When institutions meant to guarantee fairness face questions of credibility, and when participation itself becomes uncertain, the meaning of election victory becomes contested.
NEW DELHI — Assembly elections in West Bengal, Assam, Tamil Nadu, Kerala, and the Union Territory of Puducherry were expected to reaffirm the resilience of India’s democratic fabric. Instead, they have once again triggered debate about the fairness of the election process and the role of the poll body. The conversation is less about who won and more about how those victories were secured and contested.
Spanning 824 seats — 294 in West Bengal, 234 in Tamil Nadu, 140 in Kerala, 126 in Assam, and 30 in Puducherry — the elections unfolded as a high-stakes referendum on power, narrative, and institutional credibility. But nowhere was this tension more visible than in West Bengal, where the scale of the Bharatiya Janata Party’s victory has been matched by equally intense scrutiny of the conditions under which the election was conducted.
Militarisation and Democratic Unease
The BJP’s sweep in West Bengal is stark: it won 206 seats, while the ruling Trinamool Congress (TMC) won a mere 81 seats.
For a party that spent over a decade expanding its footprint, this is a decisive breakthrough. Yet the political earthquake unfolded against the backdrop of deeply contested elections.
The election in Bengal was conducted under what many observers described as an unprecedented security lockdown. Tens of thousands of central armed police forces were deployed across the state in multiple phases, turning large parts of Bengal into what residents likened to a “warzone.”
From rural interiors to dense urban clusters, heavily armed personnel patrolled streets, manned checkpoints, and maintained constant surveillance. In several constituencies, voters reported being stopped, questioned, and in some cases intimidated. The visible militarisation altered the very texture of the electoral process — transforming what is ordinarily a civic exercise into an experience marked by fear and coercive presence.
Critics argue that such overwhelming deployment, ostensibly meant to ensure “free and fair elections,” instead created an atmosphere where participation itself became fraught. Reports from multiple districts suggested suppressed voter turnout in pockets, particularly among marginalised communities, alongside allegations that voters were either unable or unwilling to reach polling booths under such conditions.
Overlaying this was the controversial Special Intensive Revision (SIR) of electoral rolls. Intended as a technical clean-up exercise, it became one of the most contentious features of the election. Estimates indicate that millions of names were deleted or flagged, with around 27 lakh voters reportedly unable to cast ballots due to unresolved discrepancies.
Together, the SIR exercise and the militarised environment have led critics to argue that the election was shaped as much by exclusion as by participation.
Poll Body Comes Under Scrutiny
At the centre of this controversy stands the Election Commission of India (ECI), whose role has come under unprecedented questioning.
From the unusually prolonged, multi-phase polling schedule to the scale and nature of central force deployment, opposition parties and civil society groups have alleged that the commission’s decisions contributed to an uneven playing field. Critics argue that the ECI failed to adequately address concerns over voter roll deletions, transparency in revisions, and complaints of on-ground intimidation.
Congress leader Rahul Gandhi went so far as to allege that elections in Assam and West Bengal were “stolen” with the commission’s support, as had happened earlier in Haryana, Maharashtra, Madhya Pradesh, and the 2024 parliamentary elections, echoing TMC supremo Mamata Banerjee’s claim that over 100 seats in Bengal had been “looted.”
Ominously, Gandhi also said some in the Congress, and others, are gloating about TMC’s loss.
“They need to understand this clearly – the theft of Assam and Bengal’s mandate is a big step forward by the BJP in its mission to destroy Indian democracy.
“Put petty politics aside. This is not about one party or another. This is about India.”
Political analyst Yogendra Yadav highlighted the opacity surrounding voter roll revisions, while others described the ECI’s functioning as increasingly aligned with the executive rather than acting as an independent constitutional arbiter.
Judiciary’s Limited Intervention
Equally significant has been the role — or absence — of the judiciary during the electoral process.
Despite multiple petitions flagging large-scale disenfranchisement, alleged irregularities in voter rolls, and concerns over the conduct of elections under heavy militarisation, courts largely refrained from strong or immediate intervention.
Legal experts note that while post-election remedies remain available, the lack of timely judicial oversight during the process itself raises serious concerns. In high-stakes elections, they argue, delayed justice risks becoming ineffective justice.
This perceived institutional silence has contributed to a broader narrative of democratic safeguards failing to respond in real time.
Competing Narratives of the Verdict
The BJP attributes its victory to more conventional factors — anti-incumbency after 15 years of TMC rule, corruption allegations, governance fatigue, and a robust organisational campaign centred on identity and welfare. But political analysts counter this narrative by claiming that there was no groundswell of support for the saffron party in West Bengal and in Assam, too.
Prime Minister Narendra Modi described the result as “historic,” symbolising ideological expansion.
Yet opposition voices and independent observers point to a different explanation — one that foregrounds structural factors such as voter exclusion, institutional bias, and the chilling effect of excessive security deployment.
Between these narratives lies the unresolved question: was this a wave election, or a managed one?
Assam: Consolidation with Familiar Strategy
In Assam, the BJP retained power for a third consecutive term. The victory reflects consolidation under Chief Minister Himanta Biswa Sarma, with a campaign that prominently featured identity politics, demographic anxieties, and polarisation.
While Assam did not witness the same scale of controversy as Bengal, concerns about centralised messaging and uneven political competition persisted.
Tamil Nadu: A Political Disruption
Tamil Nadu delivered the biggest surprise. Greenhorn actor-turned-politician Vijay’s Tamilaga Vettri Kazhagam (TVK) secured 107 seats, upsetting the deeply entrenched DMK’s apple cart.
Vijay’s emergence has disrupted the state’s long-standing bipolar structure. There are reports that he was convinced by the BJP to launch his own political outfit as the saffron party was still not able to counter the anti-Hindutva politics of Dravidian parties.
The DMK’s setback marks a significant political shift, while the BJP’s marginal presence underscores the limits of its southern expansion.
Kerala: End of an Era for the Left
Kerala returned to its pattern of alternation, with the Congress-led UDF defeating the CPI(M)-led LDF. This marks the first time since 1977 that the Left holds no government in any Indian state — a historic turning point.
The CPI(M), in its assessment, pointed to both anti-incumbency and the BJP’s aggressive expansion in states like West Bengal, aided by what it described as the misuse of institutions.
Puducherry: Coalition Continuity
In Puducherry, the NDA retained power through the AINRC–BJP alliance, reflecting the importance of coalition strategy even in smaller electoral arenas.
Amid the electoral arithmetic, a deeper question of trust persists.
The 2026 elections have foregrounded concerns that go beyond partisan outcomes.
Can elections remain credible amid large-scale voter roll revisions?
Does excessive security deployment safeguard democracy — or stifle it?
Are constitutional institutions acting independently — or are they perceived as partisan actors?
Senior journalist Hemant Atri has pointed to what he calls “systemic irregularities,” arguing that these elections reflect deeper structural shifts rather than isolated anomalies.
The Voter at the Margins
Lost in the clash of narratives are the voters themselves — particularly those who could not vote.
For the estimated lakhs affected by voter roll exclusions, or those deterred by an atmosphere of fear, the election represents not participation but absence. Their exclusion raises fundamental questions about belonging, citizenship, and democratic voice.
A Defining Moment
The 2026 elections may ultimately be remembered not just for the BJP’s expansion or regional upsets, but for the debate they have ignited about the nature of democracy itself in India.
When elections are conducted under conditions that resemble a security operation, when institutions meant to guarantee fairness face questions of credibility, and when participation itself becomes uncertain, the meaning of victory becomes contested.
In that sense, the Bengal verdict is not merely a political outcome. It is a moment of reckoning.
