By Arun Srivastava
West Bengal Chief Minister Suvendu Adhikari, like Assam politician and two-time CM Himanta Biswa Sarma, also a former Congressman like Adhikari, instead of operating as a mere defector, is adopting aggressive, high-profile enforcement mechanisms for a more exacting and uncompromising brand of Hindutva politics. His excessive assertion of newfound Hindutva exposes the fragility of the so-called ‘secular’ forces that are now frantically shifting towards the “ideological contours of saffron” under Amit Shah’s leadership. His desperation reminds one of the famous Bengali saying: নতুনমোল্লাঅনেকপেঁয়াজখায় (A convert is more Catholic than the Pope).
Sarma and Adhikari are now not merely defectors; they have emerged as the fulcrum of the saffron structure and system in their respective states. Adhikari, like Sarma, is now central to the BJP’s model of political expansion. Both don’t represent the cadres, which have long been the backbone of the party. The party that once took pride in patient cadre-building, ideological discipline and the painstaking labour of organisational network, is now dependent on such defector leaders for winning previously unconquered states. Claims of the scholars of Hindu nationalism that the BJP’s strength cannot be understood without the organisational depth, ideological training and associational infrastructure of the wider Sangh Parivar,now stand on shaky grounds, if not altogether binned. Sarma and Adhikari have virtually changed the meaning of turncoats, the word which reduces cannily-executed political strategy to a moral judgement about individual loyalty, or lack of such. One thing is certain that leaders like Sarma and Adhikari would change the basic character and nature of the BJP itself.
Their dominance has started showing its influence. Three days back, Trinamool Congress (TMC) MP Mahua Moitra took the issue of three senior Muslim officials in West Bengal—Siliguri Police Commissioner Waquar Raza, STF Chief Jawed Shamim, and IAS officer Khalil Ahmed—being asked to leave or told not to attend official security and protocol events during Union Home Minister Amit Shah’s visits to the state in July and August, to the UN Special Rapporteur on Minority Issues (UNSRMI), Nicolas Levrat. Moitra claimed this exclusion was strictly discriminatory and based on their religious identity. Neither the Modi government nor West Bengal Chief Minister Suvendu Adhikari issued any denial that the Muslim officers were not intentionally barred from attending official events because of their religion.
Some BJP leaders, nevertheless, countered that she has not publicly established any evidence proving the officers were excluded due to their religion. But there was no taker of their denial. They argue that the scheduling, administrative presence, and security duties of police deployment during high-profile VVIP visits follow routine administrative protocols, rather than communal selection. According to them, it is merely political rhetoric and allegation on Moitra’s part. Contrary to this, Moitra claimed that the alleged exclusion involved officers whose presence was connected to official protocol and the conduct of government business during the Union Home Minister’s scheduled visits.
Ironically, a complaint was later filed against Moitra over the letter to UNSRMI, following which the cybercrime police summoned her for questioning. The UN Special Rapporteur on Minority Issues is an independent human rights expert appointed by the United Nations Human Rights Council to raise global awareness, identify obstacles, and protect the rights of national, ethnic, religious, and linguistic minorities.
Moitra alleged that the officers were excluded while their counterparts belonging to other faiths were allowed to participate in the events.”The one factor these three officers share, and the one factor that sets them apart from the colleagues who were permitted to remain, is their religion,” she alleged in the letter. The TMC MP claimed that the alleged exclusion involved officers whose presence was connected to official protocol and the conduct of government business during the Union Home Minister’s visits.
Moitra had earlier alleged that Waquar Raza was barred from the welcome lineup when Shah was present, while Jawed Shamim was not invited to events attended by him. She had also alleged that Khalil Ahmed was made to leave a meeting. In her letter, Moitra described the alleged incidents as a pattern of “deliberate exclusion” and said such conduct could have wider implications for the confidence of minority communities in the police and security establishment. There is no reason to disbelieve the accusations of Moitra, moreover when she dared to take the matter to the UNSRMI. She cited provisions of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, alleging that the reported conduct was discriminatory.
In this backdrop, it is worth mentioning that the United States Commission on International Religious Freedom (USCIRF) has already urged the US government to revoke the visa of Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh (RSS) chief Mohan Bhagwat and implement targeted sanctions against RSS members for denial of religious freedom to minorities in India. Panel Chair Asif Mahmood had requested that Washington withhold high-level diplomatic courtesies and meetings from RSS leadership and also categorized the RSS as an organization responsible for escalating violence and discrimination against minority groups.
On a broader canvas, Amit Shah was implementing the principle of RSS’s rightist Hindutva philosophy. Following the proverbial elephant’s tooth maxim, while Bhagwat has engaged in public outreach toward Muslim communities to foster social cohesion, Amit Shah has been publicly following the exclusionary policy and does not miss a single opportunity to demean the community and threaten them of consequences. Bhagwat’s recent high-profile meetings with Muslim intellectuals and clerics and his observation, the DNA of all Indians is the same and that Islam faces no threat in India, purely aims at fooling secular Indians, especially the liberal Hindus. He wants to portray his image of a liberal democrat who cares for communal harmony and is sincerely interested in protecting Muslims’ dignity. The task to humiliate and terrorise minorities has been entrusted to Amit Shah, through his usual rhetoric of implementing Uniform Civil Code, Citizenship Amendment Act (CAA), National Register of Citizens (NRC) and accusing them of being ghuspetiyas and termites.
