The verdict in West Bengal cannot be understood merely through the lazy shorthand of "anti-incumbency." Yes, Mamata Banerjee's government had accumulated enormous baggage over fifteen years in power. Corruption scandals, decay in law and order, allegations of syndicate raj, political violence, arrogance within sections of the Trinamool Congress, and administrative fatigue had alienated many Bengalis. Similar anti-incumbency currents were visible against MK Stalin in Tamil Nadu and Pinarayi Vijayan in Kerala.

But the real question is this: why does anti-incumbency seem to operate only against non-BJP governments? If Mamata Banerjee could be punished for governance failures, how did Himanta Biswa Sarma escape virtually untouched in Assam despite presiding over one of the most corrupt and communal regimes in modern India? Assam under Sarma has witnessed open polarisation, systematic intimidation of Muslims, bulldozer politics, cronyism, and a grotesque concentration of power in one man. Yet anti-incumbency somehow evaporated.

The Election Commission today functions less as a constitutional authority and more as an extension counter of the BJP headquarters. The events preceding the Bengal and Assam elections expose this reality with frightening clarity.

Take Assam first. The delimitation exercise was conducted selectively in Assam in 2023, while the rest of India still awaits nationwide delimitation after the Census. On what constitutional or moral basis was Assam singled out? The answer is obvious. Constituencies were redrawn to reduce the influence of Bengali-speaking Muslims and increase the weight of BJP-supportive regions.

Then came the Special Intensive Revision (SIR), perhaps one of the most anti-democratic exercises in recent Indian electoral history. The SIR became an instrument of mass disenfranchisement. Lakhs of eligible voters, overwhelmingly from vulnerable and minority communities, were thrown out of the rolls under vague categories such as "logical discrepancies." The burden of proof was reversed.

The Election Commission simultaneously exercised arbitrary powers by transferring nearly 500 officials in Bengal, including the Chief Secretary, Home Secretary, DGP, DMs and SPs, without even consulting the state government. Predictably, the Calcutta High Court found nothing arbitrary in this extraordinary assault on federalism. Hardly surprising when sections of the judiciary themselves stand deeply compromised. Justice Chitta Ranjan Dash had publicly claimed association with the RSS. The judiciary today is increasingly filled with Hindutva loyalists masquerading as neutral constitutional actors.

The Election Commission also completely failed to enforce the Model Code of Conduct. Narendra Modi openly converted a Doordarshan address into a political speech after the defeat of the Women's Reservation-linked Constitutional Amendment Bill. Himanta Biswa Sarma delivered repeated communal speeches.

On March 12, an unprecedented 193 opposition MPs moved to remove Chief Election Commissioner Gyanesh Kumar, accusing him of being subservient to the Executive and of abusing his constitutional office. The notice was summarily rejected without explanation.

Equally shocking was Justice Joymalya Bagchi's remark that if voters failed to vote "this time," they could vote "next time." Such a statement is profoundly anti-constitutional. Voting is not a favour deferred to the next season; it is a fundamental democratic right overruling every policy or judgment. A judge making such a remark should have been removed immediately.

The truth is brutal but unavoidable: there are no more institutions left that can be trusted. Everything is dyed saffron.