Sharp criticism has intensified over Mamata Banerjee’s refusal to comment on the Babri Masjid dispute after senior Congress figure Adhir Ranjan Chowdhury accused the West Bengal chief minister of avoiding a politically sensitive matter. Chowdhury, who leads his party in the Lok Sabha, argued that her silence on the demolition of the structure and the broader political discourse surrounding it raises questions about her stance at a time when several national leaders are openly addressing the issue.
Chowdhury’s remarks have added a new layer of friction between the Congress and the Trinamool Congress as both parties continue to navigate a strained relationship shaped by electoral competition and contrasting political narratives. While the dispute over the Babri Masjid dates back decades, its presence in national debate has been amplified following comments by leaders across the political spectrum and ongoing discussions about historical accountability, legal outcomes and political positioning. Chowdhury said the public deserved greater clarity, arguing that Banerjee, as a prominent national voice, should articulate her perspective instead of remaining silent.
Banerjee has built her political identity around secular messaging and vocal opposition to communal polarisation, prompting opponents to suggest that her refusal to address the Babri matter contradicts the spirit of her stated principles. Her party, however, maintains that she has consistently spoken in support of harmony and constitutional values, suggesting that selectively responding to political provocation risks feeding polarising narratives at a time when tensions remain pronounced. TMC figures have countered the Congress line by noting that Chowdhury has regularly targeted their leadership, particularly since the two parties diverged in their electoral strategies.
The exchange comes at a moment when national parties continue to recalibrate their messaging ahead of state contests and broader political realignments. Both Congress and TMC have been asserting competing claims to the opposition space in West Bengal, with their rivalry becoming increasingly evident in public statements and legislative interactions. Analysts note that the Congress leader’s comments reflect a calculated attempt to corner Banerjee on an emotive issue that continues to influence political debate, even decades after the demolition and years after the Supreme Court’s verdict allowing construction of a Ram temple at the site.
Chowdhury has been one of Banerjee’s most persistent critics, frequently questioning her leadership decisions and the TMC’s governance record. His latest intervention aligns with his broader strategy of challenging her secular credentials, a tactic that Congress supporters argue is necessary to expose contradictions in TMC’s political communication. Chowdhury stressed that silence from a leader of Banerjee’s stature could shape public perceptions, particularly in a state known for its strong political engagement and complex religious dynamics.
Banerjee’s allies view the Congress attack as an attempt to regain relevance in the state, where the party’s organisational strength has weakened over successive election cycles. TMC leaders argue that Chowdhury’s focus on symbolic controversies distracts from governance challenges and economic issues affecting the state. They also accuse Congress of indirectly benefiting the ruling party at the national level by fragmenting the opposition landscape instead of consolidating efforts in parliament and on the ground.
Political observers suggest that the latest confrontation is also rooted in shifting alliances within the broader opposition bloc. As parties continue to negotiate their roles and responsibilities in future national coalitions, comments on sensitive historical issues serve both as pressure tactics and as signals of ideological positioning. Chowdhury’s question — why Banerjee will not speak — has become a focal point in this exchange, directing attention to the strategic calculations behind public silence and selective engagement.
Legal experts note that while the Babri dispute has formally passed through all major judicial stages, its symbolic weight remains substantial. The political use of the issue has continued through campaign rhetoric, parliamentary debate and public commentary. Chowdhury’s challenge to Banerjee taps into this persistent relevance, drawing on a narrative that political leaders must not avoid questions of historical accountability. He argued that silence could be interpreted as indecision at a time when clarity is expected from anyone seeking national leadership space.
Babri-style mosque ceremony stokes Bengal tensions 