Agartala: Those old enough to remember the 1980s in Tripura speak of that decade in hushed tones. Ethnic violence tore communities apart, forcing neighbours to flee their homes and turning markets into battlegrounds. Most believed those dark days were buried forever.

They were wrong. Today, the same toxic brew of identity politics and territorial claims that fuelled the earlier bloodshed is bubbling to the surface again, leaving political leaders scrambling to prevent history from repeating itself.

What started with a provocative political rally in Agartala by the regional Amra Bangali Party on August 30, 2025, has spiralled into the most serious communal crisis Tripura has witnessed since achieving stability in the 1990s.

The controversy reached its peak when member of the erstwhile royal family and TIPRA Motha founder Pradyot Bikram Manikya Debbarma delivered inflammatory statements at Delhi's Jantar Mantar on September 9, directly challenging Amra Bangali’s claims of ownership with his own assertions of territorial authority.

The spark that lit the fire

The tensions began on August 30 when the Amra Bangali Party organised a mass rally in Tripura’s capital Agartala, raising provocative slogans that would later prove to be the catalyst for weeks of political turmoil. The party's supporters chanted a series of ownership claims that resonated across the state's ethnic divide: "Tripurar Mallik Ke? – Bangali, Abar Ke! (Who is the owner of Tripura, Bengalis,  who else?)", "Paschim Banglar Mallik Ke? – Bangali, Abar Ke!(Who is the owner of West Bengal, Bengalis,  who else?)", "Agartalar Mallik Ke? – Bangali, Abar Ke! (Who is the owner of Agartala, Bengalis, who else?)".

The slogans extended to specific towns and regions, with similar claims made for Khowai, Teliamura, and Charilam. The rally's most controversial declaration came in the form of an ultimatum to tribal communities that was, "Jodi Tripurai Thakte Chau - Bangla Bhasha Sikhe Nau!" (If you want to stay in Tripura - Learn Bengali language!), followed by "Bangla Chara Choli Na-Bangla Chara Mani Na!" (Cannot move without Bengali-Cannot accept without Bengali!).

'Who is the owner of Agartala? – I, Pradyot Bikram Manikya!'

Ten days later, at a protest rally in Delhi's Jantar Mantar, Pradyot Bikram Manikya Debbarma delivered what would become the most controversial political statement in Tripura's recent history. In direct response to the Amra Bangali slogans, he declared his own ownership claims with equal force: "Agartalar Mallik Ke? – Ami, Pradyot Bikram Manikya!" (Who is the owner of Agartala? – I, Pradyot Bikram Manikya!).

He repeated the same slogan by naming different areas of the state – "Teliamurar Mallik Ke? – Ami, Pradyot Bikram Manikya!", "Kanchanpurer Mallik Ke? – Ami, Pradyot Bikram Manikya!".

The speech of the descendant of the erstwhile Tripura royal family grew more pointed as he addressed the fundamental question of ownership and tenancy. "Malik Malik Hota Hai, Aur Jo Kirayedar hota hai woh Mallik nehi, kirayedar hota hai," (Owner is owner, and those who are tenants are not owners, they are tenants), he declared, drawing a sharp distinction between what he viewed as rightful ownership and temporary occupation.

Pradyot's remarks took on an increasingly confrontational tone as he addressed the tribal community directly.

"Those who raised these slogans do not see whether you belong to TIPRA Motha, BJP, or CPI(M) and Congress, they keep you as 'servants' seeing you as Tiprasa”, he stated, alleging that systematic discrimination has been happening against tribal communities.

The warning that followed carried ominous undertones for the state's future stability.

"If you people do not stay united, these people will become owners and keep your children as servants”, Pradyot cautioned, before issuing what many interpreted as a veiled threat, "Who is the owner of Tripura? – I know, will show, wait!, I am quiet, but I am not afraid”.

Escalating stakes and federal implications

Pradyot's speech revealed the high personal and political stakes involved in the controversy.

"Before coming here I have spoken with my mother that I'm ready to go to jail for my people. They might file cases against me – CBI, ED – but there won't be enough space in jail for all the people you will arrest”, he declared, suggesting widespread support for his position.

The TIPRA Motha founder also issued what appeared to be an ultimatum to the Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP)-led Union government.

