‘2 Hours of Eid vs 4 Days of Festival’: MLA Naushad Siddiqui’s Explosive Message on Red Road Closure Triggers Political Controversy

Special Correspondent, Kolkata: Red Road is considered the heart of Kolkata’s transportation network. When this vital artery, which handles daily traffic for millions of commuters, comes to a standstill, questions naturally arise. However, when those questions concern social equality, equal religious rights, and administrative double standards, it transforms into the primary debate of state politics.

Recently, Bhangar MLA Naushad Siddiqui expressed deep anger and resentment over the government’s decision to close Kolkata’s Red Road for four consecutive days to host a specific social and religious event. The logic and ground realities he presented during his media address have sparked a profound debate among the general public and political circles alike.

“What did the minorities do wrong?” — Naushad’s Question Strikes a Hard Truth

MLA Naushad Siddiqui voiced the concerns of marginalized communities in a clear and direct manner. He questioned, “If a major public road like Red Road can be shut down for days to celebrate a specific religious or social festival, what crime have the minority communities of this state committed?”

Behind Siddiqui’s question lies years of accumulated frustration and grief. He reminded everyone that in a democracy and under the Constitution, all citizens and all religions are equal. However, when policies differ in practice, it hurts the sentiments of ordinary people.

2-Hour Eid Request vs 4-Day Closure: Two Pictures of Discrimination

In his address, Naushad Siddiqui drew a comparison using a significant historical example:

• Past Experience: An application was previously submitted requesting the use of Red Road for just 2 hours a year for Eid prayers. However, that request was summarily rejected on the grounds that it would cause severe citywide traffic jams.
• Present Reality: Today, Red Road remains completely closed for 4 consecutive days for another festival.

The MLA asked— “A traffic jam was cited as the reason to deny a 2-hour permission, yet does closing a major road for four full days not freeze the city’s traffic system? Why this double standard?”

Voice of the People and Two Sides of the Story (Administrative vs Opposition Perspective)

Public and Supporters’ View: Following Naushad Siddiqui’s statements, widespread reactions surfaced across social media and public spaces. A large section of the public believes he did not intend to create controversy; rather, he highlighted a long-ignored administrative inequality. This is not just about one community—it is a struggle for equal rules and policy enforcement.

Administration and Ruling Party’s Stand: On the other hand, representatives of the ruling party and state administration maintain that decisions regarding route diversions and road closures are taken keeping in mind public security and large crowd management during major festivals. They argue that it is improper to view this as discrimination against any specific community, as administrative convenience forms the basis of such decisions.

A Balanced and Constructive Message

Beyond legal and administrative complexities, this debate is not directed against any particular religion. It is a demand to ensure ‘equality of law and regulations’.

The factual arguments presented by MLA Naushad Siddiqui mark a crucial turning point in state politics. It remains to be seen how the state administration addresses these pertinent questions raised by the public.