The ECI’s exercise of locating illegal immigrants is being branded by her as an attack on Bengali speaking people, an ‘India against Bengal’ narrative so as to weaken her opposition BJP.
New Delhi: India’s Supreme Court recently observed that encouragement given to regionalism by political parties is dangerous to the unity and integrity of India. The bench of Justice Surya Kant and Justice Joymalya Bagchi criticised the tendency of regional parties to openly promote regionalism and seek votes during elections. The honourable Justices felt that such open promotion of regionalism is a greater threat to the nation than even communalism.
The problem is the target political parties and their leaders pay little heed to such wise observations and carry on notwithstanding. This was seen when Trinamool supremo and West Bengal Chief Minister Mamata Banerjee in a public meeting on 21 July arrogantly denounced the Election Commission of India (ECI) for its move on Special Intensive Revision (SIR) of electoral rolls. She threatened to engage in protest movement when the EC starts SIR in West Bengal.
Currently, the same is going on in Bihar where more than 50 lakh untraced voters were located and deleted from the electoral rolls. This is just one recent example of Mamata Banerjee’s shrill protest over Constitutional bodies or national legislations.
She cried foul of a Home Ministry directive to all states on identification and deportation of illegal Bangladeshi immigrants. The notice mentioned that the process had to be supervised by identified nodal officers selected from different Central forces. State officials were asked to report to these nodal officers. Mamata Banerjee objected to this since there was no assigned role of the state police. She winked at the fact that citizenship is a Central subject. Clearly, her regional aspiration contradicted even the constitutional provisions.
So strongly bitter is her feeling to the national government that she claimed that the entire move of the Centre is aimed at all Bengali speaking residents of India. What she forgot to mention is that illegal immigrants from Bangladesh were being identified in states like Tamil Nadu, Karnataka, and Punjab where opposition parties are ruling.
When rest of Indian states can join the national government in identifying and evicting illegal immigrants, why did Mamata Banerjee play regional victimhood card? The honourable judges of the Supreme Court had pointed out that such regionalism is a threat to India as a nation. Sadly, a veteran politician like Mamata Banerjee has been so concerned of her committed voters that she raises her voice against a sane move of the Centre.
The exercise of locating illegal immigrants is being branded by her as an attack on Bengali speaking people—an “India against Bengal” narrative so as to weaken her opposition BJP, a national party.
What is curious is that Bengal had taught nationalism to rest of India in the late 19th century and now nearly 170 years later is taking a lead role in regionalism even at the cost of national unity. Why did Bengal change its course?
V.S. Naipaul once observed, “Bengal was the economic and intellectual leader of India till it discovered Marxism. It discovered Marxism and like poor Russia in 1917, committed suicide. The economic lead of Bengal has vanished and so has the cultural lead.” Since then 20 years have elapsed. Marxism has yielded place to Mamataism.
West Bengal has slid further down both economically and culturally. Yet the state maintains its record of electing the same political party that takes them downhill. First the Left ruled for 34 years and now Mamata Banerjee is completing her third five-year term.
There is no new industry, infrastructure in the state lags behind competing states in the country, and quality of education, which was once arguably the best in India, is now clearly the worst. The working age population mostly migrate to other states where there is growth, therefore jobs. Yet Mamata Banerjee claims that Bengali speaking people are being harassed elsewhere.
Basically, the illegal immigrants, mostly from Bangladesh and Rohingyas from Myanmar vote for anti-national regional parties who protect their interest. They receive ration card, voter ID and Aadhaar card on arrival so that they manage to move to states where there is work.
This turns the nation vulnerable, hence states have joined hands with the Union to identify and deport such elements. But such a move means loss of committed voters for the regional parties in many states who rely on Muslim votes.
The leading national party BJP is viewed unfavourably as a Hindu party by such Muslim illegal immigrants. The problem for the regional party in West Bengal is acute since the state offers easy passage to these immigrants and its ruling party has emerged as their darling.
If such people are disenfranchised and deported, the ruling Trinamool is likely to lose huge, committed votes. Hence, Mamata Banerjee has threatened agitation against SIR in West Bengal, which is expected to start from 1 August.
The result of SIR in Bihar has sent the non-BJP opposition to rush to the Supreme Court so as to stop SIR. These parties are obstructing Parliament session also.
Deletion of 50 lakh or more names from electoral rolls in Bihar means loss of those many votes for opposition. The number of possible such deletion in West Bengal is estimated to be much more than those of Bihar. Hence there is panic in TMC.
Given its failure to offer good governance, the ruling TMC banks on anti-BJP voters, mostly illegal immigrants made legal by generous card offers from the state administration. With SIR of ECI this vote bank will evaporate and perhaps the party will stare at a loss in next year’s Assembly elections.
When a national party takes over the rule of West Bengal, aggressive regionalism will finally go. The state will join the rest of India and enjoy the growth that many states today are enjoying. Perhaps West Bengal will eventually come out of the darkness it was consigned to in the last 49 years of anti-national political rule.
*Sugato Hazra is a political analyst.*
