CPI-M today said that it is highly suspicious that Union home minister Amit Shah has virtually gone incognito, while Delhi was burning he has found time to first visit Bhubaneswar today and then Kolkata on 1 March. “It is strengthening the speculation that BJP’s top leadership and chief minister Mamata Banerjee’s hand-inglove which is why Shah can come to Kolkata.

Miss Banerjee has not condemned the hate speeches by three BJP leaders including Union minister who instigated the Delhi riots,”CPM leader Sujan Chakraborty said. He also said that Miss Banerjee and her party may maintain silence over Shah’s upcoming visit to Kolkata but the CPI(M) has decided to demonstrate during Shah’s visit here on 1 March to protest against the Centre’s alleged failure to contain the violence in Delhi.

Shah is scheduled to address a rally at the Shaheed Minar Ground where state BJP will felicitate him for the passage of the Citizenship Amendment) Act in Parliament. “We will mark his visit with a ‘Go Back Amit Shah’ programme across the state. It is due to his failure as Union home minister to contain the violence in Delhi where so many people were killed. He will be shown black flags and will face protests during his visit,” another CPI-M leader said.

This will be Shah’s second visit to West Bengal after assuming the office of the Union home minister. He had addressed a seminar on the Citizenship (Amendment) Bill at Netaji Indoor Stadium on 1 October last year. “This is a clear indication that TMC chief has surrendered to the BJP for political survival. Her silence on Delhi says it all.

She had similarly met Prime Minister Narendra Modi at Raj Bhavan to placate him at the height of countrywide agitation against the Citizenship (Amendment) Act (CAA), the National Register of Citizens (NRC) and the National Population Register (NPR). Is another exposure of the under-the-table agreement between BJP and TMC on the offing?” he said. Earlier during Prime Minister Narendra Modi’s two-day visit in January, protests have rocked the city against the contentious CAA.