The violence in Murshidabad under the guise of Waqf protests since last Friday, has not only claimed the lives of Hindus but left countless families in ruins. Initially, Mamata Banerjee's government turned a blind eye to the chaos, unleashing accusations against the BJP only after the situation spiraled out of control. At an Imam Conference on Wednesday in Kolkata, Banerjee’s rhetoric made it evident that she is ensnared in the depths of Muslim vote bank politics. It begs the question: Is it appropriate for a state's chief minister to take a partisan stance post-riot? Be it Godhra, Muzaffarnagar, Delhi, or Sambhal, was there ever a moment when the government appeared to stand by only one side post-violence? Until now, Banerjee appeared ready to go to great lengths for the 27% Muslim population residing in the state. However, turning a blind eye to crimes against a specific community is unbecoming for someone in a constitutional position.
In times when people are forced to become refugees in their own country, it was essential to support them. Support was needed when violence left families victimized, like those who lost father and son. Addressing an Imam’s conference instead, West Bengal’s Chief Minister is sending out signals that many are questioning. Perhaps Banerjee is forgetting that in politics, one can never predict when bad days might begin. People are observing the heartbreak caused by her actions.
1-Why Was a Call Made for Imams to Preach Peace in Mosques?
At the Imam conference, Mamata Banerjee urged imams to spread the message of peace from mosques. Does she truly believe that peace messages would halt violence, or does it indicate a deeper connection of imams in the chaos? The need for such advisory from Banerjee suggests their involvement. Has Banerjee made an appeal to Hindus? Her silence towards Hindus can only mean either she doesn't regard them as voters or believes Hindus faced undue persecution for which she denies responsibility.
The head of BJP's IT cell,
Amit Malviya, stated on his X handle
'Mamata Banerjee is evidently rattled. When cornered, she resorts to blatant lies.
Today, she dragged in the BSF, blamed the central government, and defended illegal Bangladeshi migrants, who were part of the violent Muslim mob destroying Hindu homes, livelihoods in Murshidabad. The reality? Nearly 400 kilometers of unsecured borders are the result since her government intentionally delayed land necessary for fencing, facilitating unhindered movement of her lungi brigade.
A look at bidi and jute factories in the Malda-Murshidabad belt, controlled by TMC-affiliated Muslim traders, reveal truths: illegal Bangladeshis are regularly employed as cheap labor. They were mobilized to incite violence at their beck.
No word of sympathy came from her for displaced Hindu families, including newborns and newlyweds. Her silence is as conspicuous as her collusion.
She cannot escape responsibility for the communal unrest and tragic loss of innocent lives.
As for her claim of non-implementation of the Waqf Act – it's another untruth. No state government can disregard an act passed by the Indian Parliament. Compliance isn’t optional; it’s mandatory. She made similar claims about the CAA, yet, that too, is a law of the land.
Lastly, a note for the Chief Minister: West Bengal doesn’t border Sri Lanka. In one breath, she managed to distort basic geography and insult public intelligence.'
2-If BJP Comes, Muslims Will Lose Everything; Meat and Fish Sale Banned in Delhi
Today, the key issue for Mamata Banerjee should be peace in Bengal, but politics is her focus. Stirring tensions at an Imam’s conference is hardly justifiable. Banerjee insists peace will ensure prosperity in Bengal. BJP wants polarization to replace her government, she warns, claiming their arrival will cut off traditional food. In Delhi, they’ve outlawed fish and meat in Bengali areas.
Had this been a general assembly or a peace committee of Hindus and Muslims, Banerjee’s words might suggest she speaks against communalism. Imagine, if Yogi Adityanath summoned priests across the state post-Muslim deaths in Sambhal, echoing similar rhetoric, how would UP react? Before the Waqf Amendment Bill, Banerjee provoked the populace with the CAA, yet not a single Muslim has lost citizenship nationwide.
Banerjee attempted to instigate imams over Yogi’s statements. Fortunately, imams recognized Banerjee’s electoral ploy. Yet, if violence breaks out again in West Bengal, Mamata Banerjee will bear sole responsibility.
3-Why Muslim Violence in Mamata's Government When Assam, Kashmir Remain Peaceful?
Suppose there's discontent over the Waqf Board Amendment Act within the Muslim community. Why isn't this discontent evident elsewhere? Uttar Pradesh and Bihar have similar demographics, yet no unrest. In Assam, Muslims make up about 34%, while Kashmir's Muslim population is 68%. Have there been violent reports from these regions? It's clear the Bengal government desires the violence in Murshidabad.
At today's Imam Conference, Mamata's absolute silence against perpetrators signifies her protection of them. Sending a message of impunity will inevitably lead some people towards violence, buoyed by political advantages.
4-Bangladeshi Infiltration: A Central, Not State, Issue
Blaming Bangladeshis for the violence in Murshidabad offers a free pass to the thugs looting shops and malls, torching vehicles post-Friday prayers. Generalizing issues is the easiest policy for diverting attention.
Previously, blaming Pakistan offered an escape from responsibility for events in India. Now, pointing fingers at Bangladesh attempts to shield troublemakers. Mamata Banerjee can't evade culpability by labeling the problem of Bangladeshi infiltration a central issue. Daily administration is state-managed. Ration cards for Aadhaar, address proofs for bank accounts derive from the state government.
5-Striving to Be the Supreme Muslim Leader in the India Bloc, Beyond Congress
Addressing the Imam Conference, Mamata Banerjee stated, 'All parties in the India Bloc ought to resist BJP’s communal politics together.' In recent months, party leaders within the India Bloc have exhibited readiness to cross any boundary to emerge as the protector of Muslims. Mamata doesn’t want to be left behind. Recently, Samajwadi Party Chief Akhilesh Yadav and Mamata Banerjee have bowed to Islamic fundamentalists, speaking volumes. Is the rise of Congress prompting this behavior? Does the 2024 success of Congress spook regional parties into fearing Congress’ resurgence? Do they worry that their core Muslim vote bank might revert to its old allegiance? Indeed, Muslims aligning with Congress may indeed render existential threats to regional parties.
