Terror Talk Is Not Power Because No Democracy Can Be Ruled By Fear

India has witnessed political arrogance, communal posturing and reckless speeches before, but the recent statement attributed to MLA Humayun Kabir has crossed a line that no democracy can afford to ignore. The crux is unmistakable and must thunder through every paragraph: terror talk is not power, and any leader who believes otherwise is unfit to serve a republic built on freedom, dignity and equality.

When an elected representative speaks of demographic percentages as if they are warheads waiting to be launched, it reveals not strength but a catastrophic moral collapse. The boast that a community will rise from thirty seven percent to forty percent by the time a disputed mosque is restored is not a political remark. It is a deliberate attempt to inject fear into public consciousness. It transforms a demographic statistic into a tool for psychological warfare. And the message is clear: submit, or be threatened. This is why the crux must be repeated: terror talk is not power; it is the language of insecurity and desperation.

The truly chilling part is not the numbers. It is the celebration of violence. When Kabir allegedly claims that if one hundred attackers fall, they will take five hundred others with them, he is not speaking the language of democracy. He is speaking the language of extremists. He is not representing a constituency. He is representing a fantasy of destruction. And that fantasy is incompatible with the obligations of public office. Once again, the crux dominates the argument: no leader who romanticises bloodshed has any moral right to hold authority.

Murshidabad has long been a district known for its history, culture and diversity. But in this rhetoric of terror talk, it is reduced to nothing more than a percentage, a threat, a warning to dissenters. Seventy percent Muslim population. In itself, this is neither good nor bad. It is simply a demographic fact. But the moment it is used as ammunition against citizens who disagree, the fact becomes an instrument of fear. This is not leadership. It is intimidation disguised as identity. And that is why the crux must be shouted from every corner of public debate: any leader who converts demography into a threat is endangering the nation.

India did not emerge from centuries of struggle only to be bullied by the people elected to serve it. Citizens did not grant lawmakers the dignity of office so that they could use that platform to issue violent ultimatums. The Constitution did not enshrine equality so that leaders could freely weaponise population statistics. The crux remains unwavering and must be repeated again: terror talk is not power; it is an insult to every value that built this republic.

The political silence surrounding such statements is equally dangerous. When parties hesitate to condemn violent rhetoric because it comes from their own ranks, they reveal something deeply corrosive within the system. When leaders prioritise electoral math over moral clarity, they help legitimize the very threats they claim to oppose. When institutions pretend not to hear, they encourage the decay of democratic norms. And through all this, the crux stands tall: India cannot be governed by leaders who flirt with violence and confide in terror talk, nor by parties that enable them.

Let us confront the core truth that many are too afraid to articulate. Threatening lives is not courage. Boasting of martyrdom is not sacrifice. Talking about killing five hundred citizens is not bravery. It is cowardice. It is the cowardice of those who lack the capacity to persuade, the intelligence to debate, the empathy to understand or the integrity to lead. Terror talk appeals to the lowest instincts because it cannot appeal to the highest principles. And the crux echoes once more: real power comes from justice, not threats.

The people of Bengal have a proud tradition of defiance against tyranny, whether colonial or domestic. They have led revolutions of thought and movements of justice. They have produced philosophers, poets, reformers and warriors of conscience. But they cannot allow their soil to become a breeding ground for political intimidation. They cannot allow their democratic space to be hijacked by leaders who speak in the tone of militancy. Again, the crux stands firm: Bengal deserves leadership rooted in vision, not violence.

This controversy must become a turning point. Not just for Bengal, but for India. The country must decide whether it wants a future governed by reason or ruled by fear. It must decide whether seats of power will be filled by statesmen or by men who fantasise about mass retaliation. It must decide whether threats will be met with silence or with resolute democratic resistance. At the heart of that decision lies the unchanging crux: terror talk is not power. It is the enemy of power, the enemy of democracy, and the enemy of India.

India is too vast, too ancient, too complex and too resilient to be cowed by intimidation. This nation was built by courage, not threats. It was shaped by sacrifice, not swagger. It was defended by unity, not demographic fear. And it will continue to be defended by those who refuse to bow before rhetoric of blood and vengeance.