MS Shanker
Exit polls have once again done what they do best—generate heat without much light. A few projections suggesting a narrow escape route for Mamata Banerjee have been seized upon by her supporters as proof of resilience. But scratch beneath the surface, and the political behaviour of the All India Trinamool Congress (TMC) tells a very different story—one that reeks less of confidence and more of pre-emptive anxiety.
Consider the optics. Even before the last vote is counted, sections of the TMC ecosystem have resorted to veiled threats—targeting Union Home Minister Amit Shah and even questioning the neutrality of Election Commission-appointed officials like IPS officer Ajay Sharma. This is not the language of a party cruising toward victory. It is, instead, the familiar script of setting the stage to delegitimise an unfavourable verdict.
The larger theatre around exit polls only adds to the absurdity. Every election cycle, television studios transform into gladiatorial arenas where “experts” and spokespersons shout over each other, while pollsters—armed with questionable methodologies and convenient narratives—offer projections that often collapse on counting day. The ritual outrage from political parties is equally predictable: those favoured by the numbers hail them as gospel truth; those trailing dismiss them as propaganda.
The truth lies somewhere in between. Exit polls are not entirely without merit, but neither are they scientific certainties. India’s electoral complexity—regional variations, silent voters, last-minute swings—makes precise prediction a near-impossible task. Even seasoned names like Prannoy Roy or political consultant Prashant Kishor have seen their projections go spectacularly wrong more than once, even if they occasionally land close to the mark.
Take the 2014 general election. Most pollsters underestimated the scale of the wave that brought Narendra Modi to power. The 2019 and 2024 elections too exposed the limitations of data-driven guesswork in a country where voter behaviour often defies linear logic. Yet, the industry thrives—because it feeds a media ecosystem hungry for ratings and narratives.
The myth-making around political strategists deserves equal scrutiny. Prashant Kishor, once hailed as the wizard behind multiple electoral victories—from Gujarat to West Bengal to Andhra Pradesh—has built a reputation that, on closer inspection, appears overstated. Political outcomes are rarely the product of campaign strategy alone. Structural factors—leadership credibility, governance record, opposition weakness—play a far greater role.
Narendra Modi’s dominance in Gujarat politics, for instance, was shaped by his governance narrative and political positioning, not merely campaign management. Similarly, Mamata Banerjee’s earlier victories owed much to her personal connect with voters and her anti-Left positioning, rather than any external consultancy magic. In Andhra Pradesh, Y. S. Jagan Mohan Reddy’s 2019 landslide was as much a consequence of anti-incumbency against N. Chandrababu Naidu as it was of campaign design.
If strategy alone could win elections, Kishor’s own political foray in Bihar would have been a triumph. Instead, it turned into a sobering reality check—proof that electoral success cannot be outsourced or engineered in a vacuum.
Coming back to West Bengal, the broader indicators suggest a far more competitive and volatile contest than the exit polls would have one believe. Anti-incumbency after a decade in power is real. Allegations of corruption, governance fatigue, and political violence have created an undercurrent of discontent. The Election Commission’s efforts to tighten voter rolls and curb irregularities have further altered the electoral landscape.
Perhaps most crucially, voter turnout patterns hint at heightened mobilisation. Historically, higher participation—especially in politically charged states—often signals a desire for change, though not always decisively. The silent voter remains the ultimate disruptor of all projections.
And that brings us back to the central question: if the ground reality were truly comfortable for the TMC, why the early aggression? Why the need to question institutions before results are even declared? Political instinct rarely lies. Parties sense shifts long before analysts do.
This is not to suggest that the outcome is predetermined. Elections in India have a habit of springing surprises. Voters are not always voting for change; sometimes, they reaffirm the status quo despite visible flaws. As the Hindi saying goes, “akalmando ko ishara kaafi hai”—for the perceptive, the संकेत are enough. But whether those संकेत point to continuity or upheaval will only be known when the ballots speak.
Until then, the exit poll circus will roll on—equal parts entertainment and speculation. But if one reads beyond the numbers and listens to the political subtext, one conclusion emerges clearly: confidence does not need theatrics. Anxiety does.
