Last Updated on February 9, 2026 11:04 pm by INDIAN AWAAZ
Aafreen Hussain
When history is written, will this moment be remembered as the time Mamata Banerjee stood up for democracy — or the moment she decided that democracy means only what suits her political survival?
West Bengal today is being told a dramatic story: that its Chief Minister is the only leader in India brave enough to fight for “genuine voters” against the Special Intensive Revision (SIR) of electoral rolls. The subtext is louder than the speech itself — everyone else is either complicit or cowardly.
But let’s ask the real question straight away:
Is West Bengal the only state with voters, or the only state with political fear?
Mamata Banerjee’s Claim: Protector of the People
Mamata Banerjee has thundered that SIR is a conspiracy — an engineered operation to erase the poor, minorities, migrant workers, and the politically inconvenient from the voter list. She warns of “outsiders” hijacking Bengal’s democracy, of voters being silently deleted, of elections being manipulated before ballots are even cast.
Strong words. Emotional words. Convenient words.
Yet one wonders: Why did democracy remain perfectly functional when her party benefitted from the same electoral system year after year? Why does constitutional alarm ring only when scrutiny begins?
What She Really Wants — and What She Won’t Say
Publicly, she claims to want transparency and protection of genuine voters. But critics argue the unspoken demand is far simpler: no questions asked, no lists checked, no names touched.
Is this about voters — or about numbers?
Is the fear really about disenfranchisement —or about what might be discovered once verification starts?Because if the voter list is clean, then what exactly is she afraid of?
Election Commission: Villain or Convenient Scapegoat?
The Election Commission of India insists SIR is lawful, routine, and essential — meant to remove duplicate entries, deceased voters, and illegal inclusions. It says no genuine voter is removed without due process.
So let’s ask the uncomfortable questions Mamata Banerjee avoids:
- Is the Election Commission unconstitutional by default — or only when it doesn’t obey the ruling party?
- Was the Commission independent when Trinamool Congress won landslide victories under its supervision?
Apparently, institutions are neutral only when outcomes are favourable.
Why the Supreme Court Had to Step In
This political theatre escalated so dramatically that the Supreme Court of India had to intervene — not because SIR is new, but because the noise around it became deafening. The Court was forced to do what politicians refused to: separate rights from rhetoric.
But here lies the real embarrassment:
- If the Constitution already safeguards voting rights, why does one Chief Minister behave as if she alone must rescue it?
- Is the judiciary now required because political trust has collapsed?
What Opposition Parties in Bengal Are Saying Bluntly
The Bharatiya Janata Party accuses Mamata Banerjee of deliberately bloating voter lists and panicking at the prospect of verification. According to them, SIR threatens not voters, but manufactured vote banks.
The Communist Party of India (Marxist), though cautious, questions why the Chief Minister discovered her passion for institutional integrity only after reducing every institution in Bengal to party property.
The Indian National Congress quietly supports transparency but cannot ignore the irony: a leader who once dismissed dissent now presents herself as democracy’s last sentinel.
The Questions That Burn Through the Noise
If SIR is anti-democratic, why hasn’t it destroyed elections across India? If voter verification is oppression, why is Aadhaar verification governance? If institutions are compromised, why are they celebrated after electoral victories? And most importantly: Why must democracy be personalised, centralised, and trademarked under one leader’s name?
Democracy Is Not a Personal Property
Democracy does not belong to Mamata Banerjee. The Constitution does not require her permission to function. And voters do not need a political saviour who fears scrutiny.
The real danger to democracy is not verification — it is the suggestion that questioning power equals betrayal. And so the final, unavoidable question remains: Is Mamata Banerjee defending the voter — or defending a system that cannot afford to be examined?
Because in a real democracy, fear belongs to those who have something to hide — not those who count votes.