Kolkata: On July 18, 2026, Union home minister Amit Shah convened a high-level review on border security in West Bengal’s Siliguri. The meeting was attended by superintendents of police of every district along the Indo-Bangladesh border.But the commissioner of police of Siliguri was not among them. According to a complaint filed by Trinamool Congress Krishnanagar MP Mahua Moitra, Siliguri commissioner of police Syed Waquar Raza was asked to leave by West Bengal director general of police (DGP) Siddhinath Gupta. No reason was given.According to Moitra’s complaint, Raza, an Indian Police Service (IPS) officer, spent the rest of that meeting in the official chamber of his wife, Shama Parveen IAS, who is presently posted as senior secretary, North Bengal Development Department.‘One factor that sets them apart is their religion’Raza is one of three senior officers named in Moitra’s letters, dated September 16, to the National Commission for Minorities and the United Nations special rapporteur on minority issues. The other two are Jawed Shamim, the director general (DG) heading the state’s Special Task Force (STF), and Khalil Ahmed, additional chief secretary of the Fire and Emergency Services Department. Moitra alleges that the three were kept away from meetings and official engagements during Shah’s visits to Bengal in July and August because they are Muslim.“The one factor these three officers share, and the one factor that sets them apart from the colleagues who were permitted to remain, is their religion,” Moitra says in her complaint. Her complaint describes seven alleged acts of exclusion during two visits, involving meetings, an exhibition and arrangements to receive and see off the home minister.Moitra’s letters provide an account of the alleged incidents but do not include statements from the officers themselves or copies of instructions ordering their exclusion. The material annexed consists of a suggested ceremonial line-up for the August visit and a screenshot of Moitra’s September 1 post on X. Neither, on its own, establishes that officers were asked to leave meetings or why attendance decisions were made.Moitra’s account of the July 18 meeting begins with a gathering of senior police and administrative officers in Siliguri to discuss security along the India-Bangladesh border. Raza, the police chief of the host city, was among those who arrived but was allegedly told to leave.The complaint points to the responsibilities of his office. Moitra describes Siliguri as the only police commissionerate in the state sharing a border with Bangladesh, with jurisdiction over the Siliguri Corridor. On that basis, Moitra argues, its commissioner had a direct role in the matters being discussed. She also alleges that Raza was instructed not to appear in the line-up to see Shah off, with inspector general of police, North Bengal, Sukesh Jain taking his place.Shamim’s alleged exclusion took a different form. He was told not to attend the Siliguri review at all, Moitra says. The STF was instead represented by inspector general Gaurav Sharma, an officer serving under him. The complaint lists the heads of the Criminal Investigation Department (CID), Intelligence Branch and Cyber Cell, along with senior officers heading zonal commands, among those who participated. While the STF’s work was represented at the meeting, but its chief was absent.According to Moitra’s complaint, the the third instance took place on July 19, when Shah chaired a meeting in Kolkata on law and order and disaster preparedness. Ahmed arrived for it and was asked to leave, Moitra has alleged. As additional chief secretary of Fire and Emergency Services, he headed a department involved in emergency response. The complaint does not identify who allegedly instructed him to leave. Shamim was again told not to attend, Moitra says, and Sharma again represented the STF.“No reason was communicated to any of these officers on any of these occasions,” she writes. “In two instances, the officers had already arrived at the venue before being asked to leave, which makes it difficult to attribute their exclusion to an oversight in the list of invitees.”Moitra’s August account concerns Shah’s visit from August 20 to 22. Moitra alleges that Raza was once again told not to attend a border-security review and was excluded from reception and see-off arrangements. Shamim, she says, was not permitted to participate in the Nyaya Sanhita Exhibition at Kawakhali Ground, where Sharma represented the STF.The annexed protocol document gives some detail about the arrangements for that visit. Titled “Suggested Ceremonial Line-up”, it names officials expected to receive or see off Shah at Bagdogra airport, his hotel and other venues.Names of Muslim officials don’t appear in protocol documentChief secretary Manoj Kumar Agarwal, principal secretary in the Home and Hill Affairs Department Sanghamitra Ghosh, the DGP and district officials appear on the lists. Jain is named for several engagements. Raza’s name and the office of Siliguri police commissioner do not appear in the three-page document.The Wire sent nine questions to West Bengal DGP Gupta and chief secretary Agarwal, asking whether the state confirmed that the three officers had been asked to leave meetings, told not to attend or left out of protocol arrangements. It sought details of who had issued any such instructions and what reasons were recorded. It also asked whether directions on which state officers could attend had come from the Union Home Ministry, Shah’s office or any central agency.Among the questions was why the Siliguri police commissioner’s name was missing from the August ceremonial line-up when the chief secretary, home secretary, DGP, IGP North Bengal and Darjeeling district magistrate were included.The two officials were also asked whether the government rejected Moitra’s allegation that the officers had been excluded because of their religion, whether any internal review had been ordered. and whether the relevant meeting records, tour diaries, protocol papers and CCTV footage would be preserved.Neither Gupta nor Agarwal had responded at the time of publication.