The public criticism marks a sharp reversal for a partnership once credited with helping the party withstand major electoral pressure. The immediate trigger was the Assembly result, in which the Bharatiya Janata Party won 207 of the 293 seats declared, while the All India Trinamool Congress was reduced to 80 after 15 years in power. The verdict ended Mamata Banerjee’s uninterrupted hold over the state government and gave the BJP its first government in West Bengal.
TMC MP Kalyan Banerjee, one of the party’s senior parliamentary voices and a former chief whip in the Lok Sabha, has accused I-PAC of “hijacking” the organisation and creating divisions between leaders and workers. His comments reflected widening anger among party functionaries who say the consultancy’s data-driven campaign structure displaced the older booth-level network that had powered TMC’s rise from opposition movement to dominant state force.
Suspended spokesperson Riju Dutta went further, alleging that I-PAC had virtually taken over the party’s election apparatus and interfered in candidate selection. He claimed money was demanded in connection with ticket distribution, an allegation that has not been independently established. Dutta also argued that Mamata Banerjee’s public defence of I-PAC during Enforcement Directorate action against the consultancy could create legal complications for her, adding a sharper edge to the post-poll blame game.
I-PAC has not issued a detailed public rebuttal to the post-election allegations. Before polling, TMC had dismissed reports that the consultancy had halted its West Bengal operations, calling such claims baseless and insisting that campaign work continued. I-PAC’s association with the party dates back to the 2021 Assembly campaign, when TMC returned to power with 215 seats. The firm’s strategy was also seen as important to the party’s strong performance in the 2024 Lok Sabha contest, when TMC won 29 of the state’s 42 parliamentary seats.
That record has now become part of the dispute. Leaders critical of I-PAC argue that the same model that sharpened messaging in earlier elections later encouraged over-centralisation, excessive dependence on surveys and the marginalisation of district-level workers. They contend that candidate choices were shaped too heavily by consultants and not enough by local political judgement.
The controversy has also exposed tension around Abhishek Banerjee’s influence in the party. Critics have linked I-PAC’s role to a broader generational and organisational shift, under which campaign decisions, social media messaging and candidate evaluation became more centralised. Supporters of professional campaign management, however, argue that TMC’s setback cannot be attributed to one consultancy firm alone, given anti-incumbency, corruption allegations, local factionalism, concerns over law and order, and the BJP’s aggressive campaign across districts.
The scale of defeat has made the internal reckoning unavoidable. TMC’s vote share remained substantial, but the seat collapse reflected sharp losses across several regions where the party’s local networks had earlier appeared resilient. The BJP’s gains in constituencies once considered difficult for it underscored a wider political shift, helped by sustained organisational work, a focused campaign against the ruling party and consolidation among voters seeking change after three consecutive TMC terms.
Mamata Banerjee has separately challenged aspects of the election process, with TMC raising questions over deletions from electoral rolls and arguing that in some constituencies the number of deleted names exceeded the winning margin. That legal and political battle runs parallel to the internal dispute over campaign control. The Election Commission of India’s published results showed BJP dominance across the declared seats, while TMC has sought to keep attention on alleged irregularities and procedural concerns.