Mamata raises questions on terror attacks in Delhi and Kashmir, demands Amit Shah’s resignation

West Bengal Chief Minister Mamata Banerjee's recent statement, questioning Union Home Minister Amit Shah over terror attacks in Delhi and Kashmir and demanding his resignation, brings to the forefront critical issues concerning national security, centre-state relations, and political accountability in India. This incident is not merely a political spat but a reflection of deeper challenges in governance and internal security.

The **background context** for this statement lies in the ongoing political rivalry between the Trinamool Congress (TMC), led by Mamata Banerjee, and the Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP). The BJP has consistently accused the West Bengal government of failing to curb illegal infiltration from Bangladesh, often linking it to demographic changes and security threats. Simultaneously, the BJP-led central government has faced scrutiny over its handling of security in Jammu and Kashmir, especially after the abrogation of Article 370 in 2019, which was projected to bring greater stability. The mention of 'Pahalgam attack' and an attack in Delhi points to recent security incidents, which the opposition uses to challenge the government's narrative of robust national security.

**What happened** specifically was that CM Banerjee challenged the BJP's selective focus on infiltration in Bengal while questioning the central government's efficacy in preventing terror incidents in other parts of the country, particularly Kashmir and Delhi. By demanding Amit Shah's resignation, she directly targeted the Union Home Minister, who is responsible for internal security, intelligence agencies, and border management.

**Key stakeholders** involved include: **Mamata Banerjee** and the **Trinamool Congress**, representing a prominent opposition voice and a state government often at loggerheads with the Centre. Their motivation is to hold the central government accountable, highlight perceived failures, and counter the BJP's narrative, especially concerning border security in West Bengal. **Amit Shah** and the **BJP-led Central Government** are the primary targets of this criticism. As the Union Home Minister, Shah is directly responsible for India's internal security architecture, including intelligence gathering (IB, RAW), central armed police forces (BSF, CRPF), and counter-terrorism efforts (NIA). The central government's narrative focuses on strong national security and effective border management, which Banerjee's statement challenges. The **Indian electorate** is another crucial stakeholder, as public perception of national security and governmental competence often influences electoral outcomes.

**Why this matters for India** is multifaceted. Firstly, it underscores the persistent challenges of **national security and internal security** within India. Despite significant efforts, the country continues to grapple with cross-border terrorism, infiltration, and radicalization. Secondly, it highlights the often-strained **centre-state relations**, particularly when different political parties govern at the state and central levels. National security is a shared responsibility, but 'law and order' is a state subject (Entry 2, State List, Seventh Schedule), while 'defence of India' and 'armed forces' are Union subjects (Entries 1 & 2, Union List, Seventh Schedule). This division often leads to blame games rather than collaborative solutions. **Article 355** of the Constitution places a duty on the Union to protect every State against external aggression and internal disturbance, making the Centre ultimately responsible for overall national security. However, the operationalization of this duty often involves state police forces, creating a complex interplay. Thirdly, it reflects the nature of **political discourse** in India, where national security issues frequently become points of political contention, especially in the run-up to elections, impacting policy formulation and implementation.

Historically, both the India-Pakistan border (especially in J&K) and the India-Bangladesh border (significant in West Bengal) have been porous, leading to issues of infiltration and cross-border crimes. The issue of illegal immigration from Bangladesh has been a long-standing concern, often politicized, with different political parties adopting varying stances. Similarly, Kashmir has been a hotbed of militancy and terror attacks for decades, with various governments facing challenges in maintaining peace and security. The **Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act (UAPA)**, enacted in 1967 and amended multiple times, is the principal law to deal with terrorist activities in India, granting significant powers to the central government. The **Border Security Force (BSF)**, under the Ministry of Home Affairs, is primarily responsible for guarding India's land borders with Pakistan and Bangladesh.

The **future implications** of such political exchanges are significant. They could lead to increased scrutiny of the Home Ministry's performance and potentially influence future policy decisions regarding border management, intelligence sharing, and counter-terrorism strategies. Politically, such statements contribute to the narrative building for upcoming elections, with national security often being a key agenda point. It also emphasizes the need for greater cooperation between central and state agencies to effectively tackle security threats, transcending political differences for the larger national interest.

In essence, Banerjee's statement encapsulates the complex interplay of federalism, national security challenges, and competitive politics in India, making it a crucial topic for understanding contemporary Indian governance.