On Saturday, West Bengal Chief Minister Mamata Banerjee made a dramatic exit from a Niti Aayog meeting chaired by Prime Minister Narendra Modi, citing what she described as unfair and discriminatory treatment. Banerjee, who was the sole Chief Minister representing an opposition-ruled state at the meeting held in Delhi, expressed her discontent with the proceedings, alleging that her microphone was deliberately muted when she attempted to address critical issues concerning West Bengal.
Banerjee's dissatisfaction with the meeting began when she was abruptly interrupted while discussing a significant issue: the alleged denial of central funds to West Bengal. According to her account, as she raised this concern, her microphone was muted, effectively cutting her off. This interruption occurred although other Chief Ministers were allowed more extensive speaking time. For instance, Chandrababu Naidu of Andhra Pradesh was allotted a generous 20 minutes, while Chief Ministers from states like Assam, Goa, and Chhattisgarh had speaking slots of 10 to 12 minutes. In stark contrast, Banerjee was restricted to a mere five minutes. This discrepancy in speaking times, she argued, was not just a matter of administrative oversight but a deliberate attempt to marginalize her and her state’s concerns.
Feeling that her attempts to speak on behalf of her state were being stifled, Banerjee decided to make a stand by leaving the meeting in protest. She characterized the move as an outright insult to West Bengal and to all regional parties. Her departure from the meeting was accompanied by strong statements condemning what she viewed as a bias against non-NDA (National Democratic Alliance) states. She voiced her frustration publicly, asserting that her exclusion from the discussions was indicative of a broader pattern of discrimination. "I was talking about the central funds not being given to West Bengal, and that is when they muted my mic," she explained, underscoring her belief that the central government’s actions were both unfair and politically motivated.
In addition to her protest over the meeting’s proceedings, Banerjee reiterated her longstanding criticism of the Niti Aayog, the body that replaced the Planning Commission in 2015. She criticized the Niti Aayog for lacking substantial financial authority, which she argued limits its ability to effectively manage and allocate resources to the states. Banerjee's critique highlighted her belief that the Niti Aayog’s current structure and mandate are insufficient for addressing the diverse needs of India’s states. She called for a re-evaluation of its role and powers, suggesting that either the Niti Aayog should be endowed with the necessary financial powers or that the Planning Commission, with its more comprehensive financial capabilities, should be reinstated. "Niti Aayog has no financial powers; how will it work?" she questioned. "Either give it the financial powers it needs or bring back the Planning Commission," she demanded, reflecting her view that it had been more effective in managing state-level requirements and fostering balanced regional development.
Banerjee’s actions and statements at the meeting underscore the ongoing friction between opposition leaders and the central government, illustrating the complexities and challenges of federal governance in India. Her dramatic exit and subsequent criticism highlight the tensions that exist in the interplay between state and central authorities, as well as the broader debates about the role and effectiveness of India’s institutional structures for governance and resource distribution.
Â
