The Election Commission said the BJP had won at least 124 seats in the 294-member state assembly and was leading in 83 others, placing it on course to form the government. The TMC, led by Chief Minister Mamata Banerjee, had held power in the eastern state since 2011 and had been one of the BJP’s most resilient regional opponents.

The outcome represents a major expansion for the BJP into a politically influential state where it has historically struggled to gain a foothold.

Addressing party supporters in New Delhi, Modi said the result marked “a new chapter” for West Bengal, pointing to what he described as the party’s growing appeal across regions.Opposition parties, however, criticized the conduct of the election, alleging irregularities after millions of voters were removed from electoral rolls.

The Election Commission has not publicly detailed the basis for the removals in the data provided.Banerjee’s defeat is expected to weaken her position within India’s fragmented opposition, where she had emerged as a key figure attempting to unify regional parties against the BJP.

Her loss underscores the broader challenges faced by opposition groups in mounting a coordinated national challenge to Modi’s party.The West Bengal result comes amid a broader cycle of state elections across India. Governments were also unseated in two other states, while the BJP retained power in Assam for a third consecutive term.

In Tamil Nadu, actor-turned-politician Joseph Vijay led his Tamilaga Vettri Kazhagam party to victory over the incumbent DMK government, while in Kerala, the Congress-led opposition defeated the ruling communist administration.

The BJP’s gains in West Bengal are likely to bolster Modi’s political standing midway through his third term, particularly after the 2024 national election forced the party to rely on regional allies to form a government.

Analysts say the expansion into new regional strongholds could strengthen the party’s position ahead of the next general election scheduled for 2029.India, with more than 1.4 billion people, conducts elections across its 28 states and eight federal territories in staggered cycles, making state-level outcomes a critical indicator of national political momentum.

The proposed law, which sought to increase the size of the lower house by about 55% to 850 seats ahead of the 2029 general elections, fell short of the required two-thirds majority, with 298 lawmakers voting in favor and 230 against in the Lok Sabha.

The government had linked the expansion to the implementation of women’s reservation, arguing that redrawing constituency boundaries based on updated population data was necessary to ensure equitable representation. Seats in parliament have remained frozen since the 1971 census, despite significant demographic changes.

Opposition parties supported the principle of reserving seats for women but opposed tying it to a nationwide delimitation exercise, alleging the move could be used to alter electoral dynamics in favor of the ruling party.

Opposition leader Rahul Gandhi criticized the bill shortly after the vote, calling it an “unconstitutional trick” that undermined the Constitution under the guise of advancing women’s representation.The government rejected those claims, maintaining that the proposal was essential for modernizing India’s electoral framework.

Interior Minister Amit Shah defended the bill in parliament, warning that blocking it would disappoint women across the country and vowing continued efforts to secure legislative backing for gender quotas.

A law passed in 2023 had already approved reserving one-third of parliamentary seats for women, but its implementation was contingent on the completion of the next census and subsequent constituency redrawing, a process still underway and expected to delay enforcement beyond the next election cycle.

Women currently account for about 14% of members in the lower house and 17% in the upper house, with representation in state legislatures averaging around 10%, according to official data.

The failure of the bill highlights ongoing political divisions over electoral reforms and gender representation, as well as the challenges of securing broad consensus for constitutional amendments in India’s increasingly polarized parliament.

Prophet Mohammad honored him by saying, “He was the best of the Jews”, recognizing his noble spirit and contribution to the broader cause.

On April 2, 2025, during a intense parliamentary debate over the Waqf Amendment Bill, India’s ruling party’s lawmaker Nishikant Dubey made a striking reference that caught the attention of both historians and common citizens alike. While defending the bill, which proposes to bring structural reforms and inclusivity to the administration of waqf properties, Dubey cited the example of a 7th-century Jewish scholar and leader—Rabbi Mukhayriq.

His words triggered a wave of curiosity about a figure not often mentioned in popular discourse—especially within Indian political conversations. Who was this Rabbi, and why is he relevant in today’s debate on religious property and national interest?

Who Was Rabbi Mukhayriq?

Rabbi Mukhayriq was a prominent Jewish scholar and wealthy landowner from the Banu Tha’labah tribe of Medina. He lived during the time of Prophet Mohammad and is remembered in Islamic and Jewish historical traditions for his courageous and selfless actions during the Battle of Uhud in 625 CE.

On the day of the battle, the city of Medina faced an imminent threat from the Quraysh tribe of Mecca. As fate would have it, the day fell on the Sabbath—a holy day for Jews, on which work and combat are generally forbidden. Despite this religious restriction, Rabbi Mukhayriq gathered his people and urged them to fight alongside the Muslims to defend their shared homeland. When his fellow tribesmen hesitated due to Sabbath laws, he rebuked them and reportedly said, “You have no Sabbath”, stressing that the defense Medina was a higher moral responsibility.

Rabbi Mukhayriq went to the battlefield and fought alongside the Muslim army. He died in the battle, becoming one of the few Jewish martyrs in the defense of Medina. He was buried in the ‘Shoda-e-Uhud’ graveyard alongside Prophet’s uncle Hamza Bin Abdul-Mutallib.

Before leaving, he had instructed that all his wealth—including several orchards—be handed over to Prophet Mohammad. The Prophet accepted this and used the wealth to establish one of Islam’s first waqf (charitable endowments), which was used to serve the poor and support the growing Muslim community.

Prophet Mohammad honored him by saying, “He was the best of the Jews”, recognizing his noble spirit and contribution to the broader cause.

A Lesson in Interfaith Unity

What makes Rabbi Mukhayriq’s story timeless is not just his bravery, but the message it carries about interfaith cooperation. At a time when divisions between communities often lead to conflict, Mukhayriq’s sacrifice reminds us that people of different faiths can—and have—worked together for the common good—to defend the national cause.

The Battle of Uhud wasn’t just a military confrontation—it was a moment that tested the moral fabric of Medina’s diverse society. The actions of Rabbi Mukhayriq exemplify that protecting a shared homeland and values sometimes means putting community above personal interests—even above religious norms.

It also highlights how early Muslims and Jews, despite theological differences, stood together when it mattered most.

Relevance in Modern India

MP Nishikant Dubey’s invocation of Mukhayriq during the Waqf Amendment Bill debate wasn’t accidental. The bill proposes to broaden waqf board membership to include non-Muslim experts and aims to improve transparency and governance in the management of waqf properties—assets donated for religious or charitable purposes under Islamic law.

Supporters of the bill argue that involving non-Muslims, especially legal and financial professionals, can improve efficiency and reduce corruption. Critics, however, view it as state interference in religious affairs. India’s Home Minister Amit Shah stated that, non-Muslims shall not interfere into religious affairs come what may.

Dubey’s reference to Mukhayriq was used to draw a powerful parallel—that the spirit of community service and unity across faith lines is not alien to Islamic tradition. He framed the reforms not as interference, but as an invitation to all Indians, regardless of religion, to participate in nation-building and the transparent management of shared resources.

A Legacy Worth Remembering

Rabbi Mukhayriq’s legacy is more than a footnote in Islamic history—it is a shining example of moral courage, selflessness, and the power of interfaith unity. In times where communal tensions are often stoked for political gain, his story serves as a reminder that the higher cause of justice, harmony, and national interest can—and should—transcend religious boundaries.