Confusion over verification procedures and competing political claims leave thousands anxious about their citizenship status and voting rights.

Baby Chakraborty, KalimNews,November 28, 2025, Kolkata :  The political environment in West Bengal has entered a tense and uncertain phase for the Matua community, following recent moves by the Election Commission of India (ECI). What was intended as an administrative exercise has turned into a politically charged storm, leaving the sizeable Matua electorate in districts such as Bangaon and Thakurnagar deeply anxious and directionless.

The Matuas, a Hindu community that migrated to India from Bangladesh after facing religious persecution, possess standard Indian identification documents—ration cards, PAN cards, Aadhaar cards and voter identity cards. However, the introduction of a new verification procedure under the Standard Operating Protocol for Special Summary Revision (widely referred to as SIR in political discourse) has caused widespread confusion. According to community members, merely having their names on the voter list is no longer sufficient; they are being asked to submit fresh proof of eligibility. Those unable to comply fear being pushed toward applying for citizenship under the Citizenship Amendment Act (CAA), a process for which many lack the required documentation.

This uncertainty has generated an atmosphere of fear among the Matuas. Political parties have stepped into the vacuum, each attempting to shape the narrative for electoral advantage. Sections of the opposition accuse the verification process of threatening voting rights and stirring insecurity among refugees, with claims that individuals could be sent to detention centres. Meanwhile, others argue that citizenship under the CAA offers a pathway to securing rights, including voting privileges, although this assertion remains a point of political contention.

The ruling Trinamool Congress has consistently opposed the verification process, arguing that it disproportionately affects Hindu refugees from Bangladesh and risks creating fresh bureaucratic obstacles for long-settled communities. Against this backdrop, Chief Minister Mamata Banerjee recently visited Thakurnagar, the cultural heartland of the Matua community, to reassure residents. Addressing a public gathering, she urged the community not to apply for citizenship under the CAA, reasoning that doing so would imply they are not yet citizens of India and could jeopardise their legal status. Her visit was widely interpreted as an attempt to consolidate support among the Matua electorate.

On the other hand, the Bharatiya Janata Party, which has long sought to court the Matua community, has intensified outreach efforts following the introduction of the verification process. Local BJP units have organised CAA facilitation camps, asserting that refugees will first receive citizenship and that their names will subsequently be secured in the voter rolls through proper procedures.

Caught between competing political claims and procedural uncertainty, members of the Matua community say they feel adrift. With neither side providing clarity that resolves their immediate fears, and with many lacking the documents required to navigate the new system, anxiety is rising as elections draw closer.

The unfolding situation underscores how administrative reforms can intersect sharply with political strategies, leaving vulnerable communities struggling to understand their rights and future in an environment of competing narratives.

Chatterjee, who was arrested by the Enforcement Directorate (ED) in July 2022 in connection with the high-profile school-job scam, remains suspended from the TMC. This has raised questions about his seating arrangements and role in the Assembly. Traditionally, Chatterjee had been allotted a seat next to Chief Minister Mamata Banerjee in the Assembly, a position now unavailable to him due to his suspension. Sources within the Assembly suggested that he may be seated next to ISF MLA Naushad Siddiqui, though a final decision on his seating arrangement has yet to be confirmed.

Political observers have been quick to speculate whether Chatterjee’s re-entry into the legislative session signifies a shift in the political dynamics of West Bengal. “Will his return suggest a new political alignment or faction within the Assembly?” said one source. Opposition leaders have also raised questions about his status in the Assembly, given his suspended status in the ruling party. They questioned whether he would receive any special treatment or be treated as an ordinary legislator.

Despite these questions, Speaker Biman Bandopadhyay clarified on Wednesday that Chatterjee remains a legitimate member of the legislature. “He is still a legislator, and if he wishes to attend the winter session, arrangements will be made for him,” Bandopadhyay stated. He further emphasised that Chatterjee would not be afforded any special privileges, unlike his past experience as a high-ranking minister. “He will be treated just like any other MLA in the Assembly,” Bandopadhyay added, noting that no separate room would be provided to Chatterjee within the Assembly premises.

As an independent legislator, Chatterjee’s new seat will be placed neither among the Treasury Benches nor in the Opposition area, as is customary for lawmakers not aligned with the ruling party. “He will be seated in a neutral zone, between the Treasury and Opposition Benches,” said Assembly insiders. His participation in the session will follow the same rules as any other MLA, including the right to speak during debates and raise issues.

Chatterjee, in his own comments, reaffirmed his intention to attend the session, stating that he had long wanted the opportunity to speak but had been unheard for the past three and a half years. “It doesn’t matter if I attend the session now or not. For the past three and a half years, I wanted to speak, but nobody listened,” he remarked, reflecting on his political isolation.

The upcoming winter session of the Assembly, scheduled to begin later this month, will see Chatterjee return to a legislature that has undergone significant changes since his last involvement. His return, despite his suspension from the TMC, is likely to stir further discussions on the evolving political landscape of West Bengal, with potential ramifications for both the ruling party and the opposition.

