Bangladesh Hindu Killings: Politics of Massacre Part-III

Analyzing Bangladesh Hindu Killings

Since gaining independence in 1947 as East Pakistan and then, independence from Pakistan and becoming Bangladesh, the Islamic fundamentalism has been a source of crimes against Hindus. In our previous blogs (Bangladesh Hindu Killings Marichjhapi: The Untold Story Part-I, Bangladesh Hindu Displacement: From Partition to Marichjhapi Part-II), we traced the long and painful journey of Bangladesh Hindu refugees, from their forced migration during Partition, to their harsh exile in Dandakaranya, and finally, their return to West Bengal in search of a true home. The tragedy of Marichjhapi massacre was not just a consequence of displacement—it was a deliberate political act.  But hope quickly turned into despair. The very government that had promised resettlement reversed its stance, branding these refugees as illegal occupants and unleashing a brutal crackdown.

This blog unravels the politics behind the massacre, exposing how shifting electoral priorities, vote bank considerations, and ecological justifications shaped the decision to crush the settlers of Marichjhapi.

Was it just administrative failure, or was it cold political calculus? As we dissect the motives behind the Left Front’s actions, the true cost of political expediency over human lives becomes clear.

Left Front’s Decision: Bangladesh Hindu Killings Marichjhapi

In 1977, the Communist Party of India (Marxist) (CPI(M)) led Left Front won a decisive victory in West Bengal, ending Congress’s dominance. Riding on promises of land reform, worker rights, and refugee rehabilitation, it secured massive support from marginalized communities, including displaced Bengali Hindus, before swiftly reversing its stance on their resettlement.

Leaders like Jyoti Basu and allies like the RSP’s Ram Chatterjee had courted Bengali refugees in Dandakaranya, promising resettlement in their cultural homeland. By late 1977, thousands—estimated at 15,000 to 40,000—flocked to Marichjhapi in the Sundarbans, building a thriving community. For months, they lived undisturbed, a testament to the Left’s initial tacit approval.

But by mid-1978, the tune changed. The government labeled the settlers “illegal encroachers” on a protected forest reserve, a drain on West Bengal’s resources, and a “national problem” to be scattered across India. On January 24, 1979, prohibitory orders under Section 144 sealed Marichjhapi, with 30 police launches enforcing a blockade that cut off food, water, and hope. What sparked this reversal? The shift wasn’t sudden—it was a calculated pivot, rooted in political survival and competing interests that soon turned deadly.

Muslim Votes and Electoral Calculus: A Controversial Thread

One persistent theory ties the Left’s actions to electoral strategy—specifically, appeasing West Bengal’s Muslim voters. By 1979, Muslims comprised about 25% of the state’s population (per the 1971 census), a significant bloc in a coalition-dependent government. In the Sundarbans region—like Basirhat-Hasnabad near Marichjhapi—Muslim communities were well-established, often outnumbering Hindus in pockets. The sudden influx of Hindu refugees, mostly Dalits, threatened local dynamics, raising fears of resource strain and demographic shifts.

Critics argue the CPI(M) saw an opportunity. By portraying the Marichjhapi settlers as a threat—some allege rumors were spread of “Hindu hardliners” planning to dominate the area—the Left could reassure Muslim voters of its loyalty. The blockade and eviction, then, weren’t just about law enforcement; they were a signal to a key constituency that their interests trumped those of the newcomers. Survivor accounts hint at this tension: local resistance reportedly grew, with some Muslim villagers backing the government’s stance, fearing competition for land and jobs.

No smoking-gun document proves this was about Muslim votes alone. CPI(M) leaders like Jyoti Basu never publicly tied the crackdown to communal politics, instead leaning on ecological and administrative rhetoric. Yet, the Left’s long-term electoral success—holding power until 2011—relied on juggling diverse blocs, including Muslims, rural poor, and workers. Sacrificing a marginalized Hindu refugee group, who did not even have the right to vote and was already politically weak, may have been a cold calculus to solidify broader support. This hypothesis gains traction when paired with the Left’s silence on the massacre’s scale, suggesting a cover-up to protect its image across all voters.

Ecological Excuse or Political Smokescreen?

The Left Front’s official line was clear: Marichjhapi’s settlers violated the Indian Forest Act, threatening the Sundarbans’ status as a tiger reserve and UNESCO site. Conservationists at the time, and some even today, backed this stance, arguing the refugees’ fishing and farming endangered a fragile ecosystem. On paper, it’s a defensible position—the Sundarbans’ biodiversity, including its Royal Bengal tigers, was a global treasure worth protecting. However, the basic philosophy of Communists—to support the have-nots at all costs—was uncompromisable, was set aside for political gains in this case.

The ferocity of the response undercuts this narrative. A blockade to starve out thousands, followed by gunfire, rapes, and mass expulsion, goes far beyond ecological enforcement. Survivor Gopal Mandal’s claim—that tigers turned man-eaters after feeding on dumped bodies—paints a grim irony: the state’s “protection” of nature birthed its own horrors. Critics, including historian Annu Jalais, argue the ecological excuse was a convenient mask for political expediency. The Left could deflect blame to a noble cause while dodging the harder question: why not relocate the refugees humanely instead of crushing them? Why not send them back to Dandakaranya?

