National security is not negotiable. It cannot be subjected to vote-bank calculations, emotional arguments or political convenience. If a religious structure—whether a mosque, temple, church or gurdwara—poses a genuine operational or security concern for a critical national asset such as an international airport, the country’s security interests must prevail. Period. Viewed from that perspective, the decision of the BJP government in West Bengal under Suvendu Adhikari to relocate the 136-year-old Gouripur Jama Masjid situated close to the runway deserves serious consideration rather than predictable political outrage. Critics may debate the manner of implementation, but questioning the principle itself is difficult in an era where terrorism has become increasingly sophisticated and unpredictable. The world today is vastly different from what it was four or five decades ago. India has endured the horrors of the Parliament attack, the Mumbai terror strikes and numerous other attacks masterminded by Pakistan-based terror outfits. Intelligence agencies have repeatedly warned that critical infrastructure—including airports, ports, military establishments and transport hubs—remains a preferred target of hostile actors. In such circumstances, any unrestricted civilian congregation immediately adjacent to high-security installations inevitably raises legitimate security concerns. This is not about religion. It is about risk. If aviation authorities and security agencies conclude that unrestricted public access near a sensitive runway compromises security protocols, hampers airport expansion or delays installation of critical navigation systems such as Instrument Landing Systems (ILS), their assessment deserves priority over political rhetoric. Waiting for a catastrophe before correcting an avoidable vulnerability would be the height of irresponsibility. The obvious question, however, is why successive governments failed to address the issue. The Left Front ruled West Bengal for over three decades. The Trinamool Congress followed it. If the security implications were so evident today, why were they ignored for decades? The answer, many would argue, lies in India’s unfortunate culture of vote-bank politics, where difficult decisions are often postponed lest they upset electoral arithmetic.
Equally puzzling is the sudden awakening of sections of the bureaucracy and aviation establishment. Were these concerns absent earlier, or were inconvenient truths quietly buried? Institutions are expected to function independently of political considerations. National security cannot fluctuate with changes in government. Opposition leaders argue that the mosque predates the airport and has deep historical roots. That may well be true. But history cannot override contemporary security realities. Across the world, governments have relocated homes, businesses and even places of worship to facilitate airports, highways, defence installations, and other projects serving a larger public interest. Such decisions must, of course, be accompanied by fair rehabilitation, due consultation and respect for religious sentiments. Respect, however, cannot become a veto over national security. The same principle should apply uniformly. If a temple, church, gurdwara or any other religious structure were found to pose a comparable security risk near a strategic installation, it too should be relocated. Equal treatment strengthens, rather than weakens, India’s secular fabric. The debate also unfolds against the backdrop of continuing concerns over illegal infiltration across India’s eastern borders. Political parties have traded allegations over forged identity documents and illegal immigration, while the Election Commission has undertaken electoral roll verification exercises in several states. Whatever the political contestation surrounding these issues, they reinforce one undeniable reality: access control around critical infrastructure cannot rely merely on routine identity verification. Security planning must anticipate worst-case scenarios rather than assume the best. Those dismissing the relocation as communal politics miss the larger point. The issue is not the identity of those who worship. The issue is the vulnerability created by unrestricted public movement around a strategic installation. Responsible governance demands eliminating avoidable risks before tragedy strikes, not offering explanations after lives are lost. A mature democracy must never confuse religious freedom with immunity from legitimate security regulations. Every citizen enjoys the constitutional right to practise his or her faith. But no constitutional right is absolute when weighed against the collective security of the nation. If relocating a place of worship—of any faith—helps secure an international airport and strengthens national security, then the choice should not be difficult. Security must come before sentiment. Every single time.