"This is the last time I have requested to Prime Minister Narendra Modi, Union home minister Amit Shah to think about Tiprasa and overrule those leaders from BJP in Tripura who oppose our demands otherwise we need to take another path," said Pradyot, indicating potential consequences if tribal demands remain unaddressed.

However, Pradyot attempted to moderate his message by clarifying his party's position on inter-community relations.

"We are not against Bengali, these are their political agendas to show us as 'Rakshas' (demons), but we are Tiprasas," he explained, suggesting that the conflict was politically manufactured rather than organically arising from tensions between communities.

Swift political condemnation

The Communist Party of India (CPI) was among the first to respond, releasing a comprehensive press statement on September 9, that condemned Pradyot's ownership claims as fundamentally anti-constitutional. CPI Tripura state secretary Milan Baidya articulated the party's position in in no uncertain terms, describing the Pradyot's statements as "unconstitutional, anti-democratic and divisive."

The party's statement emphasised the constitutional framework governing modern India.

"Tripura is no longer under any monarchy, but is an integral state of a democratic nation governed by India's Constitution. The sovereign power of this state rests with the people, not with any individual, family or feudal force," the CPI declared, rejecting any notion of individual ownership over state territories.

The Left's response highlighted concerns about the broader implications of such statements.

"Such feudal remarks will create divisions among different communities of the state, whereas peace, harmony and joint development are most urgent at this time. The people of Tripura – both tribals and other communities – have earned equal rights to land, resources and opportunities through their struggle and sacrifice. No individual or group can claim sole ownership of Tripura," the party statement added.

Amra Bengali party responds, says Tipra Motha is threatening Bengalis

Amra Bangali Party leaders moved quickly to capitalise on the controversy, with state secretary Gouranga Rudra Pal addressing media representatives in front of the party office in Agartala on September 10.

Pal accused Pradyot of deliberately attempting to create divisions between tribal and non-tribal communities, warning of serious consequences if communal unrest were to break out.

"Under the guise of tribal development, what he is actually doing is serving his own interests and those of his family. His recent remarks have only deepened bitterness among communities," Pal alleged, questioning the sincerity of Pradyot's tribal welfare claims while suggesting personal and familial motivations behind the ownership assertions.

The Amra Bangali leader also targeted the ruling party's alliance structure, specifically questioning BJP Lok Sabha MP Kriti Singh Debbarma's participation in what he characterised as anti-Bengali activities.

"Why is the BJP leadership silent on such anti-Bengali and anti-Tripura remarks? Why are they not condemning Pradyot's statements?" he demanded, attempting to force the ruling party into taking a clear position on the controversy.

At another press conference on Thursday (September 18), Pal elaborated on what he described as a systematic campaign against Bengali residents.

"For the past few months, the TIPRA Motha party has been threatening Bengalis throughout Tripura state, especially in ADC areas, to evict them. Particularly in Bishramganj, Gandacherra, and Kalamcherra area in Ambassa Sub-division of Dhalai district, poor Bengalis who have been living there for 40-50 years are being targeted," said Pal.

"Tribal communities are forcibly occupying government land, yet the administration remains completely silent. Other parties remain silent on this issue hoping to get tribal votes. Only the Amra Bangali Party is protesting against these injustices," he added.

Communist Party's Dual Criticism of Tipra Motha and Amra Bangali

Recognising the complex nature of the controversy, the CPI issued a second statement on September 10, that addressed both sides of the ethnic divide. The party condemned what it characterised as divisive efforts by the Amra Bangali Party to disturb Tripura's peaceful environment through communal rhetoric.

The CPI's statement took particular issue with Amra Bangali's claims about indigenous status.

"In their recent statement, they have irresponsibly tried to describe only Bengalis as the indigenous people of Tripura. This claim is false, divisive and unconstitutional," the CPI declared, rejecting ethnic exclusivity from any community.

The party's historical perspective proved particularly pointed, drawing connections between current tensions and the violent 1980s period.

"It is well known that the main source of the unrest that arose in Tripura in the eighties was divisive politics – on one side 'Amra Bangali' and on the other side the then NLFT. Both these sides were the main cause of bloodshed and unrest at that time," the statement added, warning against the return of forces that had previously devastated the state.

