Mamata's opposition to Citizenship Act presents big opportunity to BJP

Banerjee is not in favour of giving citizenship to Hindus, Buddhists from Bangladesh

South Dinajpur protest pti Protesters belonging to the Muslim community hold placards during a protest against the passing of Citizenship Amendment Bill, at Fulbari in South Dinajpur district | PTI

After Assam, the passage of the Citizenship (Amendment) Act has resulted in violent protests in West Bengal. The violence continued amid political mudslinging between West Bengal Chief Minister Mamata Banerjee and the BJP.

While the BJP is being accused of trying to polarise the Hindu votes through the Citizenship Act, the saffron party alleges that Banerjee is trying to polarise the entire Muslim population of West Bengal, who constitute around 28 per cent of the population.

West Bengal BJP unit president Dilip Ghosh said, “Her nature is to oppose everything the Centre does. But she would fall in line.”

However, for West Bengal, politics from both sides is dangerous as the state shares a border with Bangladesh that spans more than 2,000 km.

While denouncing the Citizenship (Amendment) Act, Banerjee clearly pointed out that she is not in favour of giving citizenship to Hindus and Buddhists who came from Bangladesh from 1971 to 2014. The BJP is going to make it a major political issue.

Banerjee is planning to hold mammoth rallies in Kolkata on two consecutive days—Monday and Tuesday—in order to call for ban on the Citizenship (Amendment) Act in her state. The BJP, on the other hand, has planned a statewide movement to call for giving citizenship to Hindus and Buddhists coming from Bangladesh.

At Digha, on Friday, Banerjee said, “Neither CAB nor NRC would be implemented in Bengal.”

Around 2.5 crore non-Muslim people crossed over to West Bengal from Bangladesh between 1971 and 2014. There are five states, so far, that have opposed the Citizenship (Amendment) Act and half-dozen people have gone to the Supreme Court against the passing of the “partisan” legislation.

The call for a movement from Banerjee emboldened a section of radicals in West Bengal who took to the streets in Murshidabad, Howrah, North 24 Parganas and parts of Kolkata on Friday protesting the Citizenship (Amendment) Act. They blocked railway lines, burnt the office of station masters, threw stones at buses plying on the roads and burnt tyres in the streets.

Many districts of south Bengal have come to a standstill after the violent protests over the Citizenship (Amendment) Act. However, West Bengal Police sent a contingent to every place to control the mob. BJP leaders were attacked in Midnapore and some places in North 24 Parganas as well.

West Bengal Governor Jagdeep Dhankhar also asked people to show restraint and called for peace.

Known for his controversial remarks, Dhankhar said, “It's no more a bill, but an act now, which is applicable all over India. The states that are opposing it are doing a great mistake by not abiding by law of the land.”

Moreover, some people feel chief ministers of five states are making a big mistake by putting both CAB and NRC on the same level.

"By asking for non-implementation, they (Banerjee, Pinarayi Vijayan and others) are taking an anti-Hindu stand. It would help BJP politically. This is an act just to give citizenship to Hindus, Sikh, Christians, Buddhists and others, except Muslims, coming from Muslim countries. There is nothing wrong in it," argues Sumanta Gupta, a college teacher in Kolkata.

He added, “However, they have every right to oppose the NRC, which is meant to drive out Muslims from India. We should all raise our voice against it.”

Banerjee refused to buy such an argument and perhaps is driven by the politics, which could mar the state in the new year. With parties like the Congress, Left Front and TMC on the streets of West Bengal against giving citizenship to over 2.5 crore Hindus and Buddhists, the BJP would get a major opportunity to polarise the voters.

Also, critics of Banerjee's stance argue that giving citizenship is the prerogative of the Central government, not the state government. So the state government's opposition is meaningless, the critics contend.