A fresh political controversy has erupted in West Bengal after BJP leader and Nandigram MLA Suvendu Adhikari claimed that beneficiaries of the Awas Yojana in Haripur village of Nandigram were disproportionately from the Muslim community. Adhikari claimed that the village has around 86% Hindu population, but alleged that out of 54 families who received housing-scheme benefits, 52 were Muslim and only two were Hindu.
The allegation has led to a political fight over the implementation of welfare schemes and whether benefits are fairly distributed among eligible residents. Adhikari has used the claim to attack the Mamata Banerjee-led administration, saying the distribution reflects what he refers to as appeasement politics.
Adhikari's figures have been widely used on social media. However, the beneficiary numbers and the claim of religious disparity should be treated as an allegation by the BJP leader unless independently verified through official beneficiary records. The available reports in this search confirm that the claim is made, but do not establish that 54 beneficiaries were selected purely on religious grounds.
Haripur is located in Nandigram I Block of Purba Medinipur district. Census 2011 data for the wider Nandigram I block showed Hindus to be around 65.8% of the population and Muslims to be about 34%, but this is for the whole block and not just for the town of Haripur.
The distinction is important because welfare schemes such as housing assistance generally involve eligibility criteria that can include housing conditions, economic circumstances, household status and other administrative requirements. A beneficiary's religion by itself does not determine whether the individual was eligible or ineligible for a government scheme.
Haripur, Nandigram-1: 86% Hindu population.
— Political Kida (@PoliticalKida) August 25, 2026
Mamata Govt gave Awas Yojana benefits to 54 families-52 Muslims, just 2 Hindus.
In a Hindu-majority village.
You decide what to call this. pic.twitter.com/g2f4YERgX6
Adhikari's claim still raises a politically sensitive issue: transparency in welfare distribution. If the numbers he cited are correct, authorities will have to justify how the beneficiaries were identified and whether all eligible households were considered under the applicable guidelines.
The issue has been particularly important in West Bengal, where welfare schemes have often been in play in political fights between the ruling Trinamool Congress and BJP. Nandigram itself is quite politically significant, too: in 2021, it was at the center of a very heated election fight between Mamata Banerjee and Suvendu Adhikari. Adhikari remains an MLA for Nandigram.
Adhikari has previously made strong political statements about the relationship between religion and voting patterns in Nandigram. In May 2026, he said that the Hindu electorate had helped him win and alleged that the Muslim vote had largely gone to the Trinamool Congress.
The latest Awas Yojana allegation is therefore an addition to an already heated political environment. For the ruling administration, the issue could raise questions about beneficiary selection and whether there are official records of distribution figures.
The BJP, in turn, can use the allegation to make another point about minority appeasement and unequal treatment. The Trinamool Congress and state administration would need to act on the particular beneficiary data if the allegation becomes a larger political controversy.
The question ultimately is not whether the beneficiaries are religious but whether all eligible households were treated fairly under the scheme’s rules. If official records show that beneficiaries were selected according to transparent and objective criteria, the government can use those records to address the allegations. If discrepancies are found, they would warrant further investigation.
As the controversy develops, attention is likely to be on the official beneficiary list for Haripur, eligibility criteria applied to the 54 households, and whether the claimed figures can be independently verified.
For now, Suvendu Adhikari’s claim remains a political statement, and the broader accusation of religious discrimination requires documentary evidence before any conclusions can be drawn at this point.
