In West Bengal, an IPS officer, an inshallah, and the need to rise above the politics of greetings

Officially, it was a “routine transfer” for “public interest”. The political context, though, tells a different story. Hours before her transfer, a group called the Hindu Legal Fund claimed it had lodged a complaint with the West Bengal Home Secretary against IPS officer Bushara Bano, until recently the Additional SP of Kharagpur. The officer’s alleged offence was the greetings she used while speaking on video about her alma mater, Aligarh Muslim University, and praising its Residential Coaching Academy for helping her clear the UPSC exams. “She began with assalamu alaikum, used Inshallah… and did not use Vande Mataram or Jai Hind. A serving officer representing the Indian state should maintain neutrality and use national expressions,” according to the Hindu Legal Fund. The government’s opacity regarding the transfer strengthens the impression that it gave in to the demand.

Nothing in the All-India Service Rules prevents an officer from using religious or cultural greetings, especially in a private capacity. The inclusive secularism envisaged in the Indian Constitution — which officials and governments are meant to uphold — allows space for religious and cultural expression. By seemingly punishing an officer for words meant for a particular context and audience, West Bengal’s BJP government is, deliberately or not, making the same mistake as its predecessors.

Overall Analysis

The editorial examines the controversy surrounding the transfer of IPS officer Bushara Bano and uses it to discuss the larger question of religious and cultural expression by public officials. The writer begins with a contrast between the official explanation of the transfer — a “routine transfer” in the “public interest” — and the political circumstances surrounding it. This contrast immediately creates a questioning and critical tone.

The first paragraph relies heavily on reported claims and quotations. The author describes the complaint against the officer and reproduces the reasoning attributed to the Hindu Legal Fund. The phrases “alleged offence” and “strengthens the impression” are particularly important from a language perspective. They indicate that the writer is presenting an interpretation rather than stating an unverified allegation as an established fact. This is a useful feature of responsible editorial writing.

The editorial also uses contrast as its central linguistic technique. The officer reportedly used “assalamu alaikum” and “Inshallah”, while the complainant expected expressions such as “Vande Mataram” or “Jai Hind”. The writer uses this contrast to raise a broader question: whether expressions associated with religion or culture should automatically be viewed as incompatible with official neutrality.

The second paragraph shifts from the specific incident to a constitutional and institutional argument. The author refers to the All-India Service Rules and the Indian Constitution to establish a broader principle concerning secularism and freedom of cultural expression. The phrase “inclusive secularism envisaged in the Indian Constitution” is particularly significant: it presents secularism not merely as the absence of religion but as a framework that accommodates diverse religious and cultural identities.

The closing sentence uses a powerful rhetorical construction: “deliberately or not”. This allows the author to criticise the perceived consequence of the government’s action without making a definite claim about its intention. The phrase “making the same mistake as its predecessors” also connects the present controversy with a broader political pattern.

From a language perspective, the editorial is notable for its use of irony, contrast, constitutional vocabulary, carefully qualified claims and rhetorical questioning. The title itself — “the need to rise above the politics of greetings” — uses a seemingly ordinary subject, greetings, to point toward a much larger debate about identity, secularism and public institutions.

Important Vocabulary – 5

1. Opacity – lack of clarity or transparency; something that is difficult to understand or explain.
2. Envisaged – imagined, anticipated or visualised as something that should exist.
3. Neutrality – the state of not supporting or opposing any particular side, group or belief.
4. Predecessors – people or authorities who held a particular position or role before the present ones.
5. Alleged – claimed to have happened or to be true, but not yet established as a fact.

Conclusion & Tone

The editorial argues that religious or cultural greetings should not automatically be treated as incompatible with the responsibilities of a public official. It uses the specific controversy to raise a wider issue about constitutional secularism, institutional neutrality and the treatment of individual expression in a diverse society.