Darjeeling Protocol Row Shows Mamata Banerjee Treats West Bengal Like a Personal Republic
President Droupadi Murmu’s recent visit to the Darjeeling region for the International Santal Conference should have been a simple and dignified constitutional engagement. Instead, it turned into an episode that has raised uncomfortable questions about political conduct and respect for institutions. Matters became particularly serious when the President herself publicly expressed disappointment over the arrangements and noted the absence of West Bengal Chief Minister Mamata Banerjee. When the head of the Republic feels compelled to comment on protocol lapses during an official event, the issue moves beyond politics and enters the realm of constitutional ethics.
The Presidency Is Not A Political Rival
To understand why this incident has generated concern, one must first understand the nature of the President’s office. The President of India is deliberately placed above partisan politics. The office represents the Constitution and the Republic, not the ruling party at the Centre.
That is why presidential visits to states traditionally follow a well established pattern of courtesy and protocol. Chief Ministers, regardless of political affiliation, usually receive the President and participate in official events. These gestures are not acts of political submission. They are acknowledgments that certain constitutional offices stand above day to day political rivalry.
Political disagreement between a state government and the Union government is normal in a federal democracy. But the Presidency is not an extension of the central government. When political confrontation spills over into the treatment of the President’s office, the line between political rivalry and institutional disrespect begins to blur.
From Political Dramatics To Institutional Disrespect
Mamata Banerjee’s political career has often been defined by confrontation. She has repeatedly positioned herself as a leader willing to challenge powerful institutions and confront the central government head on. For her supporters, this style represents courage and defiance.
However, political dramatics that may work in rallies and courtrooms do not always translate well into constitutional governance. Institutions function through a combination of written rules and unwritten conventions. These conventions exist to maintain stability and mutual respect between offices that must work together despite political differences.
The Darjeeling episode appears to reflect a situation where the instinct for political confrontation overshadowed the need for institutional decorum. Instead of a moment that highlighted tribal representation and national unity, the visit became another flashpoint in the ongoing political battle between the Trinamool Congress and the Bharatiya Janata Party.
West Bengal Is Not A Personal Republic
This is where the deeper concern arises. A Chief Minister, however powerful politically, is still an elected administrator functioning within a constitutional framework. The authority of a state government comes from the Constitution and operates within its limits.
When protocol surrounding the President of India is treated casually or politically, it creates the impression that constitutional norms are secondary to political calculations. Such behaviour begins to blur the distinction between democratic leadership and personalised rule.
West Bengal, like every other Indian state, is part of a federal system built on cooperation between institutions. The Union and the states may compete politically, but the framework that connects them is based on mutual respect. If that respect disappears, the system itself begins to weaken.
The Dangerous Precedent For Institutional Culture
The implications of this episode go beyond one visit or one political leader. Institutional culture in any democracy is shaped by the conduct of those in power.
When the dignity of the President’s office appears to be treated as a political inconvenience, it sends a message that protocol and constitutional conventions are optional. Bureaucrats, political workers, and even citizens take cues from the behaviour of their leaders.
If the highest constitutional office in the country can be drawn into political theatrics, it becomes easier for respect toward other institutions to erode as well. Over time, this gradual erosion weakens the culture that allows democratic systems to function smoothly.
Political Rivalry Cannot Override Constitutional Ethics
The rivalry between the Trinamool Congress and the BJP is one of the most intense political contests in the country. Sharp rhetoric and aggressive political positioning are now routine in that conflict.
Yet constitutional norms cannot be treated as collateral damage in political battles. Federalism allows states to challenge the Centre and oppose its policies vigorously. What it does not permit is the casual disregard of offices that symbolise the unity of the Republic.
The Presidency occupies precisely that space above the political battlefield. Preserving the dignity of that office should be the responsibility of every political leader, regardless of ideology or party affiliation.
The Line Mamata Banerjee Should Not Have Crossed
Mamata Banerjee’s confrontational political instincts have often served her well in electoral politics. Her supporters admire her for refusing to bow to political pressure and for maintaining an image of defiance.
But leadership also demands restraint at crucial moments. The Darjeeling incident suggests that the balance between political defiance and constitutional responsibility may have tilted too far in one direction.
Democratic leaders are free to challenge governments, criticise policies, and mobilise supporters. Those are legitimate tools of politics. What they cannot afford to do is allow political instincts to overshadow the dignity of the Republic’s institutions.
When the President of India is placed in a position where she must publicly express disappointment about a state government’s conduct, it should prompt serious reflection. Constitutional decorum may not generate political headlines, but it remains essential to the health of India’s democracy.