The political corridors of Kolkata are already buzzing with rumours about how Chatterjee’s re-emergence will play out in the Assembly. The former education minister’s presence, after a prolonged absence, has once again become the focal point of both political intrigue and media attention.

While Chatterjee’s exact role in the session remains unclear, one thing is sure: his return is likely to add a new dimension to the already complex political scenario in the state.

The conflict between the two influential figures traces back to a disagreement over the foundation day of the student council, an event organized by Calcutta University. Shanta Dutta, who serves as the university’s acting Vice Chancellor, did not comply with Bratya Basu’s directives regarding the event, which led to growing tensions between them. Since that time, Dutta has been increasingly critical of the Education Minister, and the discord reached a boiling point when, on Saturday, Bratya Basu, the Trinamool Congress MLA from Dumdum, mocked Dutta by likening her to a crow and a peacock. These comments were seen as an attempt to belittle Dutta, perhaps in retaliation for her refusal to follow his instructions.

In response, Shanta Dutta took to a private news channel where she accused Bratya Basu of using his political power to undermine academic authority. She also recalled an incident involving Bratya Basu earlier this year at Jadavpur University, which she felt was pertinent to the current conflict.

The incident, which occurred in March 2023, was a flashpoint for widespread protests against the state government and its handling of education. Bratya Basu was accused of running over a student named Indranuj Roy during a protest at the university. The protests stemmed from deep-rooted dissatisfaction among students with the state’s educational policies and ministerial actions. Bratya Basu himself was injured during the episode, but many viewed his actions as reckless. Dutta pointed to this episode to question Basu’s leadership and draw attention to what she perceived as his failure to take responsibility for the consequences of his actions.

Dutta also took this opportunity to address the recent controversy surrounding examinations at Calcutta University. She explained that decisions regarding exams were made by the university’s syndicate, not by her alone. She expressed frustration that she was being personally attacked for a decision that involved multiple stakeholders. In her statement, Dutta clarified, “I am not acting alone in these matters. The decisions are collective, made by the syndicate, and yet, I am being unfairly targeted.”

Drawing parallels with the incident at Jadavpur University, Dutta recounted how, during that protest, students had barricaded her car for over six hours, leading to an incredibly tense standoff. She further detailed how one student had even climbed onto the bonnet of her car, disrupting the situation, and abusing her with offensive language. Despite this, Dutta emphasized that she did not instruct her driver to run over the student, calling attention to the fact that the protests were out of her control. However, her remarks made it clear that she felt the government had failed to address the root causes of such protests and had not taken action against those responsible for the escalation of violence.

Dutta’s comments regarding the handling of student protests were pointed. She criticized the government’s inability to curb the disruptive actions of protesting students and referenced the court’s order which had explicitly banned outsiders from entering the university premises. However, Dutta claimed that the students flouted this order by tearing the notice and even setting it on fire, an act she compared to “Muhammad bin Tughlaqi acts”—a historical reference used in Bengal to criticize policies perceived as despotic or irrational. Despite these acts of defiance, Dutta lamented that the government did nothing to hold these students accountable.

As the war of words continued, the issue also touched upon Abhirup Chakraborty, the General Secretary of the Trinamool Student Union (TMC), who had made pointed remarks regarding the exam issue. Dutta responded by announcing that Chakraborty would be banned from the university for five years, preventing him from registering for any higher education courses, such as MPhil or PhD, and blocking his application for any employment opportunities at Calcutta University. This measure was seen as a direct response to his provocative statements, as well as a message to student leaders who attempt to influence university policies through political means.

Dutta’s critique was not limited to student leaders; she also expressed her disappointment in the lack of action taken against Chakraborty by his own party leadership. In a sharply worded comment, she stated, “Had I seen any criticism or punishment from the party for his offensive remarks, I would have respected the action. But the days passed without any such response.”

Dutta also turned her attention to Bratya Basu’s behavior, particularly his media comments about the autonomy of the Vice Chancellor. The Education Minister had accused her of being too reliant on government directives, claiming that if the Vice Chancellor of a university were to act merely as a puppet of the government, it would be detrimental to the institutional autonomy of the university. In response, Dutta expressed her surprise at the Education Minister’s aggressive tone and lamented the “downfall of his standards”. She went so far as to suggest that if the party did not take action against him, the responsibility to address his misconduct would fall to the academic institutions, implying that someone had to step up to restore order.

In conclusion, the conflict between Shanta Dutta and Bratya Basu seems far from resolution. Academic freedom and institutional autonomy have become major points of contention as both parties continue to make their cases in public. The issue now extends beyond just a disagreement over university policies to a larger debate over the relationship between political forces and educational institutions. The question remains: will academic institutions like Calcutta University be able to maintain their independence from the heavy hand of politics, or will this struggle for power redefine the future of education in West Bengal?

The situation has raised serious questions about academic freedom and the role of political figures in shaping the education system, with many watching closely to see how these tensions will unfold in the coming months.