The town of Beldanga in West Bengal’s Murshidabad district erupted into political controversy after suspended Trinamool Congress MLA Humayun Kabir laid the foundation stone for a mosque complex styled as a Babri Masjid replica on December 6, 2025—symbolically timed with the 33rd anniversary of the demolition in Ayodhya. What began as a ceremonial event quickly spiraled into a state-wide flashpoint, drawing scrutiny from political parties, courts, and security agencies against the backdrop of an already sensitive communal climate.
A Monument and a Message
Kabir, formerly representing the Rejinagar constituency, launched an ambitious Rs 300-crore development plan that includes not only a mosque but also a 300-bed hospital, medical college, school, hotel, and helipad across a sprawling 25-bigha site. The scale, symbolism, and timing turned the project into a mobilizing moment. Tens of thousands assembled for the ceremony, with supporters carrying bricks and donations along NH-12 as a symbolic gesture of “correcting historical injustice.”
Once donations opened, contributions surged dramatically: Rs 2.85 crore was raised in just two days through cash boxes and bank transfers. The collections—counted live online for “transparency”—fueled both enthusiasm among supporters and concerns among critics who viewed the spectacle as provocative political theatre.
Political Fallout and Escalating Tensions
The Trinamool Congress severed ties with Kabir days before the event, accusing him of pursuing divisive politics despite repeated warnings. Kabir retaliated publicly, announcing plans to launch his own political outfit and contest over 100 seats in the next elections. The BJP, led locally by Arjun Singh, condemned the mosque project as a deliberate attempt to inflame communal sentiments.
Security forces—over 2,000 personnel—were deployed across Beldanga to prevent flare-ups. This atmosphere of confrontation deepened when videos circulated showing excavators arriving near the site, fueling speculation of possible demolition. Although no demolition occurred, the “bulldozer narrative” echoed political strategies seen in Uttar Pradesh and intensified public anxiety.
Judicial Interventions: What the Courts Have Said
Legal challenges began even before the foundation-laying ceremony. Multiple petitions urged the Calcutta High Court to halt the event, claiming that invoking the name “Babri Masjid,” particularly on December 6, constituted hate speech and posed a danger to social peace. Petitioners also sought punitive action against Kabir for allegedly inflammatory remarks.
Court’s Position So Far
A division bench led by Acting Chief Justice Sujoy Paul refused to stay the ceremony. The reasoning was clear: at this stage, the court would not impose prior restraint on a religious gathering when the matter primarily concerned law-and-order management, a domain of the state government.
The bench recorded the government’s assurance of heavy police deployment, alongside the Centre’s offer of paramilitary units, and placed full responsibility for maintaining peace on the administration.
Conditions and Future Scope
Kabir submitted an undertaking that the programme would remain peaceful and that he would refrain from inciting tensions. While the court did not deem the project illegal, it left the door open for future proceedings if actual breaches—such as hate speech, public disorder, or land-use violations—occur.
Importantly, the High Court has issued no demolition orders; bulldozer narratives remain political speculation, not judicial action.
A Symptom of Larger Fault Lines
The Murshidabad dispute reveals far more than a single construction controversy—it exposes deepening political rivalries, fragile communal balances, and the evolving role of courts in managing sensitive religious flashpoints. As West Bengal enters an election-heavy period, the project risks becoming a lightning rod for polarization. The legal system has adopted a cautious stance, placing responsibility squarely on the state while avoiding premature intervention. Whether this approach ensures stability or merely postpones further conflict will depend on political restraint, administrative readiness, and adherence to the commitments made before the court.
(With agency inputs)
