Banerjee argued vociferously during debates over citizenship that Modi and the BJP were trying to smear Bengali speakers, particularly in border regions, as \u201cillegal immigrants\u201d<\/a>. <\/p>\n The TMC also highlighted central government\u2019s attempts to promote a Hindu model of vegetarianism as being at odds with Bengal\u2019s pluralistic traditions, where fish, meat and eggs are staple foods consumed across religious communities. <\/p>\n As a result, the BJP was not just competing against an incumbent government. It was going up against a strong political identity that presented itself as the guardian of Bengal\u2019s traditionally pluralistic culture and way of life.<\/p>\n So the BJP victory over TMC in May<\/a> represented a significant electoral upset. More so, because West Bengal was the last major state where BJP had been unable to displace a powerful regional party, despite its national success. <\/p>\n This was not a routine change of government. To get a feel for why the BJP\u2019s victory in West Bengal was so consequential, you have to understand its distinct culture. And to do that, you have to go back to before Indian independence, when the British partitioned India on religious grounds. This formed two new countries: India for the Hindus and Pakistan for the Muslims.<\/p>\n As part of the process, Punjab in the northwest of India, was divided with west Punjab going to Pakistan and the east to India. Similarly Bengal in eastern India was split with the Hindu majority west going to India and the east to Pakistan, before East Pakistan won its independence in 1971, becoming the new state of Bangladesh. Despite this, communal violence continued to spill over both sides of the newly declared borders along sectarian lines. <\/p>\n Nonetheless, even today, both Punjab and Bengal have remained true to their tradition of diversity. This is an embodiment of the principle of \u201csyncretism\u201d<\/a>. Syncretism is about the peaceful amalgamation of different beliefs, culture and practices. It aims to strike a harmony among diverse traditions \u2013 in this case, specifically between Hindus and Muslims.<\/p>\n For years, Bengal\u2019s uniqueness was based on the central idea of mi\u015bra sa\u1e43sk\u1e5bti<\/em>, literally \u201cmixed culture\u201d or \u201cblended civilisation\u201d. Hindu and Muslim traditions were allowed to flourish together. Various traditions served as cultural symbols that set Bengal apart from the communal strife affecting other regions of the subcontinent. <\/p>\n These include bauls<\/a><\/em> \u2013 wandering mystic singers who blend elements of Hinduism and Islam. These singers are typified by Lalan Fakir<\/a>, the 19th-century poet and spiritual leader whose estimated 10,000 songs, many of which mock and condemn religious and caste differences, earned him the devotion of millions across the region. <\/p>\n Bengal\u2019s dargahs<\/em><\/a>, meanwhile \u2013 sufi shrines built over the grave of revered holy figures \u2013 are used interchangeably by both Hindus and Muslims.<\/p>\n In contrast, the BJP aggressively promotes hindutva<\/em> an ideology which defines India as a Hindu state. This, was widely thought, would be a disadvantage in winning votes in West Bengal. But the BJP\u2019s electoral success in securing 207 out of 294 seats<\/a> showed that this syncretism was always more delicate than its proponents acknowledged.<\/p>\n Bengali syncretism, its trust in amalgamation of traditions and beliefs, was expressed in poetry, music and folk devotion. But it never penetrated the structures of property, political economy or electoral arithmetic.<\/p>\n The BJP appears to have understood better than its political opponents the fear among many people in West Bengal of the Islamic influences coming in from Bangladesh. The BJP successfully harnessed and politicised this idea as a threat to Hindus in West Bengal. To do this, the BJP tactic was to revive memories of partition in 1947 as an exclusively Hindu tragedy. <\/p>\n BJP also coopted various elements of Bengal\u2019s intellectual heritage. They successfully portrayed Bengali cultural heroes such as novelist Bankim Chandra Chattopadhyay<\/a> and religious leader Swami Vivekananda<\/a> primarily as champions of Hindu nationalism in speeches, articles and commemorations. It took pains to play down their role as representatives of Bengal\u2019s pluralist humanism.<\/p>\n The BJP\u2019s victory in West Bengal is in stark contrast with its failure to win in Punjab<\/a>, another state where partition led to considerable upheaval. The major difference is demographic: whereas the contest in West Bengal was always between Hindus and Muslims, the majority of people in Punjab, nearly 58%, are Sikhs<\/a>. <\/p>\n Punjab\u2019s Sikh community has an identity that is assertive and politically independent with institutional manifestation in the centre-right Shiromani Akali Dal party. So, while in West Bengal the BJP was able to mobilise its Hindu community via the \u201cHindus under threat\u201d narrative, this story is neither necessary nor effective in Punjab.<\/p>\nHistorical influences<\/h2>\n
Hindus under threat<\/h2>\n
![\"The](\"https:\/\/counter.theconversation.com\/content\/282828\/count.gif\")
<\/p>\n