In West Bengal, justice shouldn’t mean vendetta

In the months since the BJP’s historic victory in West Bengal, an unsettling spectacle has become a recurring feature of public life. Arrested TMC leaders, including local strongmen such as Akash Singh and Jahangir Khan — the latter known for his proximity to senior TMC leader Abhishek Banerjee — have been marched through their former strongholds by police and paramilitary forces in restraints and made to perform public acts of penance. While the Calcutta High Court has expressed concern and sought a report from the government on the short shrift given to due process, investigating agencies have defended them as necessary for the reconstruction of alleged crimes. Chief Minister Suvendu Adhikari has called it a return to the “rule of law”; a BJP MLA has described it as an expression of “true Ram Rajya”. The allegations against Khan and others are serious and deserve rigorous investigation and, where evidence permits, prosecution. But the strength of the rule of law lies not just in holding the guilty to account, but in doing so in a manner that preserves the distinction between justice and retribution.

This is particularly important in Bengal, where political violence has long survived changes of government. But the task of democratic governance is not merely to punish wrongdoing but to elevate public life above this instinct of retribution. There is a categorical difference between accountability delivered through institutions — the police, the courts and independent investigations, following due procedure — and accountability performed on the streets. The latter risks weakening the very legitimacy it claims to uphold, while allowing those accused of serious misconduct to recast themselves as the aggrieved. The BJP’s mandate in the Assembly elections rested on a promise of change. Its victory reflected growing public fatigue with a political culture in which power too often travelled through muscle, patronage and impunity. But a secure government has no need to turn public humiliation into an instrument of punishment. It has the authority of a constitutional institution to undertake the patient ask of rebuilding trust and confidence in governance. To squander that opportunity would be to dishonour its promise to the people.

Overall Analysis

This editorial argues that while political leaders accused of crimes must be investigated and prosecuted, the process of justice should not be transformed into public humiliation or political revenge. Using recent incidents in West Bengal, where arrested leaders of the Trinamool Congress (TMC) were publicly paraded and made to perform acts of penance, the author questions whether such actions strengthen or undermine the rule of law.

The editorial begins by acknowledging that the allegations against these leaders are serious and deserve proper legal scrutiny. However, it immediately draws a distinction between justice and retribution. The author suggests that the government’s actions appear more theatrical than judicial, creating a spectacle that may satisfy public anger but does little to uphold constitutional principles.

A key theme throughout the piece is the importance of due process. By referring to concerns raised by the Calcutta High Court, the editorial strengthens its argument that legal procedures must be respected regardless of the accused person’s political affiliation or public reputation. The language repeatedly contrasts institutional accountability with street-level punishment, emphasizing that democracy relies on courts and investigations rather than public shaming.

The second half broadens the discussion to Bengal’s long history of political violence and vendetta politics. The author argues that a government elected on the promise of change should avoid repeating the same culture of revenge that it criticized in its predecessors. Public humiliation, according to the editorial, risks turning accused individuals into victims in the eyes of the public and weakens the legitimacy of the justice system.

The editorial concludes by reminding the ruling government that true political strength lies in rebuilding trust through constitutional governance, not through displays of power. The language is persuasive and cautionary, warning that abandoning due process could ultimately damage both democratic institutions and the government’s credibility.

Important Vocabulary (5)

1. Vendetta – a prolonged and bitter desire for revenge.
2. Penance – an act performed to show regret for wrongdoing.
3. Retribution – punishment inflicted as revenge for a wrong.
4. Impunity – exemption from punishment or consequences.
5. Squander – to waste or misuse something valuable.

Conclusion & Tone

The editorial maintains that justice must be administered through lawful institutions and due process rather than public humiliation or political revenge. While accountability for wrongdoing is essential, democracy is best served when punishment remains constitutional, impartial, and free from the spirit of vendetta.

Tone: Critical, cautionary, and principled.