By Arun Srivastava
“Chorbagan. Think about whose hands the state has been handed over to after driving away the ‘bad’ Mamata Banerjee. They are ‘good people’. They do not speak Bengali. They wear saffron stoles around their necks. They say, ‘Yeh hamara Vidhan sabha hai’ [This is our assembly]. And they tell blatant lies. Even when 19 people die, they say nothing has happened. In the Bengal of change, the puja committee head Jayanta Banerjee was forced to resign and the puja was handed over to them.”)
This is a portion of the view expressed by a Bengali citizen of Kolkata appearing on Facebook. Though small, it is indeed explicit and expresses the hurt feeling of the Individual and also reflects on the gradual decline of the Bengali cultural and social ethos. It makes clear that BJP’s core philosophy of cultural nationalism and Integral Humanism has become irrelevant in West Bengal. The reason is not hard to be found. Chief Minister Suvendu Adhikari has aggressively established a new right-wing political hegemony in the state. His administration marks a stark departure from the traditional saffron philosophy and politics. The concept of a “politics of hegemony” under turncoat Adhikari encompasses different ideological viewpoints and structural changes.
Adhikari’s claim of replacing the traditional center-left, secular-regional narratives of Bengal with a strident Hindutva and nationalist political alignment is a façade. The political shifting of Bengal’s narrative remains a highly polarized debate. Suvendu pretends to follow hardline Hindutva politics, but the shift towards a hardline Hindutva narrative is superficial and struggles against deep-rooted historical currents: Bengal’s political identity is historically anchored in secular-regional pride, heavily influenced by the 19th-century Bengal Renaissance and the inclusive cultural paradigms of figures like Rabindranath Tagore and Kazi Nazrul Islam. Secondly, Adhikari has been product of secular politics and has spent the majority of his political careers within secular ambience and third, TMC’s successful deployment of the “Bengali sub-nationalism”.
Ideological anachronism is explicit in the deepening feud in the saffron ecosystem on the issue of ransacking the book stalls set up during Durga Puja by the CPI(M). During the Durga Puja, book stalls set up by the CPI(M) were attacked and vandalised by the saffron camp across the state. While extending full support to vandalism Suvendu said; “We will not allow anyone to publish anti-nation or anti-Sanatan writings or to hurt any religion, on the soil of West Bengal,” other senior leaders, state BJP president Samik Bhattacharya, finance minister Swapan Dasgupta, senior RSS leader Jishnu Basu openly condemned the destruction, exposing a significant tactical and ideological divide within the ruling camp.
Dasgupta went public with his disapproval, stating he was “ashamed” to see the vandalism. He explicitly stated that despite deep ideological differences with the Left, “ideological differences cannot justify destroying books” or deploying bulldozers to crush freedom of expression. Jishnu Basu aligned with Dasgupta, calling the ransacking an “act of cowardice” and affirming that there is no pride to be found in destroying books. He also questioned who was behind the alleged vandalism and whether anyone had authorised such acts in the name of the BJP. He urged his party and the state government to ensure that such incidents did not recur.
Bengal has a deeply ingrained historical reverence for literature and intellectual pluralism. For generations, regardless of political affiliation, setting up book stalls during Durga Puja has been a peaceful civic tradition. Senior BJP and RSS leaders acknowledge that bulldozing book shops would alienate the Bengali middle-class (Bhadralok) and independent voters. They viewed the visuals as a public relations disaster that painted the new government as anti-intellectual and authoritarian.
As Chief Minister, Adhikari advocates for a high-velocity expansion model, actively encouraging defectors to build a legislative majority, the BJP’s traditional old guard warn against this rapid absorption, arguing it could dilute the party’s long-term ideological coherence. The friction is best understood as a mix of tactical disagreements on how the BJP should rule Bengal combined with an internal power struggle between the established organizational machinery and an ambitious, newer leadership circle
Suvendu’s governance borrows the TMC’s political concept. According to it the political shift actively redefines “Bengaliness” (Bangaliyana), blending regional pride with a broader, assertive pan-Indian Hindu identity, particularly in rural areas. He intends to give it the shape of permanent realignment. BJP government exercise to replace “Biswa Bangla” logo, discontinuing separate state flags/songs introduced by the TMC, and renaming prominent roadways are simply cosmetic in nature and part of this design.
