It Takes Courage to Stay. It Takes Courage to Leave.

 It Takes Courage to Stay. It Takes Courage to Leave.

++++++++++++++++++

Perhaps the BJP's recent success has proved one important point not just in Bengal, but across India, it is possible to win elections in a state that was never traditionally a BJP stronghold without relying on extreme minority appeasement politics.

That possibility may have quietly changed the mindset of many politicians within the TMC. It is entirely plausible that not everyone in the party was comfortable with what they perceived as excessive appeasement politics, but they stayed because they believed there was simply no other electoral path to victory. Salong tak, leaders and workers alike may have been conditioned to think that winning without consolidating minority support en masse was namumkin..

If that assumption has now been challenged, it naturally gives confidence to those who were privately uncomfortable with the party's culture, management style, or ideological direction. In that sense, the TMC's setbacks may have been seen as a moment of opportunity by those who had long remained on the margins.

So if some MPs choose to leave the party and explore other political options, there is nothing inherently immoral about it. Politicians are not elected for life. Every few years they must return to the people and seek a fresh mandate. If they have the courage to defend their decisions before the electorate, let the voters decide.

The example of the Shiv Sena split and the electoral performance of the Shinde faction has also demonstrated that political realignments do not automatically end a career. It has shown many politicians that the public is capable of making independent judgments rather than blindly rewarding or punishing defections.

The same standard should apply to everyone. If Mamata Banerjee herself were to contemplate an understanding with the Congress for political advantage, then it would be difficult to argue that MPs leaving the TMC for ideological or political reasons are somehow uniquely immoral. Politics is ultimately about seeking the people's approval, not about guaranteeing oneself the same post forever.

From the public's perspective, more political churn is not necessarily a bad thing. Competition often produces accountability. If our MP changes parties but delivers development, remains accessible, and ultimately returns to the electorate for judgment, our democratic right to accept or reject them remains intact.

It takes courage to stay in a party despite disagreement. It also takes courage to leave and risk political uncertainty. Neither decision is automatically noble or automatically dishonest.

However, credibility matters. Some politicians develop a reputation for switching sides repeatedly for personal convenience rather than principle. Once voters begin to see a pattern of opportunism, trust becomes difficult to rebuild. Figures who change parties multiple times inevitably invite scepticism about their motivations.

The example of Babul Supriyo illustrates another aspect of politics: every decision carries consequences. He made a choice that he believed was best for his political future, and he now has to live with the evolving realities of that decision. In politics, as in life, everyone is both a beneficiary and a victim of their own choices.

Similarly, if a leader was selected primarily for identity-based electoral calculations rather than merit or ideology, then subsequent political movement should not come as a surprise. Decisions driven by short-term electoral arithmetic often produce short-term loyalties. ex; yousuf pathan

Perhaps the broader historical arc was always going to unfold this way. One could argue that the TMC emerged to end decades of Left rule, governed for over fifteen years, and may now gradually make space for another political force. In that interpretation, the TMC itself became the vehicle that dismantled the CPI(M)'s dominance, creating conditions that eventually benefited the BJP. It is even arguable that the BJP, on its own, may never have been able to dislodge the Left without the TMC first transforming Bengal's political landscape.

History has a way of producing such ironies.

In the end, democracy belongs not to parties but to the people. Governments rise, governments fall, alliances shift, loyalties changebut but every few years the final verdict still rests with the voter.

And that is exactly how it should be.

It takes courage to stay. It takes courage to leave. The only lasting judge is the public.

And for the first time BJP has no role in breaking a party and more so in creaitng this rift within TMC.

ABHAYA IS WATCHING EVERYTHING FROM SOMEWHERE UP IN THE HEAVENS, IF ANYONE HAS MANUFACTURED THIS VERDICT IT IS ABAYA EMPOWERED BY SHREE KRISHNA. SHE WAS BORN FOR A PURPOSE AND SACRIFICED HERSELF FOR A PURPOSE. KARANA JANMA #rgkarmedicalcollege #abaya