Shah understands that while the saffron ecosystem cannot force Muslims to leave India, it can nevertheless turn them into second-class citizens in their own country. The saffron strategy to weaponise traditions, Indian social structure and institutions,imposing the hegemony of the “Hindi-Hindu belt” template for its cultural messaging, is aimed at such an objective. Following Shah, Sarma and Adhikari have altered their regional strongman identity to more suit the hardline Hindutva ideology and discourage local sub-nationalism antithetical to the Hindu nationalist project.
In West Bengal, Suvendu framed his governance not just through economic promises, but as a direct cultural reclamation project, launching “Gerua Samman Yatras” (Respect Saffron Marches) and explicitly warning institutions and media platforms against insulting “saffron ideology”.
Leaders like Sarma and Adhikari represent a highly ambitious generation of saffron leadership, who are not under limited moral constraints of the old-school RSS. Because they did not grow up within the traditional organisational structures of the Sangh, their adherence to the ideology is purely performative. Suvendu’s governance, enforcing strict regulations, mandating cultural shifts in education, and heavily policing opposition spaces, serves as absolute proof of loyalty to BJP’ central high command. Amit Shah’s primary organisational objective has always been the complete, absolute expansion of the BJP and to achieve his mission he does not hesitate to dismantle and smash the basic democratic functioning and character of India.
By empowering the local Hindutva satrapies to run hard-right, polarised administrations, Amit Shah achieves a dual goal: he secures critical border states under the banner of “national security”, while demonstrating that anyone—regardless of their political past—can become a vanguard of the saffron project if they deliver results.
The impact of Suvendu Adhikari’s political rhetoric on the culturally and socially influential bhadralok Bengalis (the traditional educated, middle-to-upper-class elite), is quite evident. A major segment of the bhadralok, historically supportive of secular or left-leaning parties, has grown increasingly concerned over allegations of minority appeasement and cross-border demographic changes under the Trinamool Congress (TMC) rule. The bhadralok is not a monolith. While some members prioritise secularism, constitutional propriety, and syncretism, most of them favourAdhikari’s hardline stance.
The issue which has most affected them is shift in Kolkata’s urban landscape, leading to a profound sense of cultural and spatial displacement. Over the last few decades, demographic changes, economic shifts, and aggressive real estate development have seen many traditional families vacate their ancestral homes in prime areas of Kolkata and migrate to expanding suburbs like Salt Lake, Rajarhat, New Town, or Garia. This transition often brings a complex mix of disillusionment, nostalgia, and quiet resentment. Many heritage homes in Calcutta are being sold to non-Bengali promoters, to be replaced by high-rise luxury apartments that are financially out of reach for the traditional bhadralok population. The influx of affluent non-Bengali communities into the city’s commercial and residential cores has altered the linguistic and cultural fabric of Kolkata’s premium neighbourhoods. The bhadralok often feels their cultural capital (literature, adda, classical arts) being overshadowed by a new, purely commerce-driven ethos. Though the suburbs offer modern amenities, planned layouts, and cleaner environments, they lack the organic community life of old Calcutta. Moving to the fringes creates a literal and psychological distance from the cultural nerve centers of the city—such as College Street, Nandan, or Academy of Fine Arts.
Dipankar Bhattacharya, general secretary of the CPI(ML) Liberation, has sharply criticised Suvendu Adhikari over political developments, governance, and aggressive right-wing tactics in Bengal. He has criticised statements and actions attributed to Adhikari, viewing them as signs of democratic erosion and heavy-handed executive control. He has condemned moves by the administration in West Bengal targeting autonomous spaces like Jadavpur University, pointing to measures backed by Adhikari aimed at curbing dissent under the guise of fighting “Naxalism”. A progressive Jadavpur University would not serve the interest of the new settlers. Bhattacharya views Adhikari as a central figure in the BJP’s expansion in Bengal, warning that the opposition must actively resist these political shifts rather than adopt a wait-and-see approach.
Consolidating the saffron base and countering alleged “appeasement”, Adhikari’s political identity within the BJP is anchored to his complete opposition to the TMC and Mamata Banerjee. By leading high-octane campaigns focused on “Hindus in danger” peg, he is striving to position himself as a protector of the majority community in the state. This is the primary reason that he has actively moulded his governance style after hardline leaders like Uttar Pradesh Chief Minister Yogi Adityanath and Assam Chief Minister Himanta Biswa Sarma. By adopting visual and rhetorical elements like wearing saffron kurtas, sporting a tilak, and pushing for “Sanatan rule,” he tries to position himself as nationalist and protector Hindu interest with the intentions to gain a prominent position in the national hierarchy of the saffron ecosystem. (IPA Service)