Suvendu has openly called for a new phase of “Sanatan rule,” emphasizing Hindu identity. But the reality is vast majority of ordinary Hindus do not know about the technical, historical, or scriptural differences between “traditional Hinduism” and “Sanatana Dharma.” For Hindus the two terms are used completely interchangeably as synonyms for their faith. For an average Hindu practicing daily rituals, going to temples, and celebrating festivals, Hinduism is Sanatana Dharma. If you ask a practitioner what his religion is, he would invariably say “Hindu.” If you ask him what the “original” name of his religion is, he will answer “Sanatana Dharma”. The Saffron Sanatan Dharma is incomprehensible for a common Hindu, the primary reason is the Hindutva nationalists do not have clear perception of Sanatan Dharma. The fact is those who study the Vedas, Upanishads, or history understand that a “Sanatana Hindu” and a “Traditional/Institutional Hindu” are virtually operating on the same frameworks.
Purely with the intention to outwit senior BJP leaders and project himself as the supreme nationalist Bengali leader, Suvendu described his rule as a new era of “Sanatan rule” in the state while many BJP leaders hold Bengal needs political change focused on cultural identity, development, governance reforms, and stronger connection with traditional values. There is no doubt that Suvendu has been resorting to this tactics to increase polarization. The term “Sanatan” translates to “eternal order,” “eternal law,” or “eternal way of life.”
While modern political debates frame it as a misleading or vague slogan—often because many everyday practitioners may not articulate its deep philosophical definition—the term holds a foundational place in Indian philosophy. Suvendu ought to know that Sanatana Dharma is built on universal values and cosmic principles that guide human life. Whether Sanatana functions as a misleading slogan depends entirely on the context in which it is used. In the context of philosophy and history, it represents the foundational, eternal framework of the spiritual and moral duties that define the Hindu way of life.
Bengal’s historical ethos is heavily anchored in the universal humanism, secular reform, and syncretic philosophy of icons like Rabindranath Tagore, Swami Vivekananda, Kazi Nazrul Islam, and Raja Rammohun Roy. BJP’s attempt to adapt these figures into a rigid nationalist narrative often feels inorganic to the local electorate. Moreover having been ruled by Left Front for 34 consecutive years, the political vocabulary of Bengal remains steeped in class solidarity, social welfare, and localized party networks. This makes it difficult for purely religious or ideological polarization to permanently override economic and welfare-driven voting habits.
RSS and BJP have tried to project Dr Shyama Prasad Mukherjee as an alternate to the Bengali cultural and academic stalwarts, but it has not caught the imagination of the common Bengali. The perception that a philosophy cannot be easily dismissed as irrelevant when its political vehicle commands a massive portion of the state’s electorate is not correct. Electoral gain cannot absolutely be bracketed with ideology or philosophy. Quite interestingly the relationship and political dynamics between the TMC and BJP are subjects of intense debate among political analysts, intellectuals and academics.
Political culture of Bengal has maintained certain structural continuities, regardless of the party in power or challenging it. This perspective highlights several key areas: BJP’s enrolment of former TMC leaders, legislators, and grassroots organizers. By relying on these elements to build its organizational strength in the state, the BJP has inherently absorbed the same political methods, networks, and localized power structures used by the TMC. These turncoats are a major threat to the ideological and philosophical existence of RSS and BJP.
The political future of West Bengal remains a subject of intense struggle, as the state experiences a major structural transition. The sentiment that Trinamool’s style of politics—defined by regionalism, Bengali identity, and expansive subaltern welfarism—will continue to dictate the state’s future relies on deeply rooted cultural factors: Trinamool’s core appeal has historically relied heavily on secular pluralism and regional pride (“Joy Bangla”), framing the BJP as an outside force.
The weakening of a long-sustained political regime, therefore, requires an understanding of broader socio-economic linkages. In the case of West Bengal, opposition to Banerjee increasingly appears to reflect the consolidation of an unusual yet historically significant alliance between the urban middle class, upwardly mobile rural groups and dominant corporate interests. These groups may differ sharply in their social composition and immediate political priorities, but they are gradually converging around a shared discontent centered on redistributive politics and welfare-oriented governance.
The BJP is primarily supported by non-Bengali and Hindi-speaking demographics. With their help, the party leverages the concept of a “New Bengal”. TMC has historically embedded its ideology within Bengali sub-nationalism and linguistic identity, while the BJP has successfully mobilized the aspirations of non-Bengali populations alongside a broader nationalistic framework. (IPA Service)
