In West Bengal, reports claim Hindus face violence while the state allegedly fails to protect them. India's Constitution (Arts. 355, 356) empowers the Union to intervene during internal disorder. Like the global 'Responsibility to Protect', this isn't just politics; it's a constitutional duty and moral necessity for the central government to act when a state cannot or will not safeguard its people.
In 2025, India stands at a moral and constitutional crossroads. Reports of targeted violence against Hindu communities in districts such as Murshidabad and Bhangar in West Bengal, including allegations of killings, forced displacement, and destruction of property, present a chilling portrait of state failure. When the government of a state appears either unwilling or unable to protect its citizens—or worse, is complicit in their persecution—the foundational duty of the Union must activate. This is not a matter of political preference. It is a question of constitutional obligation and moral necessity.
India’s federal structure, though designed to preserve state autonomy, never envisioned that autonomy as a barrier to the protection of human life. The Constitution of India provides clear authority to the central government to intervene during moments of internal disorder and state failure:
These provisions are not merely administrative. They form the legal scaffolding for national intervention when human dignity and public order are at stake. To delay action under the pretext of procedural caution is to allow violence and fear to reign unchecked.
The international community has long recognized that sovereignty cannot be an excuse for inaction in the face of mass atrocities. The Responsibility to Protect (R2P) doctrine, endorsed by the United Nations in 2005, places the burden of protecting citizens from genocide, war crimes, ethnic cleansing, and crimes against humanity primarily on the state. But when the state fails, that burden passes to others—whether other states or, in India's case, the central government.
Though R2P is most often applied in the context of cross-border interventions, its ethical framework is equally applicable within national borders. The Indian Union, in this context, is the ultimate guarantor of constitutional and humanitarian order.
What happens when the state, far from being a passive observer, is a tacit enabler of violence? In such moments, asking for permission to protect life becomes absurd. If the host state cannot or will not act, it must not act as a gatekeeper to humanitarian response.
Neighboring states and the central government should not wait for clearance or invitation. The moment violence breaks out and credible reports of inaction or complicity emerge, they must put boots on the ground to save lives and protect property. This is not an act of aggression—it is an act of national responsibility.
Waiting for permission from a rogue or failed state authority is both illogical and unethical. It amounts to asking the arsonist if help can be sent to put out the fire.
Neighboring states are not passive observers. They share cultural, geographic, economic, and human ties with border districts. If innocent lives are at risk just across the border, and evidence suggests that the local government is either turning a blind eye or supporting the violence:
The Union government is not just another actor in this arrangement—it is the guardian of constitutional morality. Article 355 and 356 are not dormant lines in a dusty legal book—they are trigger clauses for when federalism fails.
When a state tacitly supports violence, the central government must:
Justifications for Immediate Action:
This includes:
This is not about authoritarian overreach—it is about defending democracy when its guardians fail.
To preserve the democratic ethos, any intervention must be:
States should not merely react once the crisis is over. They must prepare preventive cooperation pacts, intelligence sharing, and rapid humanitarian task forces, much like how disaster relief operates. Lives lost due to bureaucratic delay are lives lost to cowardice.
India’s identity as a secular, democratic republic is hollow if it cannot protect its citizens from targeted violence. Procedural fidelity cannot be used to cover moral failure. The time has come for India to embrace decisive compassion—one that prioritizes lives over legal red tape.
Let the message ring clear from the corridors of Delhi to the towns of Bengal: The Republic will not stand idle as its people bleed. The Constitution empowers the Union not just to govern—but to protect. To delay is to be complicit.
Let us act—firmly, legally, and ethically—before another child is orphaned by our indifference, before another home is burned while we debate technicalities.
Trial runs of the Namo Bharat train on the last section of the Delhi-Ghaziabad-Meerut line have begun by NCRTC
The Depot Darpan portal will be made available for real-time food storage depot monitoring by the Ministry of Consumer Affairs, Food & Public Distribution
The Delhi government recently released new regulations requiring private schools on government property to obtain prior clearance before raising fees
The Supreme court stressed that digital access is a key component of the Right to Life under Article 21. Lets learn more!
In a majority 4:1 ruling, the Supreme Court of India held that Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996
Mumbai maul Royals to seal top spot with sixth straight win in IPL
India sets sail towards global maritime leadership: PM Modi commissions Vizhinjam port
Tragedy strikes KIIT again: Second Nepalese student found dead in hostel room
India pushes for Pakistan’s return to FATF grey list post Pahalgam terror attack
‘Are you undermining our forces’: SC slams plea on Pahalgam attack
Trial runs of the Namo Bharat train on the last section of the Delhi-Ghaziabad-Meerut line have begun by NCRTC
The Depot Darpan portal will be made available for real-time food storage depot monitoring by the Ministry of Consumer Affairs, Food & Public Distribution
The Delhi government recently released new regulations requiring private schools on government property to obtain prior clearance before raising fees
The Supreme court stressed that digital access is a key component of the Right to Life under Article 21. Lets learn more!
In a majority 4:1 ruling, the Supreme Court of India held that Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996
Mumbai maul Royals to seal top spot with sixth straight win in IPL
India sets sail towards global maritime leadership: PM Modi commissions Vizhinjam port
Tragedy strikes KIIT again: Second Nepalese student found dead in hostel room
India pushes for Pakistan’s return to FATF grey list post Pahalgam terror attack
‘Are you undermining our forces’: SC slams plea on Pahalgam attack
Copyright© educationpost.in 2024 All Rights Reserved.
Designed and Developed by @Pyndertech