Surya Shukla , Ballia
The recent statement by BJP MLA Ketki Singh advocating for separate facilities for Muslim patients in Ballia Medical College has ignited controversy and drawn sharp criticism from various quarters. Prominent among them is Maulana Shahabuddin Rajvi Barelvi, president of the All India Muslim Jamaat, who has denounced the MLA’s remarks as reprehensible and rooted in ignorance. His concerns are not unfounded, as Ballia has long been a beacon of Ganga-Jamuni Tehzeeb, where Hindus and Muslims have lived together harmoniously for generations, contributing equally to the town’s cultural and economic fabric.
The idea of communal segregation in healthcare is not only an affront to India’s secular ethos but also a dangerous precedent that could sow seeds of division in a society that has thrived on interdependence. The automobile repair industry in Ballia, particularly in areas like Kazipura and Kathar Nala, is dominated by Muslim workers who cater to customers from all communities. The same holds true for bands that play at Hindu wedding ceremonies, many of which are run by Muslim musicians. Given this deep social and economic integration, Singh’s comments appear to be a deliberate political ploy rather than a genuine concern for healthcare management.
Ketki Singh’s recent electoral victory, despite contesting multiple times before, puts her in a precarious position where performance is key to sustaining political credibility. However, her record on governance and developmental work remains lackluster, raising doubts about her ability to deliver on promises made to her electorate. This has given rise to speculation that she is using communal politics as a smokescreen to mask her inefficacy. In the absence of substantial developmental projects, invoking religious divisions becomes a convenient strategy to consolidate the majority Hindu vote base, even if it comes at the cost of social harmony.
Historically, communal politics has had dire consequences for social stability and economic progress. The 2013 Muzaffarnagar riots, for instance, not only led to immense human suffering but also caused severe economic setbacks for both Hindu and Muslim communities in the region. Communal violence disrupts local businesses, reduces investor confidence, and diverts government resources towards maintaining law and order instead of focusing on development. If such divisive rhetoric gains traction in Ballia, it could create similar economic and social turmoil, affecting livelihoods and long-term growth prospects.
A closer look at the development indices of Singh’s constituency reveals a telling picture. Infrastructure remains inadequate, with poor road connectivity, inconsistent electricity supply, and a healthcare system that struggles to meet even basic standards. The Ballia Medical College itself, instead of being used as a battleground for communal politics, should be at the center of discussions for improving medical infrastructure, recruiting qualified professionals, and ensuring equitable healthcare access for all residents. Unfortunately, Singh’s rhetoric suggests a preference for electoral theatrics over substantive governance.
One possible explanation for her stance is the growing influence of PDA (Pichda, Dalit, and Alpsankhyak) politics, which aims to unite marginalized communities against the BJP’s traditional upper-caste vote bank. The emergence of such a counterforce could explain Singh’s attempt to solidify Hindu support by playing the communal card. However, this strategy carries significant risks. If she alienates the Muslim electorate entirely, it could impact her future electoral prospects, especially if opposition parties manage to forge a cohesive alliance against her. Furthermore, if she fails to deliver on governance, even her core Hindu voters may eventually lose confidence in her leadership.
The broader political landscape in Uttar Pradesh has seen several instances where politicians resorted to communal rhetoric when faced with developmental failures. The pattern is clear: when leaders lack an agenda for governance, they fall back on divisive politics to maintain relevance. This tactic, however, is not sustainable in the long run. Voters are becoming increasingly aware of the importance of tangible development over symbolic identity politics. The 2022 Uttar Pradesh elections demonstrated that while communal sentiments can be mobilized temporarily, long-term electoral success depends on addressing real issues like employment, healthcare, and education.
The danger of such divisive politics is not just electoral; it has long-term implications for societal fabric. Communal polarization erodes trust between communities, leading to an atmosphere of suspicion and hostility. It affects inter-community trade and employment, discourages investment in the region, and, in extreme cases, can trigger violence. If such sentiments gain a foothold in Ballia, it could take years to repair the damage, both socially and economically.
Singh’s statement, therefore, should not be seen in isolation but as part of a larger trend where politicians use religion to divert attention from governance failures. The electorate must remain vigilant against such tactics and demand accountability from their leaders. Instead of allowing Ballia to become a testing ground for communal experiments, political discourse should focus on how to improve the lives of its residents, irrespective of religion. This includes better healthcare facilities, improved infrastructure, employment opportunities, and a governance model that prioritizes unity over division.
The responsibility also lies with the BJP leadership at the state and national levels. If the party genuinely aims to present itself as a vehicle for development and governance, it must rein in leaders who resort to such inflammatory rhetoric. The central government’s emphasis on “Sabka Saath, Sabka Vikas” rings hollow when its own representatives propagate exclusionary ideas. If Singh’s remarks are an attempt to curry favor with party leadership in hopes of securing her political future, it reflects poorly on the BJP’s internal culture and its commitment to inclusive governance.
Ultimately, the people of Ballia must decide whether they want to endorse a brand of politics that thrives on division or push for leaders who can bring real change. Singh’s comments may help her secure short-term political gains, but the long-term cost to society is far too high. The electorate must reject any attempt to exploit religious sentiments for political mileage and instead demand policies that foster unity and development. Only then can Ballia—and indeed India—truly progress as a nation that upholds the values of secularism, coexistence, and inclusive growth.
