Amit Shah’s main battlefield is West Bengal where the poll panel is acting as a virtual coordinator of a massive political operation to annex the state for Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP).Modi-Shah regime has embarked on its bitterest election battle to conquer its most difficult terrain: West Bengal, Tamil Nadu and Kerala. These are among the states that have successfully resisted the repeated attempts for saffronisation. But what we found early this month (March) was all the more disturbing. At least three constitutional functionaries, including the president, have got involved in ruling party’s every day politicking. President Droupadi Murmu, for the first time in India’s history, charged a chief minister with breaking protocol.Her complaint was that chief minister Mamata Banerjee did not come to receive her when she visited the state. Also, the state government had changed the venue of her function and discouraged people from coming to the function which was being attended by the president. Murmu also alleged the condition of Santhals in West Bengal was worse. Mamata denied all these with her own facts figures. The chief minister alleged that Murmu was championing the ‘BJP’s narrative’ on the eve of the state assembly elections. Such lapses had happened earlier too. But presidents, in keeping the dignity and neutrality of the high office, should keep themselves above every day politics. Especially when they visit opposition-ruled states on the eve of elections. The sequence of events strengthens the fears that the president had, willingly or unwillingly, fell party to a carefully crafted political plot. The very next day, the Union government sought a report from the state government on the protocol lapses on its part. Media, quoting the home ministry, also alleged that Murmu’s wash room did not have water. To this, Mamata’s reply was that the function was actually organised by a private organisation and they questions should be directed at them. Modi also took the controversy to the streets and instantly made it a hot campaign point against the Trinamool Congress (TMC). The “enlightened” people of West Bengal will never forgive TMC “for insulting a woman, for insulting a tribal, and for insulting the honourable President of the country,” Modi said. Mamata retorted saying that Modi had in the past insulted the President in public. She provided photographs of Murmu and veteran BJP leader L.K. Advani standing while Modi was comfortably sitting on a special chair. A fortnight before the announcement of poll dates, opposition also had poured out its anger against the hyper politicisation of another two constitutional positions. The first was the debate on the no-confidence motion against Lok Sabha Speaker Om Birla. The motion was rejected by a voice vote. The opposition also submitted notice for impeachment of Chief Election Commissioner (CEC) Gyanesh Kumar. The opposition moved against the two constitutional authorities in sheer desperation over their partisan conduct. The non-National Democratic Alliance (NDA) members are routinely being denied opportunity to raise important national issues in the House, including India-US trade deal and investigation in US against Gautam Adani. The lengthening ‘barred’ list has led to desperation among the opposition. Leader of opposition (LoP) in Lok Sabha Rahul Gandhi was even disallowed from quoting from former Army chief general M.M. Naravane’s yet-unreleased memoir.Microphones of opposition MPs are arbitrarily switched off during parliamentary debates. This February, the LoP was interrupted 20 times during the Motion of Thanks on President’s Address.The chair simply watched such violations or involved himself in transgressions. The opposition said their unusual move was only in the interests of saving the constitution and uphold the impartiality of the office. Also, they were upset when the speaker preemptively advised the prime minister not to attend the proceedings because a group of women MPs were planning to attack him on the floor of the House. Such was not the role assigned to the impartial speaker of the Lok Sabha.The 17th and 18th Lok Sabhas had functioned without a deputy speaker because the regime refused to cede any role for the opposition. Unlike Modi, his predecessors, including A.B. Vajpayee, were regularly attending proceedings, especially Question Hour. Jawaharlal Nehru made it a practice to attend sessions when opposition leaders spoke during debates on President’s Address and budget. At times, he had intervened while his ministers answered questions.The ruling party in it’s own way responded to the impeachment. Its members came out with more and more Rahul bashing. Modi’s chief