In November 2000, Buddhadeb Bhattacharjee replaced Jyoti Basu as the Chief Minister of West Bengal. At that time, Lal Krishna Advani was the Union Home Minister in Delhi.
One day, after becoming Chief Minister, Buddhadeb Bhattacharjee visited Advani at his North Block office and said, “Advani ji, you have been talking about the growing activities of the ISI in several states of the country, including Maharashtra and Gujarat. You have also been saying that illegal madrasas are flourishing. But why are you not saying anything about West Bengal? Intelligence reports are reaching me. The situation in the state is very serious.”
The Union Home Minister smiled slightly and said, “I have all the information about West Bengal as well. But can you tell me why I am not saying anything?”
He continued, “What if I say it publicly and you deny it? I do not want to remain silent. I know what the situation in West Bengal is. But if you publicly deny it, who will benefit? The terrorists will benefit.”
Buddhadeb then responded very firmly: “There is no question of my denying it. You speak publicly, and I will speak publicly as well. Militants are becoming active in West Bengal, particularly along the border, by fuelling anti-national communalism. Illegal infiltration is taking place. All this must be stopped.”
Advani mentioned this incident in his autobiography (page 638). He also wrote that on one occasion in Kolkata, Buddhadeb Bhattacharjee held a joint press conference with him on the issue of Bangladeshi infiltration.
Jyoti Basu had not taken such a position before Buddhadeb. In 1998, the Shiv Sena-BJP government in Maharashtra identified nearly 80 illegal immigrants and wanted to send them back. Jyoti Basu’s government strongly opposed the move.
However, Buddhadeb ultimately could not remain steadfast in this personal hard-line position of his. Advani nevertheless wrote: “I found a rare Communist leader whose views on ISI-guided cross-border terrorism and its ideological roots were, to a fair degree, congruent with mine.”
But Buddhadeb ran into trouble when he tried to curb illegal activities in madrasas.
On June 29, 2002, Advani became Deputy Prime Minister. I still remember that on March 6, 2003, there was a breakfast meeting between Buddhadeb Bhattacharjee and the Deputy Prime Minister. The subject of discussion was the flourishing of illegal madrasas along the Bangladesh border and how Pakistani terrorists were allegedly using these madrasas as bases for militant activities.
In February 2002, during the Budget Session of the West Bengal Legislative Assembly, Buddhadeb Bhattacharjee had gone so far as to say that some madrasas in the border districts had become breeding grounds for fundamentalist terrorism.
That was enough for the Jamaat forces to launch protests against Buddhadeb. The party leadership was also annoyed. Even when Buddhadeb went to Siliguri, he repeated the same statement.
Biman Bose said that Buddhadeb’s remarks had been distorted by the newspapers. No madrasa would be shut down.
After Mamata Banerjee became Chief Minister, she never made any significant comment on illegal madrasas.
In 2019, the Union Home Ministry informed Parliament that there were reports of militant activities in a number of madrasas in Bardhaman and Murshidabad. In the state Assembly, Mamata Banerjee said in this regard that the Centre had sought information from the state about madrasa students allegedly involved in militant activities. “We have replied to the Centre that there is no question of it. But the Centre does not accept our reply. They continue to say what they want to say.” Mamata alleged that the BJP was trying to politicise everything.
In 2015, Mamata had said that even madrasas that were not registered and did not receive government funding would be given recognition.
In August 2003, while speaking about conducting a survey of madrasas, Mamata had said that their educational institutions needed to be improved, but the government would not interfere in their functioning.
Let us now leave the history behind and turn to what is happening in Nabanna today.
Chief Minister Suvendu Adhikari, soon after coming to power, ordered a survey of illegal madrasas. The survey has revealed that even among registered madrasas, there are institutions where there are neither students nor teachers.
For example, in Haripal in Hooghly district, there is a banana plantation and an apparently abandoned house on land belonging to a madrasa. Similar madrasas have reportedly been found in Islampur in North Dinajpur as well.
What Suvendu Adhikari is saying and doing is, frankly speaking, nothing new or extraordinary. It is a long-standing ideological position of the BJP.
The tradition of madrasa education is very old. Madrasas emerged in Medina during the time of Prophet Muhammad for religious and educational purposes.
By the 10th century, madrasa education had acquired a formal institutional form in Baghdad. In Arabic, the word madrasa simply means an educational institution or a place of learning.
But if terrorist training is conducted under the cover of education in any institution, how can such anti-national activity be supported?
If the Vajpayee-Advani government could not accomplish this, and Modi-Shah, despite knowing the situation, could not do so after coming to power in 2014, then if the Suvendu government, with the support of the Centre, is able to accomplish it today, it deserves support from people across party lines.
After the Mumbai bomb blasts of March 15, 1993, increased surveillance by Indian intelligence and security agencies along the western coast reportedly led the ISI to change its strategy and focus more strongly on the eastern coast.
By using Bangladesh as a “buffer”, Pakistan allegedly adopted a strategy of sending militants into eastern India, particularly through the Bengal border. Militants began entering through stretches of the border that were not fenced and subsequently making their way to different parts of the country, even as far as Kashmir.
If the Suvendu government succeeds in combating terrorism by rising above political considerations, it will ultimately be in Bengal’s interest. What is required on this issue is, rather, a political consensus.
Chief Minister Suvendu Adhikari has ordered the closure of 252 madrasas and issued show-cause notices to another 100.
The statewide survey has revealed the existence of a number of fraudulent madrasas operating outside the government registration system. They have no official approval and no proper infrastructure, yet they are functioning as self-proclaimed madrasas. Questions have naturally arisen about what exactly takes place there.
Now, under the Chief Minister’s instructions, the survey is determining which institutions are legitimate and which are not.
The Chief Minister has repeatedly said that there is one nation and, therefore, there should be one education system.
What Buddhadeb Bhattacharjee could not accomplish in 2002, Suvendu Adhikari is once again attempting in 2026. If he can genuinely accomplish it, it will be beneficial for Bengal.
The roots of communalism in Indian history are, in fact, very deep. The debate over whether Muslim separatism emerged because of Hindu communalism, or whether the growth of Hindutva politics was fuelled by the political use of the Muslim vote bank, remains relevant even today.
But when representatives of Furfura Sharif say that this campaign against madrasas is essentially an anti-Muslim campaign, that too appears to be an over-simplification.
This programme is not new to BJP politics. But if terrorist activities are being conducted in illegal madrasas, and intelligence agencies provide credible evidence to that effect, then action against them is not merely a matter of nationalism—it is also critically important in the interest of national security.
Prime Minister Narendra Modi has once again spoken strongly against terrorism at the BRICS summit. Various programmes and measures have been undertaken to combat terrorism not merely in Kashmir but across the country.
A few days ago, at the Shanghai Cooperation Organisation meeting as well, Prime Minister Narendra Modi effectively put Pakistan in the dock and said that there could be no double standards on terrorism.
One cannot speak of combating terrorism on the one hand and, on the other, allow a “safe haven for terrorism” to flourish. India, he said, is opposed to such a policy and is determined to take strong measures against it.
What Suvendu Adhikari is saying and doing is broadly consistent with Narendra Modi’s policy of combating terrorism.
On February 23, 2026, Union Home Minister Amit Shah adopted an all-India anti-terror strategy called “Prahar.” It is not limited to Kashmir; it applies to the country as a whole.
Against the backdrop of the policies and programmes of Prime Minister Narendra Modi and Amit Shah, Suvendu Adhikari’s position at the state level is therefore relevant.
The issue needs to be viewed in the broader, all-India context as well.
