|One of the pictures posted by Trinamul student leader Panda. The rectangular box to mark out the boy was part of the post
Calcutta, July 7: Trinamul student leader Shankudeb Panda posted three pictures on Facebook tonight and asked: “Can you recognise the boy in a red kurta? He is a fellow warrior of our Trinamul Chhatra Parishad. Shame on those who are trying to do politics by portraying Sourav (Chowdhury) as a BJP worker.”
The same Panda had echoed during the day what Bengal food minister and Trinamul leader Jyotipriya Mullick had claimed: a “love affair”, not the hooch mafia, was behind the murder of the college boy.
“You can check this out. This is 100 per cent correct that the boy was murdered because of a love affair. There is no other reason,” Mullick, who is also the president of Trinamul’s North 24-Parganas unit, had told reporters in the Assembly corridor. Sourav lived in Kulberia, which is in North 24-Parganas.
Panda had echoed the minister and said Sourav was a Trinamul supporter.
Neither would say how any affair had any bearing on the murder case. A boy who was opposing hooch sellers was strangled and battered to death and his body was found dismembered. Police claim they are yet to establish the motive. (See Metro)
At this point, the principal concern of the government should to be to track down and arrest the prime suspect — which the police have failed to achieve till Monday night.
The government appears to have fallen back on a familiar tactic of seeking to divert attention by dropping mischievous hints such as “affairs” without explaining their relevance.
The attempt follows a pattern that was set when the Park Street rape landed the government in a spot. Chief minister Mamata Banerjee had termed it a sajano ghatana (fabricated incident) and minister Madan Mitra had made disparaging remarks about the complainant.
In Kamduni, also in North 24-Parganas, the chief minister had termed as Maoist sympathisers the women who protested the rape and murder of a college student last year.
Trinamul student leader Panda’s declaration on Facebook had drawn six “likes” by 11.15pm.
But there were some searching questions, too. Koyel Banerjee wrote a comment: “(You are) claiming Sourav to be one of your cadresÖ (but) did you feel like expressing grief over his death even once? Shame.”
Avimanyu Saha asked why the party was not accepting the demand for a CBI probe if Sourav was indeed one of its own.
Minister Mullick, state food minister, probably had doubters like Saha in mind when he told a TV channel yesterday: “Rahul Sinha (the state BJP president who has sought such a probe) is carrying many CBIs in his right, left, top and bottom pockets. If an ant bites an ant, CBI. If a dog bites a dog, CBI. Why are they trivialising the CBI? Ask for a CBI probe at the right time. If a dog bites a buffalo, CBI. What’s going on?”