Suspended Trinamool Congress leader Riju Dutta blamed the political consultancy firm I-PAC for the party's recent election loss in West Bengal [1].
The public accusation signals a deepening divide between the party's central leadership and its field organizers. This friction suggests that the party's strategic reliance on external data analysts may have alienated the local workers responsible for voter mobilization.
Dutta said the party's leadership relied on external consultants instead of grassroots campaigning [1]. He said I-PAC sidelined the workers who maintain the party's presence at the village and district levels, a move he said contributed to the electoral rout [1].
This internal turmoil coincides with signs of broader instability within the party ranks. Reports indicate that 10 MLAs stayed away from a key post-poll meeting led by Mamata Banerjee [2]. The absence of these legislators suggests a lack of confidence in the current leadership's direction following the election results [2].
The tension centers on the role of I-PAC, a firm that has historically managed the party's image and strategic outreach. While the leadership viewed the consultancy as a tool for modernization, senior leaders like Dutta said it created a barrier between the party and its base [1].
The conflict comes at a critical time for the Trinamool Congress as it attempts to stabilize its governance in West Bengal. The public nature of Dutta's criticism highlights a struggle for the party's identity, balancing professional political management with traditional grassroots activism [1].
“Riju Dutta blamed the political consultancy firm I-PAC for the party's recent election loss.”
The rift within the Trinamool Congress reflects a common tension in modern politics between 'top-down' data-driven strategies and 'bottom-up' grassroots organizing. By blaming I-PAC, Dutta is not just criticizing a firm, but challenging the leadership's decision to prioritize professional consultants over loyal party cadres. The fact that multiple MLAs skipped a high-level meeting indicates that this dissatisfaction is not isolated to a single suspended leader, but may represent a systemic rebellion against the party's current operational model.
