There is a difference between fiery political rhetoric and outright indecency. Sadly, West Bengal Chief Minister Mamata Banerjee seems incapable of recognising it. By repeatedly calling Prime Minister Narendra Modi and his party “chor” (thief), she has crossed not just the line of political propriety but also trampled over the dignity of the constitutional office she herself swore to uphold. In our parliamentary democracy, the Prime Minister is not simply the head of a political party; he is the leader of the Union executive under Article 74. A Chief Minister, by virtue of Article 163, leads the state executive. They are coequal in dignity within their spheres, but the Prime Minister represents the nation as a whole. Courtesy demands mutual respect, not playground insults. Mamata’s constant refrain of “chor” is less a political critique and more political vandalism. India’s federal structure, defined under Articles 245 and 246, gives both the Centre and states autonomy. The system is designed for cooperation, not confrontation. Disagreements are expected; decorum is mandatory. When a Chief Minister mocks the Prime Minister in language unworthy of the street, she chips away at the very idea of cooperative federalism. The Constitution does provide for the Centre to step in if a state government ceases to function constitutionally. Article 356 empowers the President to impose central rule when constitutional machinery fails. While Mamata’s verbal excesses alone may not justify such a drastic step, they do reveal an alarming disregard for the oath she took under the Third Schedule — to uphold the Constitution and bear true faith to it. That oath is not a decorative ritual; it binds her to dignity in conduct. Criticism is healthy in a democracy.
A Chief Minister has every right to question policies, oppose laws, and even accuse the Centre of corruption — provided she presents facts and arguments. But hurling slurs like “chor” reduces politics to street theatre. If the Prime Minister is to be casually branded a thief, then what stops others from calling a Governor a goon, a Speaker a stooge, or a judge a crook? Where does the spiral of disrespect end? The irony is rich. Mamata Banerjee routinely demands that the Centre treat her with the respect due to a state leader. Any questioning of West Bengal’s governance on issues of political violence, corruption scams like Saradha and Narada, or law and order breakdowns, is instantly framed by her as an attack on “federalism.” Yet, she shows no hesitation in dragging the Prime Minister through the mud with gutter-level insults. Respect, it seems, is a one-way street in her dictionary. The framers of our Constitution never imagined that constitutional heads of government would use such language. Dr. B.R. Ambedkar, in his final address to the Constituent Assembly, warned that democracy would fail if politicians chose unconstitutional methods of protest. Mamata Banerjee’s wordplay is a textbook example of that warning. India’s democracy thrives because it respects both dissent and decorum. Leaders are expected to attack policies, not assassinate dignity. A Chief Minister who stoops to name-calling against the Prime Minister is not strengthening democracy; she is making a mockery of it. Mamata Banerjee’s slurs do not merely target an individual. They set a precedent of normalising vulgarity in public discourse. If left unchecked, such behaviour corrodes respect for every institution — the Prime Minister today, the judiciary or Parliament tomorrow. West Bengal deserves leadership that argues, not abuses. India deserves opposition that critiques, not curses. Above all, the Constitution demands better from those who claim to govern in its name. Mamata Banerjee may believe that branding the Prime Minister a “chor” scores her political points. In truth, it only exposes the bankruptcy of her politics — and the danger she poses to constitutional decency.
