Rs 287 crore, influencers and ‘nail art’: BJP’s Bengal poll spending laid bare

• Rs 287 crore declared: BJP reported spending Rs 286.99 crore on the West Bengal Assembly election, including Rs 217.16 crore on general campaigning and Rs 69.83 crore on candidates and related expenses. 

• Influencers in the accounts: The expenditure statements include payments to social media personalities, including actor and YouTuber Sayak Chakraborty, who received Rs 2.5 lakh for two videos. 

• Olypub controversy revisited: Chakraborty’s payment has drawn scrutiny because of a January controversy at Park Street’s Olypub. He denies any connection between the incident and the later BJP payment.

The election expenditure statement submitted by the BJP to the Election Commission of India (ECI) shows that the party spent Rs 286.99 crore in West Bengal during the Assembly election between 15 March and 6 May. Of this, Rs 217.16 crore went towards general campaigning and Rs 69.83 crore towards candidates and related expenses. The BJP also reported spending Rs 52.18 crore on travel by star campaigners and Rs 88.48 crore on media advertising in Bengal during the period.

The political grapevine in the state — unsubstantiated and unconfirmed — puts the BJP’s actual spending on the Bengal campaign at up to 10 times the declared amount. There is, however, no independent evidence to substantiate that claim.

During the same period of a little over a month-and-a-half, the Congress spent Rs 42 crore in the state, while the CPI(M) reported expenditure of Rs 8.23 crore, according to accounts submitted to the ECI.

The BJP has defended payments made to social media influencers, journalists, YouTubers and actors as legitimate and transparent. The party has said the payments were made through banks and disclosed to the ECI as required. BJP Bengal chief spokesperson Debjit Sarkar defended the practice, saying the party had used influencers as part of its publicity campaign and had accounted for the expenditure.

Paying influencers and YouTubers for political campaigning is not, by itself, unusual. The question is whether sponsored political content was appropriately disclosed as such. Did the YouTubers and ‘Facebook Live’ personalities identify their content as paid political promotion? And did the ECI flag any such violations?

Political parties are required to submit their full election expenditure statements within 75 days of the completion of an Assembly election and within 90 days of a Lok Sabha election.

The Mamata Banerjee-led erstwhile Trinamool Congress (TMC), meanwhile, is yet to submit its accounts for the election. No official statement was available from the party. Informally, TMC sources attributed the delay to the freezing of bank accounts following the dispute over the party’s split involving MPs and MLAs, multiple police cases and the seizure of documents by investigating agencies.

What has drawn particular attention, however, are the BJP’s annexures. Reflecting the changing nature of election campaigning, the accounts include an entry of Rs 4 lakh spent on ‘nail art’. The filings also, for perhaps the first time in Bengal, bring payments to social media influencers and YouTubers into clear view.

One of the beneficiaries was actor and YouTuber Sayak Chakraborty, who received Rs 2.5 lakh for creating two videos. Chakraborty told the media that one video countered what he described as "false propaganda around SIR", while the other questioned allegations about Prime Minister Narendra Modi’s silence on crucial issues.

Chakraborty’s name has drawn particular attention because of a controversy that erupted around him in January at iconic Park Street restaurant Olypub. Chakraborty had alleged that he ordered a mutton steak but was served beef instead. The incident escalated into a communal and political controversy, with a Muslim waiter arrested following his complaint.

The controversy subsequently became a political talking point, with the BJP amplifying the incident and criticism directed at the TMC government over its handling of the matter.

The media, which extensively amplified the incident at the time, also came under scrutiny over its coverage. Chakraborty had said on camera that he, being a Brahmin, had inadvertently consumed beef. Questions were subsequently raised about why he had continued eating the steak without knowing what meat it contained. The waiter’s account, meanwhile, received far less attention amid the outrage that followed.

The controversy has resurfaced because of the BJP’s election expenditure disclosures. AltNews reported this week that Chakraborty was accompanied at Olypub by fellow social media influencer Sukanta Kundu and Kundu’s female friend. The BJP’s payment list includes the names of Sikha Kundu and Subrata Kundu, identified in the report as Sukanta Kundu’s parents. Sikha Kundu was paid Rs 4.5 lakh and Subrata Kundu Rs 3 lakh.

The disclosures have prompted questions over whether the 30 January complaint by Chakraborty was part of a pre-planned publicity exercise. The restaurant manager had alleged that the incident was deliberately escalated.

“Everything was clear on the very day of the incident. Such a thing had never happened in our 70-75-year-old restaurant. Chakraborty refused to listen to us and made a phone call while still sitting in the restaurant. I saw BJP members arrive and start creating a ruckus. The reasons behind this are more evident now. Hopefully, the waiter Nasimuddin, who is out on bail, will now be proven innocent in the eyes of the law,” the manager said.

Chakraborty, however, denies that there was any connection between the Olypub incident and his subsequent work for the BJP. He says he took down the video when he realised that it was fuelling communal tension and denies suggestions that he was paid by the BJP to create the controversy in January.

He has pointed out that the Rs 2.5 lakh payment was made between March and May, well after the Olypub incident, for two videos produced for the election campaign. Chakraborty has also said that those who subsequently weaponised the Olypub episode to incite communal tension, rather than he, should be held responsible.