Congress seeks middle ground

Senior Congress leader and Agartala MLA Sudip Roy Barman attempted to chart a more moderate course when he addressed reporters on September 11 at the Pradesh Congress Bhavan in Agartala. Barman rejected Pradyot's ownership claims while emphasising the democratic principle of popular sovereignty.

"Tripura belongs to all its people. Everyone – whether it is you, me, Pradyot Babu, or citizens of any community, caste, or religion – has equal rights in this state. This country and this state belong to all of us. Referring to royal times is irrelevant because India is a sovereign nation governed by law, and the princely states of the past no longer exist," Roy Barman declared, invoking constitutional principles to counter both ethnic and royal claims.

The Congress leader mentioned that political frustration rather than genuine grievance motivated Pradyot's controversial statements.

"The BJP had promised to implement the Tiprasa Accord within six months, but 18 months have passed with little progress. With the Village Committee and TTAADC elections approaching, Pradyot is struggling to face the people. That is why he is making such statements to divert attention from his failures," he said, attributing the controversy to electoral calculations.

Despite his criticism of the ownership claims, Barman acknowledged areas of potential cooperation on tribal issues.

"We agree on the need to strengthen the Tripura Tribal Areas Autonomous District Council and pass the 125th Constitutional Amendment to ensure political, social, and economic rights for indigenous communities. All parties should work together to pressure the Centre to pass this amendment," he stated, attempting to separate legitimate tribal demands from controversial ownership assertions.

Ruling party allies navigate carefully

The controversy placed particular pressure on the ruling BJP's tribal allies, who found themselves caught between ethnic solidarity and democratic principles. Former Lok Sabha MP and senior BJP leader Rebati Mohan Tripura attempted to defuse tensions on Saturday, September 13, by characterising the entire dispute as routine political rhetoric.

"This is a political slogan, I am also owner of Tripura, in fact all of you are owners of Tripura. There is no end to arguments on this matter. Political slogans, speeches –many political parties say many things to keep their workers active and energised. Since both are regional parties, they work keeping their communities ahead," he explained, attempting to normalise what many viewed as inflammatory statements.

However, Rebati Mohan also expressed concern about potential consequences.

"We have heard such speeches before, but we don't want any division between Bengalis and tribals after hearing such speeches. We don't want those dark days. We don't want the brotherhood between us to be destroyed," he cautioned, invoking memories of past violence to call for restraint.

Tripura's Minister of Welfare of Scheduled Castes Sudhanshu Das on September 16, took a firmer stance against the ownership claims.

"I do not support the statement he has made. We are citizens of an independent country, citizens of democracy, our country has a constitution,” he said.

“After independence all the princely states that existed were merged with India according to the constitution, so our country is governed through the constitution not through any monarchy, I don't know on what basis he said this but I do not support it," said Das, clearly rejecting any notion of individual territorial ownership.

Opposition leadership's constitutional challenge

CPI(M) Politburo Member and Leader of Opposition Jitendra Chaudhury delivered perhaps the most comprehensive criticism of Pradyot's statements, describing them as "anti-democratic and anti-constitutional" while providing detailed historical context to counter the ownership claims.

While addressing a meeting at Ambassa in Dhalai district on Wednesday, September 1, Chaudhary said, "He should carefully study the history of Tripura and India to understand that no individual can claim ownership of cities and towns. The state and its people are the rightful owners."

Chaudhury's historical account proved particularly damaging to royal claims.

"Pradyot's ancestors had signed the Instrument of Accession on August 13, 1947, the merger document on September 9, 1949, and Tripura, as a princely state, officially joined the Indian Union on October 15, 1949," he detailed, arguing that these legal documents had permanently transferred sovereignty from the royal family to the Indian state.

The CPI(M) leader also accused Pradyot of serving BJP interests while misleading tribal communities. "All that Pradyot has been doing is misleading indigenous communities to further his personal and familial agenda. The state's tribal population has now recognised Pradyot's self-serving political motives and is increasingly distancing itself from his party due to unmet promises and failures in governance," he claimed, suggesting declining tribal support for TIPRA Motha.

Chaudhury addressed additional controversial claims made by Pradyot, including allegations about his father's death. He also condemned Pradyot's recent claim in Delhi that CPI(M) was responsible for the death of his father, Kirit Bikram Kishore Debbarman, calling it 'absurd and baseless.'

