A fresh round of political confrontation unfolded after West Bengal Chief Minister Mamata Banerjee likened Union Home Minister Amit Shah to the Mahabharata characters Duryodhana and Dushasana, triggering a sharp rebuttal from Bharatiya Janata Party leader Roopa Ganguly, who said the remarks diminished the Chief Minister’s own standing rather than damaging her political opponents.The exchange, delivered at a public meeting in West Bengal, quickly drew national attention, reflecting the intensifying rhetoric between the Trinamool Congress leadership and the BJP as both sides seek to consolidate support in a politically charged climate. Banerjee invoked figures from the epic Mahabharata, portraying Shah as emblematic of arrogance and excess, a comparison that has historically carried strong moral and cultural weight in public discourse.
Ganguly, a former actor turned politician and now a BJP Member of Parliament, responded by accusing Banerjee of lowering the tone of debate. She argued that the Chief Minister’s use of mythological analogies diverted attention from governance and policy, and suggested that such language reflected frustration rather than confidence. According to Ganguly, voters were more concerned with issues such as economic management, law and order, and employment prospects than personal attacks framed through epic narratives.
The BJP leader’s criticism was echoed by other party figures, who described Banerjee’s comments as unbecoming of a constitutional authority. They contended that political disagreements should be addressed through factual critique and performance records, not through character sketches drawn from mythology. Party spokespersons also stressed that Shah, as Union Home Minister, had overseen major security and administrative portfolios, and deserved criticism based on outcomes rather than symbolism.
Banerjee’s camp, however, defended the remarks as a rhetorical device aimed at highlighting what they describe as authoritarian tendencies within the central leadership. Senior Trinamool leaders said mythological references have long been part of South Asian political expression, used to communicate complex ideas to a broad audience. They maintained that Banerjee was exercising free political speech and drawing attention to what she views as an imbalance of power between the Centre and states.
The episode underscores a broader trend in political communication, where leaders increasingly rely on cultural and historical metaphors to frame contemporary disputes. Analysts note that such language can resonate deeply with segments of the electorate familiar with epic narratives, but also risks polarising debate and overshadowing substantive policy discussion. In West Bengal, where identity, history, and political allegiance intersect sharply, such rhetorical choices can have amplified effects.
This latest clash also reflects the enduring rivalry between Banerjee and the BJP’s national leadership. West Bengal has remained a critical battleground, with the BJP seeking to expand its footprint and the Trinamool Congress determined to protect its dominance. Verbal sparring between leaders has intensified during campaign periods, often spilling beyond state boundaries and shaping national headlines.
Within this context, Ganguly’s intervention carries added significance. As a prominent woman leader in the BJP with roots in West Bengal’s cultural sphere, her comments were framed as both a political rebuttal and a personal appeal for restraint. She urged the Chief Minister to focus on administrative achievements and challenges facing the state, arguing that personal comparisons erode public trust in institutions.