Agartala, September 04, 2024: The Tripura Legislative Assembly witnessed significant turmoil during its monsoon session on Wednesday, sparked by a controversial social media statement made by Minister Sudhangshu Das regarding Hindus. The opposition parties seized the opportunity to corner the ruling BJP, attempting to hold the Treasury bench accountable for the minister’s remarks.
Transport Minister Sushanta Chowdhury addressed the assembly, clarifying the government’s stance. “The statement made by Minister Sudhangshu Das does not reflect the views of the BJP or the state government,” Chowdhury asserted. However, he emphasized, “Our Constitution grants everyone the right to express their personal opinions,” subtly defending Das’s freedom of speech while reminding the opposition of constitutional rights.
Adding to the defense, Agriculture Minister Ratan Lal Nath took the floor, explaining the context of Das’s statement. “The words used in the social media post were not intended to target any community,” Nath claimed. He further alleged that the Communist Party of India (Marxist) [CPIM] was deliberately trying to incite communal tensions in the state, stating, “The CPIM wants riots in Tripura; they have twisted the meaning of Minister Das’s words to create unrest.”
Despite these explanations, the opposition was far from satisfied. Congress MLA Birajit Sinha raised the issue during a break in the session, describing Das’s comments as “deeply unfortunate and upsetting for the people of the state.” Sinha demanded a public apology from the minister, arguing that such statements were detrimental to communal harmony.
In response, BJP MLA Abhishek Debroy defended Das, linking the minister’s comments to regional security concerns. “Given the situation in Bangladesh, it’s crucial that we remain vigilant,” Debroy stated. “Minister Das was merely warning the public against the increasing influence of Jihadi forces in our state, which have already affected us due to the current situation in Bangladesh.”
However, Congress MLA Sudip Roy Barman strongly criticized Debroy’s defense. “India is governed by the Constitution, and those sworn to uphold it should not make such provocative statements,” Barman retorted. He sarcastically noted that the controversial post was quickly deleted from social media, yet questioned why the minister felt compelled to issue such remarks in the first place. “It’s not desirable for a minister to make statements that could disturb the state’s peace and order,” Barman added, demanding an apology from Das.
As the opposition intensified its pressure, the Treasury bench appeared increasingly restless. Ratan Lal Nath once again intervened, this time citing a CPIM statement against Das’s remarks. “The CPIM’s response shows they are trying to fuel communal tensions,” Nath argued. He defended Das’s use of the term “Jihadi,” claiming it was not directed at any specific community. “The term ‘Jihadi’ has been deliberately misinterpreted to provoke public anger,” Nath declared.
In the midst of the heated exchanges, Congress MLA Sudip Roy Barman questioned the intent behind Das’s reference to body temperature in his controversial post. “Is the minister trying to undermine religious neutrality with his remarks?” Barman inquired, urging Das to avoid making such statements while holding a position of responsibility.
Several BJP MLAs, including Kishor Barman and Tafajjal Hussain, rallied in support of Das. “The speech was intended to awaken the Hindu community, not incite violence,” Kishor Barman asserted. Tafajjal Hussain added, “Muslims have not protested against Das’s statement, which shows it wasn’t intended to offend.”
Finally, Minister Sudhangshu Das rose to defend himself, invoking quotes from the Gita and Mahatma Gandhi. “We cannot forget the Hindu massacre in Noakhali in 1946 or the displacement of millions of Hindus during the 1971 war,” Das said passionately. “Even today, we see the same patterns emerging. Congress and CPIM are anti-Hindu; they support terrorists,” he declared, provoking a furious response from the opposition.
As the assembly descended into chaos, with opposition members protesting in the well, Speaker Biswa Bandhu Sen struggled to maintain order. The session was briefly suspended amidst the uproar, leaving the assembly heated and deeply divided.