"Even Pradyot's mother, Bibhu Kumari Debi, never made such allegations," he stated, characterising the accusations as politically motivated rather than factually grounded.

Ruling alliance seeks stability

The Indigenous People's Front of Tripura (IPFT), another key ruling party ally, expressed growing concern about the deteriorating political atmosphere in the state. While addressing a press conference at Agartala Press Club on September 14, IPFT General Secretary Swapan Debbarma announced that the party would seek Chief Minister Manik Saha's intervention to prevent law and order problems.

"Since the rally, the political atmosphere in Tripura has seen notable changes. Statements made by opposition groups, particularly Amra Bangali and TIPRA Motha, have attempted to stoke tensions. While the party refrained from saying that law and order has already deteriorated, the situation might worsen if not monitored closely," Debbarma warned, acknowledging the volatile nature of current political dynamics.

The IPFT's response reflected the delicate position of ruling party allies who needed to balance ethnic considerations with governmental responsibility.

"As a ruling ally, IPFT has decided to write to the Chief Minister and also meet him in person to urge close attention to the present political scenario. The government must ensure that peace and order are maintained and that the situation does not slip out of control," Debbarma stated, effectively calling for state intervention to prevent further escalation.

Ground-level escalation

The controversy took on a more dangerous dimension when local TIPRA Motha leaders began making specific territorial claims backed by alleged documentation. Gautam Budha Debbarma, the party's block president for the 19-Charilam Assembly Constituency, released a viral Facebook video on September 15 that escalated tensions significantly.

"In 1928 when our Maharaj Bir Bikram Kishore Manikya went to Melaghar to build 'Neermahal', he rested at this Bishramgaj, that's why this place is called Bishramgaj till today," Debbarma claimed, providing historical context for current ownership assertions.

He alleged that approximately 1,500 general category people living in Bishramgaj Bazar were occupying land that had been donated to a tribal individual named Manik Debbarma, with proper documentation available to prove the claim.

The TIPRA Motha leader's threats proved particularly inflammatory.

"If you can do it with 200 people with sticks, we can do it with 500 people with choppers, there is no problem with that. This is not the Tripura of 1980, this is the Tripura of 2025, Bubagra Maharaj's team is there!" he declared, explicitly referencing potential violence while invoking past communal conflicts.

Debbarma's allegations extended to broader patterns of land occupation.

"All the houses around Neermahal are of illegal Bangladeshis, they cannot make documents because that place has inheritance documents of Maharaj Bir Bikram Manikya, Kanchan Prabha Devi, and Kirit Bikram Manikya," he claimed, mixing citizenship questions with ownership disputes.

The local leader also suggested systematic action by tribal communities to reclaim contested territories. "Like Bishramgaj across state they (Bengalis) took areas from ADC to general areas and created Gram Panchayats, I suggest every Tiprasa who lives in Tribal-Bengali mixed areas they must go to nearby Tehsil and get the land map within one week, then everything will be clear that Tripura belongs to whom," he stated, effectively calling for a documentary verification campaign that could further inflame tensions.

Police intervention and legal action

The escalating rhetoric finally prompted law enforcement action, with Tripura Police registering cases against leaders from both sides of the controversy. On September 15, both Gautam Budha Debbarma and Amra Bangali leader Gouranga Rudra Paul were served notices to appear before the West Agartala Police Station for allegedly making communal remarks.

Officer-in-charge Rana Chatterjee confirmed that a suo motu FIR had been lodged against Debbarma after his viral video circulated on social media.

"A specific case under section 196, 352, 353 of BNS was registered against Debbarma, and he has been asked to appear at the police station," he stated.

The action against Amra Bangali leader Rudra Paul related to his August 30 rally speech.

"A case against Rudra Paul was lodged under section 196, 352, 353 of BNS for making communal remarks hurting the sentiment of a particular community. A notice was issued to him asking to appear before the police station," the police officer confirmed, demonstrating equal treatment of provocative statements from both ethnic communities.

Officer-in-charge Rana Chatterjee confirmed to The Wire on September 17, that after receiving a notice, both parties appeared at the police station, and the case is currently under investigation.

The Wire is now on WhatsApp. Follow our channel for sharp analysis and opinions on the latest developments.