Assam Chief Minister Himanta Biswa Sarma made a very valid point when he posted on X that in spite of having a higher percentage of Muslim population than Bengal’s, his state saw barely any protests over the passage of the Waqf Amendment Bill in Parliament. This was in context of the violence unleashed by the radicalised members of the minority community over the majority population in Bengal’s Murshidabad district, where the so-called majority, the Hindus are actually in a minority. Things are so bad in the violence-torn areas that the local Hindu population has started fleeing to neighbouring districts, with open threats being issued against them by the marauding mobs. Some of the slogans are eerily similar to those issued by the jihadis to the Kashmiri Pandit community before they fled the Valley in 1990. The question is if Assam can control the situation, why cannot Bengal? The answer, sadly, is simple: it is because the Chief Minister and her administration are either inefficient, or unwilling to control the situation, or both. The serious charge that the BJP is hurling at Mamata Banerjee is that the anti-Waqf violence has her blessings. Even if that is not the case, she is anyway being belligerent and claiming that an Act passed by Indian Parliament will not be implemented in Bengal—it is as if she is the potentate of her own kingdom. In fact, one of her ministers, who is at the forefront of the Waqf protests, Siddiqullah Chowdhury, went to the extent of claiming that the Chief Minister was happy that members of the Muslim community had gathered in such large numbers to protest against the amended Waqf Act. Meanwhile, trouble started in the interiors of Murshidabad district, with mayhem unleashed on Hindus. But the administration did nothing about it. It was only intervention by the Calcutta High Court that led to the deployment of Central forces in the violence hit areas, bringing the situation under control. With the state failing to do its duty, it is being alleged that the violence suits the interests of the Trinmaool Congress, for it diverts attention from one the biggest jobs scams that the country has seen, where 26,000 teachers have lost their jobs because of corruption by the ruling party in the hiring process. With the teachers’ protest getting relegated to the background, it is but natural that questions will arise on the role the state played in the violence getting out of hand.
The larger point is about the radicalisation of a particular community, and the attendant muscle flexing, with open calls being given for conversion—convert or die. Nightmarish situations like this exist in Pakistan and Bangladesh. That this can take place in West Bengal, a mainstream Indian state, is a matter of concern. In fact, there is no justification for this in a secular country. Every Muslim is treated equally as every Hindu by the Indian state. There is no state-mandated discrimination against them, unlike in Muslim countries, where minorities are often treated as second class citizens. So where is the angst coming from? Obviously, it is a case of brainwashing by painting pictures of imagined horrors. What is anti-Muslim about the Waqf Amendment Bill/Act? It is actually about streamlining the administrative process to close the loopholes that make the usurpation of Waqf properties easy. The amended Act has support from many Muslim individuals and groups. But, from all accounts, in Bengal at least the amended Waqf Act has been identified as an attempt to obliterate Muslim identity and existence. But then this suits the state’s ruling party, for it enables it to paint itself as the only saviour of the community, in the face of a supposedly “communal” BJP. Hence, even if Muslims are angry with Mamata’s party—which many of them are, with the rampant corruption and lawlessness on the ground—they do not have any option but to band together behind the Trinamool. Appeasement too has been another tool in the arsenal of Bengal’s political parties—the Left, the TMC and the Congress—to keep the Muslim community happy. It is well known that Mamata Banerjee has prioritised this community over Hindus in more occasions that one. Hence, today, when they turn around and say that Mamata Banerjee is in power because of them, and would dare not take any action against them, it is case of her appeasement policy coming back to haunt her. In the process, it is increasingly looking like that Mamata Banerjee is losing control of the ground to criminals, who run their writ in their respective areas of influence, where even the state apparatus bends to them. This was seen with the now jailed muscleman Sheikh Shajahan during the Sandeshkhali case. Then there is the problem of infiltration from Bangladesh, which is changing the demography of Bengal’s border areas, with the full backing of local politicians. Given the radicalisation that has resurfaced in Bangladesh with the rise of Muhammad Yunus and his band of Jamaatis, the possibility of jihadi elements coming into India to cause trouble has increased manifold. It would not be wrong to say that Bengal is sitting on a powder keg. The present violence is a curtain raiser to what may come if the situation is not brought under control. Worse, the situation in Bengal might endanger the whole country. Mamata Banerjee may be ruling West Bengal, but she cannot treat the state as her personal fiefdom, with zero accountability. She cannot be allowed to play politics with the security of the country.