The ecological angle also clashed with the Left’s own history. Before 1977, they’d criticized the central government for neglecting Bengali refugees—why, then, adopt a harsher stance once in power? The answer may lie in coalition pressures and local backlash and, above all, the electoral politics. The CPI (M) faced dissent from within the Left Front—some RSP members opposed the crackdown—and from settled West Bengalis wary of resource competition. Framing it as a forest issue sidestepped these tensions, but the brutality suggests a deeper intent: to erase the settlers as a political liability.

The Descent into Horror: Politics of Bangladesh Hindu Killings

By January 31, 1979, the blockade’s toll was unbearable. Hungry refugees clashed with police, some wielding makeshift weapons in a futile stand. The response was merciless—shootings, sexual violence, and bodies discarded in the Raimangal River. Violence stretched into May, with huts burned and the island’s only tube well poisoned. On May 18, Buddhadeb Bhattacharya declared Marichjhapi “free of refugees,” sealing its fate as a ghost town. This wasn’t mere crowd control—it was a statement. Traditionally, left parties in India and around the world have used force for fulfilling their wish, and what happened on that fateful day was a continuation of the same strategy of brute force mercilessly that the communists used throughout the world and continue to use in India till date. The Left’s escalation, and its refusal to investigate despite survivor outcry, points to a political will to crush dissent and deter future refugee claims. Jyoti Basu’s dismissal of reports as a “CIA conspiracy” and the pre-TV media blackout ensured silence—a tactic to shield the Left’s electoral base, Muslim and otherwise, from backlash. The lack of accountability reeks of a government prioritizing power over principle, a betrayal foreshadowing later Hindu struggles.

Prioritizing Power Over People for Bangladesh Hindu Killings Marichjhapi

The Marichjhapi massacre was not a tragic accident but a calculated political maneuver. The Left Front’s transformation—from a government promising rehabilitation to one orchestrating brutal repression—highlights how ideology crumbles before electoral interests. The ecological justification was a convenient excuse, but the sheer violence, media blackout, and refusal to investigate point to a deeper political agenda.

This betrayal was not just about one event—it reflects a larger pattern of persecution faced by Bengali Hindus over decades. From Noakhali to Marichjhapi, history has repeated itself, with Hindu refugees crushed under shifting political priorities. But did the persecution end in 1979, or does it persist in new forms?

The next blog, “Bangladesh Hindu Killings Sundarbans: Persecution Past and Present-IV,” uncovers the ongoing struggles of Hindus in Bangladesh and India, tracing how systemic persecution and political neglect continue to shape their fate today.

Feature Image: Click here to view the image.

Click here to visit our Medium channel.

Follow us on our social median handles

Glossary of Terms:

1. Bangladesh Hindu Killings: Refers to the persecution and violence faced by Hindus in Bangladesh, particularly during and after the 1971 Bangladesh Liberation War.
2. Marichjhapi massacre: A violent incident that occurred on January 31, 1979, in which thousands of Bengali Hindu refugees were killed or displaced by the West Bengal government.
3. Left Front: A political alliance in West Bengal, led by the Communist Party of India (Marxist) (CPI(M)), which came to power in 1977.
4. CPI(M): The Communist Party of India (Marxist), a left-wing political party in India.
5. RSP: The Revolutionary Socialist Party, a left-wing political party in India and an ally of the CPI(M) in the Left Front.
6. Sundarbans: A mangrove forest in the Ganges River Delta, spanning across West Bengal and Bangladesh.
7. Dalits: A term referring to the lowest castes in the traditional Indian caste system, often facing social and economic discrimination.
8. Namashudras: A Dalit community from East Bengal (now Bangladesh), who faced significant persecution and displacement during and after the Partition.
9. Dandakaranya: A region in central India where the Indian government resettled thousands of Bengali Hindu refugees from East Pakistan (now Bangladesh) in the 1950s and 1960s.
10. Section 144: A legal provision in India that prohibits the assembly of four or more people in a public place, often used to maintain law and order.
11. Indian Forest Act: A law that regulates the use of forests in India, including the protection of wildlife and forest reserves.
12. UNESCO site: A designation given to cultural or natural sites of outstanding value, recognized by the United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization (UNESCO).
13. Noakhali: A region in East Bengal (now Bangladesh) where widespread violence and persecution against Hindus occurred in 1946, leading to a significant exodus of Hindus to India.
14. Partition of India: The division of British India into India and Pakistan in 1947, resulting in one of the largest mass migrations in history.
15. Bangladesh Liberation War: A conflict that took place in 1971, in which Bangladesh gained independence from Pakistan.

Top Hashtags: #MarichjhapiMassacre #BengaliHinduRefugees #PartitionSurvivors #LeftFrontPolitics #ForcedMigration