When political posturing replaces governance, it’s the people who pay the price for schemes hijacked by mismanagement and buried under accusations of discrimination.
In a characteristic display of political theatre, West Bengal Chief Minister Mamata Banerjee recently accused the central government of withholding funds for the Pradhan Mantri Awas Yojana (PMAY), a flagship rural housing scheme, thereby allegedly depriving Bengal’s poor of housing. This accusation came days after she and her finance minister boycotted the NITI Aayog meeting, citing the centre’s “discrimination” against the state. However, this narrative of victimhood not only falls flat under scrutiny but also appears to be a calculated attempt to sidestep the uncomfortable truths of widespread corruption and mismanagement in the implementation of central schemes under the Trinamool Congress (TMC) regime.
In her fiery address, Banerjee boasted of having built 28 lakh houses despite the centre allegedly stopping funds for the past four years. Yet, in the same breath, she proudly proclaimed that the state had refused to implement Ayushman Bharat another major welfare scheme solely because it required a 40% cost-sharing from the state. This defiance might resonate politically within her support base, but it exposes a troubling trend: prioritizing political one-upmanship over public welfare.
The PMAY Controversy: Facts Over Fiction
The TMC government’s lament about halted PMAY funds conveniently omits the real reason behind the centre’s actions documented cases of corruption and irregularities in the state’s implementation of the scheme. Multiple audits, surveys, and even court observations have laid bare the administrative rot.
In 2022, a Ministry of Rural Development audit flagged significant irregularities in states like West Bengal, Odisha, and Chhattisgarh. Among the key findings were the diversion of funds, sanction of houses to ineligible households, deletion of names of eligible beneficiaries, and outright embezzlement. These are not just bureaucratic lapses; they are systemic failures driven by political patronage and local-level manipulation.
The Calcutta High Court, in a ruling from November 2024, confirmed these findings. Justice Amrita Sinha (then Justice Kapur) observed that funds under PMAY had been “deliberately misappropriated.” The state’s defence that such transfers were made “erroneously” was” summarily dismissed. The court directed the police to thoroughly investigate the matter after petitioners from Canning, South 24-Parganas, revealed how funds meant for them were mysteriously redirected to other accounts.
Political Deflection Over Policy Correction
Instead of addressing these damning revelations, Mamata Banerjee’s government doubled down on confrontation. The renaming of the central scheme in Bengal as “Bangla Awas Yojana” was an act of defiance and perhaps a smokescreen to mask the flow of funds into an opaque state-controlled framework. It is no coincidence that the central government’s financial support was halted shortly after this renaming and the exposure of gross irregularities.
Worse, the beneficiaries who should have been uplifted by these schemes were left to fend for themselves. Protests erupted in districts like Purulia, Birbhum, and Paschim Medinipur as residents discovered their names had been removed from beneficiary lists often at the whims of local TMC leaders. Instead of taking corrective action, the TMC government chose to frame this pushback against corruption as “discrimination” by the Centre.
Let’s be clear: the PMAY funding model follows a well-established 60:40 formula, with 60% of the funds borne by the centre and 40% by the state. Between the scheme’s inception and the freezing of funds, West Bengal received ₹41,888.33 crore the third-highest in the country. That hardly reflects deliberate deprivation. What it does suggest is that when accountability became a demand, the centre stopped writing blank checks to an administration that couldn’t ensure transparency.
Ayushman Bharat Rejection: A Case of Misplaced Ego
Banerjee’s rejection of Ayushman Bharat, India’s premier universal health insurance scheme, on the grounds of not wanting to bear the state’s 40% share, is equally troubling. Her sarcastic jab “May“ you live 175” years” directed at Prime Minister Modi may have drawn chuckles at party rallies, but it reveals a deeper disregard for cooperative federalism.
The refusal to co-fund Ayushman Bharat meant that lakhs of West Bengal’s poor were denied access to healthcare that is otherwise available to citizens in most other states. Banerjee touted her state-run scheme providing ₹5 lakh in health coverage, but what’s missing is transparency about how effective or inclusive it is. Ayushman Bharat benefits from a centralized database, national hospital network, and structured audit features that the TMC’s standalone scheme likely lacks.
Victimhood as a Political Weapon
TMC leaders, including spokesperson Kunal Ghosh, claim that the Centre owes Bengal over ₹1.7 lakh crore an eye-popping figure that lacks substantiation. Rather than publishing a clear account of dues, performance metrics, and scheme outcomes, the state leadership has leaned heavily on emotional appeals: invoking regional pride, historical grievances, and centre-state power asymmetry.
This is classic political gaslighting. Whenever corruption within the state machinery is called out, the TMC shifts the narrative to “Delhi vs. Bengal,” thereby insulating itself from criticism. The boycott of the NITI Aayog meeting was not a protest; it was an abdication of responsibility. Forums like NITI Aayog exist precisely to iron out such disputes and to encourage dialogue and data-driven governance. But Banerjee chose political optics over constructive engagement.
Accountability Must Trump Allegations
The people of Bengal and indeed of India deserve more than political spectacle. They deserve honesty. The central government must protect public funds and ensure that welfare schemes are executed efficiently and without corruption. Withholding funds in response to proven mismanagement is not “discrimination” it” is responsible governance.
Mamata Banerjee, for all her oratory and populist appeal, must acknowledge that playing the perpetual victim does not absolve her government of administrative failure. Her accusations fall flat when measured against judicial rulings, audit reports, and public protests by those affected by the misgovernance.
Conclusion: Governance, Not Grandstanding
As West Bengal moves towards the 2026 Assembly elections, Mamata Banerjee seems intent on portraying herself as a regional David fighting a tyrannical Goliath in New Delhi. But this narrative masks the far more mundane and far more damning reality of misgovernance, political favouritism, and large-scale corruption under her watch.
The people of Bengal do not need more slogans or stunts. They need homes built honestly, healthcare made accessible, and development implemented transparently. For that to happen, Chief Minister Banerjee must stop hiding behind the shrieks of victimhood and start answering the real questions about her government’s performance. After all, those who live in glass houses should think twice before throwing stones.