street fighter Nishikant Dubey has given notice for a substantive motion against Rahul. If passed, the LoP would be expelled from Lok Sabha. New BJP president Nitin Nabin came out with the charge that Rahul has links with anti-India elements abroad. He said Rahul was part of ‘deep rooted conspiracy’ to malign the image of India abroad.Kumar was made CEC with a clear-cut mission. It was part of Shah’s larger scheme to ensure a permanent Modi rule in India. For this, a new Election Commission Act was passed in 2023 which replaced the CJI with a minister in the panel to choose the new CEC. Other two members of the three-man panel are the prime minister, a Union minister and the LoP who did not support the majority decision. The late night appointment of Gyanesh Kumar happened within hours of the panel’s decision to pick him as the CEC. As the home minister’s political stormtrooper, Kumar began in right earnest. Every decision he took, including setting of election schedules, led to complaints from opposition.The SIR itself was allegedly designed to exclude large sections of non-BJP voters, according to several civil society organisations. It was essentially a pet project of the home minister for mass removal of opposition voters, especially the minorities. This time, Shah’s main battle field is West Bengal where the direct fight is turning out to be between the TMC and Kumar. Going by the opposition, the commission has emerged as the focal point in this all-out war for a BJP rule. For instance, while one observer each has been appointed for the 294 constituencies in West Bengal, the number for Assam is 51 for 126, Kerala 51 for 140 and 136 for Tamil Nadu with 234. Even before the formal notification of elections, more than 50 senior officials including the chief secretary, home secretary, DGP, ADGs, IGs, DIGs were transferred. EC had launched “coercion, intimidation, manipulation and the misuse of institutions” to capture West Bengal, Mamata alleged. Former CECs and senior officials like S.Y. Quraishi and Ashok Lavasa said the commission had earlier consulted the state governments before such transfers and got a panel of names for replacement. Now nothing of the sort. Moreover, such transfers are done in coordination with local political leaders. Kumar’s political activism has been linked to a series of suicides. It also led to nationwide protests, including some by RSS-linked outfits. The BJP’s bulk voters like sadhus and sanyasis of Varanasi, Mathura-Vrindavan, Kashi and Ayodhya also happen to encounter a peculiar problem: traditionally, the holi men would not state their identities. A VHP leader has suggested a solution: let them give ‘Janaki’ as their mother’s name.A few days before the impeachment motion lost, the Modi regime suffered a severe jolt when its case against Arvind Kejriwal and 21 others in a liquor scam fell flat in a local Delhi court. This, as a senior political analysts says, shows how institutions are being used to pursue vendetta politics against the regime’s political rivals and institutions of democracy are becoming ‘enablers of authoritarianism’. What is more worrying is the utter failure of the institutions under Modi to act as checks and balance. Similar has been the case with the Delhi riots. Police had filed false cases under political pressures but failed to produce proof to prove them in courts. As a result, most of the cases ended up in acquittals. The courts pulled up the police in 17 out of 93 acquittals in which there was ‘no evidence, no conspiracy’. This is what an independent study finds:“Complaints written on the ‘direction/dictation’ of police; ‘fictitious’ witnesses; ‘fabricated’ evidence; witness statement spiced up with ‘additional facts’ by the Investigating Officer; ‘artificial claim’ made by a constable of having seen an accused at the spot; identification of accused ‘shadowed with clouds of doubt’; and, cases ‘foisted’ upon the accused.”Tailpiece: A Supreme Court lawyer had demanded Rs 1 crore as ‘compensation’ from the government for ‘saving’ former CJI Dipak Mishra from impeachment and ‘public humiliation’ for his various misdemeanours. However, the court later dismissed it as ‘misconceived’.Many of CJI Mishra’s actions became contentious for their pro-establishment tilt, including the B.H. Loya case and selection of judges which had led to an unprecedented press conference by fellow judges of the Supreme Court.In an age of fractured mandates, personality cults and transactional alliances, P. Raman brings clarity to India’s shifting political equations. With Realpolitik, the veteran journalist peers beneath the slogans and spin to reveal the power plays, spectacle, crises and insecurities driving India’s politics.