TMC chief Mamata Banerjee
By Jayanta Ghosal
Political victory and defeat always go hand in hand. No political party wins forever, and no party loses permanently. Electoral setbacks are part of democratic politics. Complaints, allegations, and accusations of rigging are also common after elections. Every party, at some point, raises such concerns.
But beyond allegations, the more important task after any political defeat is introspection.
A party’s leadership must honestly examine itself and ask difficult questions: Where did things go wrong? Why did support decline? What changed?
This kind of self-assessment is not new in Indian politics.
After losing power following 34 years of rule in West Bengal, the CPI(M) also went through a phase of serious introspection. Senior Communist leaders, including Abdullah Rasul and others, openly admitted that the party had become too distant from ordinary people. They argued that reconnecting with the masses had become essential.
Power often creates comfort. Over time, comfort creates distance. And distance weakens a party’s ability to understand public sentiment.
When a party remains in power for too long, political “fat” accumulates. The ability to run, respond, and remain connected begins to decline. The leadership slowly loses touch with people.
Many observers believe Congress once faced this problem. Interestingly, similar discussions are now being heard within sections of the Mamata Banerjee-led Trinamool Congress as well.
Several grassroots leaders and MLAs, often speaking privately rather than publicly, have expressed concerns that the party may be becoming excessively dependent on technology-driven political mechanisms while moving away from instinctive political understanding.
One leader used an interesting analogy: earlier doctors relied on touch, pulse, and observation; now everything depends on machines and scans. Technology is useful, but common sense remains irreplaceable.
As the saying goes, common sense is becoming a rare sense.
Questions are also being raised over the growing influence of political consultancy structures. After Prashant Kishor’s departure, many within political circles have continued asking why organisations such as I-PAC have retained such a powerful role in decision-making.
Criticism, dissent, and disagreement within a party can easily be dismissed as opportunism. But after an election result, asking questions should not automatically be viewed as rebellion or betrayal. Several senior Trinamool leaders, many unwilling to be named publicly, are quietly admitting that a sense of communication between leadership and workers may have weakened over time.
And that brings the most important question:
After suffering an electoral setback, is the leadership genuinely reaching out to people? Are they listening? Are they reconnecting? Or are they still sitting behind walls of political arrogance? Because eventually, every political system survives not through strategy alone, but through its relationship with people.
