity and nationalism. It reframes demographic patterns as political concerns and constructs a discourse of cultural and civilizational assertion. This narrative gains traction particularly in contexts where welfare politics is perceived as exclusionary or biased. The BJP’s rise in West Bengal reflects the effectiveness of this identity-based mobilisation in reshaping electoral competition.

The CPI(M), in contrast, is attempting to reconstruct a third narrative that challenges both welfare populism and identity polarisation. Recognizing the limitations of its earlier class-centric approach, the party is now seeking to broaden its social base by incorporating diverse democratic forces. This includes efforts to build alliances with other Left-oriented parties, civil society groups, and sections disillusioned with both the TMC and the BJP. The emphasis is on employment generation, industrial development, public services, and democratic rights, alongside a renewed commitment to secularism.

Importantly, this is not merely an electoral strategy but an attempt to rearticulate political discourse itself. The CPI(M)’s emerging approach reflects a shift toward constructing a broader “people’s platform” that transcends traditional ideological boundaries while retaining a commitment to social justice and democratic values. This involves engaging youth, addressing new socio-economic concerns, and adapting political communication to contemporary contexts.

However, this effort faces significant challenges. The entrenched nature of identity-based mobilisation, the organizational decline of the Left, and the dominance of welfare and nationalist narratives limit the immediate impact of this reconfiguration. Yet, the attempt itself signifies an important transformation: the re-entry of a developmental and democratic counter-narrative into a polarized political field.

The interaction among these three narratives produces a dynamic and unstable equilibrium. Minority consolidation under welfare politics often provokes majority counter-mobilisation, which in turn creates space for alternative narratives centered on development and governance. This cyclical interaction constitutes the “new dialectics” of West Bengal politics.

Conclusion

The change of political narrative in West Bengal reflects a broader transformation in democratic politics where identity, welfare, and development are continuously rearticulated within competitive electoral frameworks. The political field is no longer defined by a single dominant ideology but by the interaction of multiple, competing narratives.

The TMC, BJP, and CPI(M) each represent distinct modes of political articulation, yet their strategies are deeply interdependent. The CPI(M)’s attempt to build a broader oppositional platform marks a significant development, indicating a shift toward coalition-based politics and narrative reconstruction.

This transformation is inherently dialectical, characterized by conflict, adaptation, and ongoing redefinition. Understanding it requires moving beyond binary frameworks and recognizing the complex interplay of competing political logics.

Future Research

Future research may incorporate constituency-level quantitative analysis and ethnographic fieldwork to examine how these narratives are internalized by voters. Comparative studies across Indian states and other democracies may further illuminate the broader applicability of the dialectical framework.

References (APA Style)

Banerjee, S. (2023). Electoral politics and identity formation in West Bengal. Contemporary South Asia, 31(2), 145–162.
Chandra, K. (2022). Democratic dynamics in India: Identity and competition. Oxford University Press.
Chatterjee, P. (2004). The politics of the governed. Columbia University Press.
Chatterjee, P. (2020). Identity and political society in contemporary India. Economic and Political Weekly, 55(12), 34–42.
Gramsci, A. (1971). Selections from the prison notebooks. International Publishers.
Jaffrelot, C. (2021). Modi’s India: Hindu nationalism and the rise of ethnic democracy. Princeton University Press.
Laclau, E. (2005). On populist reason. Verso.
Mudde, C. (2021). The far right today. Polity Press.
Roberts, K. (2020). Populism and political mobilisation in Latin America. Journal of Democracy, 31(2), 45–59.
Sinha, A. (2024). Political continuity and change in West Bengal. Indian Journal of Political Science, 85(1), 78–95.

Top of Form

Bottom of Form