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.

The Constitutional Mandate: Duty above Discretion

India’s federal structure, though designed to preserve state autonomy, never envisioned that autonomy as a barrier to protecting human life. The Constitution of India provides clear authority to the central government to intervene during moments of internal disorder and state failure:

• Article 355: Obligates the Union to protect every state against external aggression and internal disturbance.
• Articles 256 and 257: Empower the Union to issue directions to states to ensure constitutional compliance and coordinate governance.
• Article 356: Authorises the imposition of President’s Rule if a state government fails to operate in accordance with constitutional principles.

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 Responsibility to Protect (R2P): A Universal Moral Imperative

The international community has long recognised 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.

When the Host State Is Complicit: The Case for Proactive Intervention

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.

Neighbouring 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.

Neighbouring States’ Role

Neighbouring 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:

• Emergency shelters, medical aid, and evacuation routes should be prepared immediately.
• Law enforcement and special task forces may be sent to assist, particularly if mobs are crossing borders or fleeing into those states.
• If coordination fails, a unilateral moral action to cross administrative boundaries to save lives—akin to humanitarian intervention—must be considered.

The Central Government’s Role

The Union government is not just another actor in this arrangement—it is the guardian of constitutional morality. Articles 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:

• Bypass procedural delays in urgent life-and-death situations.
• Send paramilitary forces or deploy the Army under a temporary humanitarian command.
• Immediately initiate a probe to document the violence for legal accountability.
• Prepare to impose if systemic failure is verified.

Justifications for Immediate Action:

• Legal: Under Article 355, the Union has a constitutional duty to protect citizens from internal disturbances.
• Moral: When silence enables death, intervention becomes a moral imperative.
• Historical: The 1984 anti-Sikh riots and the 2020 Delhi riots stand as tragic examples where delayed or absent intervention allowed mass suffering. We must not repeat those failures.
• Federal: Cooperative federalism includes protecting the Republic itself. If one part is bleeding, the others cannot stand by.

This includes:

• Deployment of paramilitary or Army forces under emergency humanitarian protocols.
• Creation of refugee corridors and relief camps in neighbouring states.
• Immediate documentation of crimes and preparation for judicial inquiries.
• Consideration of President’s Rule or other emergency steps if governance collapse is verified.

This is not about authoritarian overreach—it is about defending democracy when its guardians fail.

A Model of Proactive Federalism and Oversight

To preserve the democratic ethos, any intervention must be:

• Time-bound, to avoid long-term central overreach.
• Transparent, with regular reports to Parliament and judicial monitoring.
• Proportional, using only the force necessary to protect life and restore order.
• Accountable, with mechanisms to return power to democratic institutions once normalcy is restored.

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.

National Honour Demands National Action

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 prioritises 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.

 

References

1. Constitution of India. Articles 355, 356, 256, and 257. https://legislative.gov.in/constitution-of-india.
2. United Nations General Assembly. “2005 World Summit Outcome.” A/RES/60/1, paras. 138–140. September 2005.
3. Sharma, Arvind. Hinduism and Human Rights: A Conceptual Approach. Oxford University Press, 2004.
4. Ministry of Home Affairs. Annual Reports on Communal Incidents in India, 2022–2024. Government of India.
5. Noorani, A.G. Constitutional Questions in India: The President, Parliament and the States. Oxford University Press, 2000.