The eastern district of Murshidabad in West Bengal has become the epicenter of a devastating crisis, following violent protests against the recently passed Waqf (Amendment) Bill. The legislation, which was cleared by Parliament and received presidential assent, has sparked widespread unrest across multiple states, but nowhere has it escalated as dangerously as in Bengal. The situation has now turned tragic, with at least three confirmed fatalities, over 150 arrests, and several districts in disarray due to escalating communal tensions and a failure of administrative foresight. The unrest has brought into sharp focus the underlying political, social, and administrative challenges that Bengal faces.
The Waqf Bill has become a highly contentious issue, particularly in Muslim-majority areas of the state such as Murshidabad, where critics argue it infringes upon religious autonomy and threatens to undermine longstanding minority institutions. The proposed amendments are viewed by many as an attempt to centralize control over religious endowments and assets, a move that some feel could weaken community-based institutions. These fears have led to large-scale protests, which in some districts have descended into violence and lawlessness.
Murshidabad, Malda, South 24 Parganas, and Hooghly have witnessed intense demonstrations, some of which have turned into riots. Protesters, in their fury, have set fire to police vehicles, blocked roads, and clashed violently with security personnel. The protests have taken a deadly turn, with a 16-year-old boy being shot by police in Suti, a town in Murshidabad. In Samserganj, also in the district, a father and son were killed at their home during the unrest, further fueling the outrage.
The state government, led by Chief Minister Mamata Banerjee, has been vocal in its opposition to the Waqf legislation. Banerjee has consistently declared that her government will neither enforce nor support the implementation of the law in Bengal. This position is likely to resonate with the Muslim community, a significant voter base for her Trinamool Congress (TMC). However, her government’s failure to anticipate the scale of the unrest, coupled with an inadequate response in the early stages of the protests, has raised serious questions about the state's ability to manage such crises.
Early warning signs of trouble—such as road blockages in Purulia and clashes in surrounding areas—were seemingly ignored by the administration. It was only after images of burning buses and violent clashes flooded social media that the state sought help from the central government. By then, the violence had spread beyond the state's immediate control, and efforts to contain the situation were too little, too late.
The BJP, seeing an opportunity to exploit the situation, quickly accused the TMC government of minority appeasement and turning a blind eye to rioters in exchange for electoral benefits. The party’s leaders pointed to the approaching state assembly elections in 2026, suggesting that the Mamata government was hesitant to take action for fear of alienating Muslim voters. The BJP also blamed the central government, with Congress leader Rashid Alvi accusing the BJP-led government of deliberately creating the crisis by passing the Waqf law, which he argued was designed to provoke communal tensions.
The BJP’s criticisms, however, are not without their own contradictions. Recent comments made by BJP leader Suvendu Adhikari, in which he declared that all Muslim legislators from the TMC would be expelled if the BJP won the 2026 state election, have been seen by many as communally inflammatory. Despite the controversial nature of these remarks, no legal or administrative action has been taken against Adhikari, leading to accusations that the BJP is strategically using communal rhetoric to stoke tensions for political gain.
The violence that has erupted in Murshidabad and beyond is deeply concerning. While peaceful protest is an essential democratic right, the violent methods employed—such as arson, mob violence, and targeted killings—are indefensible. The Border Security Force (BSF) has reported being attacked with petrol bombs and gunfire from rooftops, suggesting that the protests were not just spontaneous reactions, but were in fact orchestrated to some extent. The use of firearms by demonstrators is particularly alarming, raising concerns about the preparedness of the security forces to handle such a volatile situation.
As the violence spread and the death toll rose, the state government resorted to cutting off internet access in the affected regions and implementing prohibitory measures under the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita 2023. Bengal’s Director General of Police, Rajeev Kumar, was dispatched to Murshidabad, and the number of arrests quickly surpassed 150. However, critics argue that these measures were largely reactive and inadequate, failing to prevent the initial outbreak of violence.
There is also growing discontent within the state bureaucracy, with some insiders claiming that the intelligence agencies had predicted unrest but failed to act on the information. Senior officials have privately attributed the escalation to bureaucratic inefficiency and a lack of political will to act decisively. This internal discord suggests a serious breakdown in governance, particularly in a state that prides itself on its grassroots intelligence network.
In an attempt to quell the unrest, Mamata Banerjee has reached out to religious leaders and clerics, seeking their help in restoring calm. While this initiative is welcome, it came after the violence had already caused significant damage. Moreover, Banerjee's categorical refusal to implement the Waqf law has sparked a constitutional debate: Once a bill is passed by Parliament and signed by the President, can a state refuse to enforce it? This standoff between the state and central government over the law is just one example of the growing tensions between opposition-led states and the BJP-led Centre, particularly around issues of religion, governance, and federalism.
The violence in Murshidabad is a product of political brinkmanship, communal incitement, and administrative negligence. The protesters, claiming to defend religious freedom, have resorted to violence, undermining their own cause. Meanwhile, political leaders who stoke division for electoral gain are failing to fulfill their responsibilities to the public. The most sobering reality is that if political polarization becomes a deliberate strategy rather than a point of conflict, Bengal’s political landscape may be irrevocably changed. What was once a state known for its legacy of resistance could become a battleground for manufactured crises, where the political contest is no longer about ideologies, but about playing on the fears and divisions of the electorate. Whether Bengal can return to its roots of principled governance or whether it will descend further into political chaos will depend on the actions of its leaders and the collective will of its people.
