Mamata Banerjee playing political games, using anti-social elements for vote bank: BJP's Dilip Jaiswal

IANS April 16, 2025 212 views

Bihar BJP President Dilip Jaiswal has launched a sharp critique of West Bengal Chief Minister Mamata Banerjee's political tactics. He alleges that Banerjee is deliberately using anti-social elements to construct a Muslim vote bank through strategic meetings with religious leaders. The controversy centers around an upcoming Supreme Court hearing on the Waqf Act, which opposition parties claim is discriminatory. Jaiswal defended the legislation, urging the public to give the Act a fair chance and remains open to potential amendments after a year of implementation.

"This is Mamata Banerjee's political game." - Dilip Jaiswal, BJP Bihar President
New Delhi, April 16: Bihar BJP President Dilip Jaiswal reacted sharply to West Bengal Chief Minister Mamata Banerjee’s meeting with Muslim religious leaders on Wednesday and alleged that she was playing the political game using anti-social elements to build her vote bank.

Key Points

1

BJP challenges Mamata's strategy of engaging Muslim religious leadership

2

Waqf Act controversy sparks political debate

3

Supreme Court to hear constitutional validity of legislation

The meeting reportedly aims to formulate a strategy to oppose the Waqf Act in West Bengal.

While speaking with IANS, Jaiswal said, “This is Mamata Banerjee's political game. Muslim brothers never try to establish unrest or promote violence. But to build her vote bank, she is using people with an anti-social mindset."

CM Banerjee and her party, Trinbamool Congress, have openly criticised the Centre’s approach to religious and minority rights, and Wednesday’s meeting is expected to finalise a roadmap for 'legal and public resistance'.

In another development, the Supreme Court is scheduled to hear a significant case on Wednesday regarding the constitutional validity of the Waqf Act; ahead of it, Dilip Jaiswal urged people to give the Act at least a year.

He stated that if improvements are needed after that time, the government is open to making amendments.

Opposition parties have filed a petition demanding the annulment of the Act, claiming it is discriminatory and lacks a proper legal framework. The case is likely to have wide-reaching implications for religious endowments and community rights across the country.

Dilip Jaiswal addressed the issue ahead of the hearing in the Supreme Court, defending the legislation and urging the public to give it time.

“You can see that the Waqf Board was formed through a democratic process for the welfare of Pasmanda Muslims, poor Muslims and to free the board from those who had long controlled it. A Joint Parliamentary Committee (JPC) was constituted, opinions were taken from crores of people, and extensive discussions were held in both Houses of Parliament. Only after that was this law brought in,” Jaiswal said.

He added a comparison to the Citizenship Amendment Act (CAA), saying, “My appeal to the people is, take a look at this law for one year, just as we did with the CAA. At that time, an atmosphere of fear was created among Muslim brothers across the country. If, after one year, you feel improvements are needed, we are open to amendments.”

Reader Comments

R
Rahul K.
This is getting ridiculous now. Every election season, politicians start playing the religion card. When will we focus on real issues like jobs and infrastructure? 🤦‍♂️
S
Sunita P.
I appreciate Jaiswal's suggestion to give the Act a year before judging. Laws need time to show their impact. The constant politicization of every issue is exhausting for common citizens.
A
Amit R.
Respectfully disagree with the BJP leader here. The Waqf Act has legitimate concerns that need addressing. Calling all opposition "vote bank politics" is oversimplifying complex issues.
P
Priya M.
Why are we always pitting communities against each other? Can't we have a civilized discussion about laws without the usual drama? 🙄
M
Mohsin A.
As a Muslim, I find this constant portrayal of our community as a "vote bank" extremely offensive. We're citizens with genuine concerns, not political pawns.
N
Neha T.
The comparison with CAA seems forced. Different laws, different contexts. Let's evaluate each policy on its own merits rather than drawing these parallels.

We welcome thoughtful discussions from our readers. Please keep comments respectful and on-topic.

Leave a Comment

Your email won't be published

Tags:
You May Like!