Pre-election woes: Sheikh Shahjahan, Shibaprasad Hazra, Uttam Sardar.

Post-election worries: JCB, Jayant Singh.

The general election came and went, and the Trinamul Congress swept it. But its leadership can’t breathe easy because reports of the highhandedness of strongmen connected to the party keep emerging from various corners of the state.

Since the eruption of Sandeshkhali, the biggest charge against Trinamul this year has been the unmitigated lawlessness in areas under the control of such Bahubalis, who allegedly play a very important role in swinging elections in favour of Mamata Banerjee’s party.

“Trinamul allows these people to thrive under its protection because they manage elections for the party. This regime has institutionalised the structure propped up by such elements at almost every level,” said CPM central committee member Sujan Chakraborty.

“There has been a Talibani rule in Bengal under Mamata Banerjee. More and more such cases are coming to light with each passing day…. They help the ruling party win elections, and in exchange, they are allowed to thrive, at the cost of the people,” said state BJP chief Sukanta Majumdar.

If Shahjahan was the principal vote manager for Trinamul in Sandeshkhali, Tajemul Islam aka JCB was so in Chopra. The estranged Arabul Islam played the same role in Bhangar, while Anubrata Mondal did so in Birbhum. There have been scores of such names in the popular imagination since the ascent of Trinamool to power in 2011, and they have in common the electoral significance to the party.

But outside election windows, political scientists point out, these elements are engaged in various kinds of illegal activities — from landgrab to racketeering — and are a law unto themselves, never shy of violence, running their writ in their areas of dominance.

“The leadership has always known. The reports came from the ground to the very top. But precious little was done to curb their menace solely on account of their electoral — in many cases, additionally, financial — usefulness,” said a Trinamool insider.

Most of such figures that gained prominence in the Trinamul regime came from elsewhere, especially the Left fold. In Bengal politics, they have had a role at least since the late 1960s and the turbulent 1970s.

The recent political history of Bengal reminds one of names such as Majid Master of Shashon, Tapan Ghosh and Sukur Ali of East Midnapore, “Hubba” Shyamal of Hooghly-Howrah-North 24-Parganas, “Haat Kata” Dilip of North 24-Parganas, who thrived in the later decades of the Left regime.

“There were far more such instances in the Left and the Congress eras, before the age of 24x7 social and mainstream media. Trinamul is the only regime that has been taking stern measures and exemplary punishment is ensured for culprits in each and every case,” said Trinamool leader Kunal Ghosh, adding that the BJP-ruled states, such as Uttar Pradesh and Madhya Pradesh, see far worse.

Ghosh is deemed a mouthpiece of Trinamool national general secretary Abhishek Banerjee, on whom the voices against allowing such elements have been centred. Under Mamata’s nephew and heir apparent, there have been efforts, internally, to rein in the alleged proliferation of the lumpenproletariat by bringing to the fore more of the bhadralok politicians by way of an image makeover for the party.

“But it’s easier said than done. Even Abhishek, with all his clout, faces resistance internally for trying to completely overhaul existing structures. His reform is often deemed radical, even impractical, and he is asked to go slow,” said a Trinamool insider.

“Such people have always been a necessary evil in politics, even in the US and Italy, Russia and Japan. But it is important to keep them in check and not to let them become such an overwhelming presence in popular discourse. That, we have not been doing a good job of, recently,” he added.

While political scientists agree that the problem did exist under the previous rulers, they assert it is far more rampant now, given the alleged free hand granted by the Trinamool dispensation, and the reliance on the strongman ecosystem for factors not only political but also financial.

“Such open patronage by a ruling dispensation was never seen before the Trinamul regime. Before TMC, strongmen were used strategically — they were not allowed to come to the fore or emerge as leaders — for local domination, but now they are used as an integral part of their structure,” said political scientist Biswanath Chakraborty.

According to him, political domination was the general idea behind allowing the strongmen some growth in pockets during the Congress or the Left era, but Trinamul has allowed them to additionally extract money by misusing that domination, which allegedly caters to the party as a whole, besides various leaders.

“Besides, such a complete failure of the administration under Trinamul to act against such elements enjoying its patronage was not seen before. This is arising out of not only political or electoral but also economic interests. That is a principal area of difference,” he added.

“The absence of a strong ideological structure — left, centre, or right — in the Trinamul ecosystem is also responsible because there are no ethical do’s or don’ts, only individual or economic interests.”