Behind the Curtain: I-PAC’s Growing Grip on West Bengal’s Power

Paromita Das

New Delhi, 1st August: In a democratic setup, power ideally rests with the people and their elected representatives. But what happens when influence begins to quietly shift into unelected, opaque hands? This very concern is now echoing through the corridors of West Bengal’s politics, as the role of the Indian Political Action Committee (I-PAC) comes under intense scrutiny. Allegations, intelligence reports, and political whispers all point toward a troubling reality—one where a private political consultancy may be crossing the threshold from adviser to power broker.

A Shadow Over Bengal’s Political Landscape

Originally hailed as a data-driven campaign strategist, I-PAC carved its reputation through successful electoral projects across Bharat. But recent developments in West Bengal suggest the organization might be evolving into something far more controversial—and potentially unconstitutional.

According to intelligence inputs, I-PAC is allegedly involved in orchestrating fabricated videos and distributing them through coordinated media campaigns, aiming to incite unrest in the state. These videos, reportedly created in collaboration with sympathetic journalists, are seen as part of a larger narrative-control mechanism, raising concerns over misinformation and manufactured dissent.

What’s more disconcerting is that these are not isolated instances. The consultancy recently faced backlash for allegedly targeting revered religious figure and Padma Shri awardee, Kartik Maharaj, through similar smear tactics. For many, this pattern underscores a disturbing strategy: control the narrative, even if it means distorting the truth.

Who’s Really Pulling the Strings?

At the heart of the debate lies a fundamental question: How did a private, non-elected entity like I-PAC come to exert such substantial influence over internal state affairs?

Critics allege that I-PAC’s sway has extended far beyond political campaign management. Whispers from within the administrative ecosystem suggest that the consultancy may be issuing informal “directives” to state government officials, including members of the police and bureaucratic machinery. If substantiated, these claims indicate a clear erosion of democratic checks and balances.

“A party may choose to outsource political strategy—that’s internal,” notes one political observer. “But when that consultant starts influencing state decisions, or dictating police behavior, it isn’t just overreach—it’s a democratic violation.”

Indeed, the idea of a political consultancy determining who holds ministerial positions or when the Chief Minister speaks publicly ventures into dangerous territory. These decisions, traditionally rooted in constitutional processes and public accountability, seem to be inching toward the boardroom of a private agency.

Democracy on a Slippery Slope

West Bengal is no stranger to political turbulence. However, the current scenario feels different—not because of visible violence or dramatic policy shifts, but because of the quiet, calculated infiltration of governance by an unaccountable actor.

The lack of transparency surrounding I-PAC’s operations fuels further concern. Unlike elected representatives, the agency’s personnel are not answerable to the public. Yet, if the allegations hold water, they are not just influencing outcomes—they are directing them. The lines between consultancy and command are blurring.

In democracies, the principle of separation between party apparatus and state institutions is sacred. Political consultants may shape campaigns, but governance must remain the sovereign domain of elected officials. Any deviation from this balance risks turning the democratic process into a managed spectacle, where the illusion of choice overshadows its reality.

Voices of Dissent and Demands for Clarity

Political analysts and civil society leaders are now calling for an independent inquiry. Their demand is simple but critical: Transparency.

“People deserve to know who is running their government,” says one political analyst. “Is it their elected representatives, or is it a private agency that holds no official mandate but plenty of unofficial clout?”

The call for accountability is not just about pointing fingers—it’s about restoring faith in democratic processes. If I-PAC has indeed been empowered to such an extent, who allowed it? And why has no institutional resistance emerged until now?

The urgency of an independent investigation stems from the broader implication: If a model like this is allowed to thrive unchecked in one state, it could set a dangerous precedent for others. It’s not just West Bengal’s governance at stake—it’s the very structure of Bharatiya democracy.

A Dangerous Experiment in Proxy Power

As someone who has observed political trends and digital manipulation tactics in Bharat for over a decade, this scenario strikes a deeply uncomfortable chord. Data-driven political consultancy isn’t inherently dangerous—but when it begins to replace rather than support public leadership, democracy turns into an algorithmic simulation.

What we’re witnessing in West Bengal isn’t just the misuse of influence; it’s the rise of proxy power—unseen hands directing elected faces. It’s a fragile model that thrives on silence, opacity, and unregulated reach.

And the silence, so far, has been deafening.

The Fight for Transparency Begins Now

The I-PAC controversy has cast a long, unsettling shadow over West Bengal’s political and administrative systems. While nothing has been conclusively proven in court, the allegations alone merit serious institutional introspection.

The issue is not about one agency or one political party—it is about preserving the core democratic ethos of this country. The idea that a private entity, devoid of constitutional or electoral legitimacy, might influence state decision-making is a direct challenge to the sovereignty of governance.

As this situation unfolds, one thing is clear: West Bengal—and indeed, Bharat—must decide how far is too far when it comes to private influence in public affairs. Because the longer we wait to question the growing grip of I-PAC, the harder it may become to loosen it.