What happened
Bengal and Maharashtra publicly rejected an alleged coercive approach that was linked, in the reported controversy, to earlier state-level governance actions involving Assam and Bihar. The reported stand from Bengal and Maharashtra is presented as a refusal to accept similar tactics, with reasons focused on legal propriety, state autonomy, and denial that the actions are politically motivated.
Background and earlier position
Assam and Bihar are described as having already pushed back against the alleged coercive approach. The controversy is framed as a dispute over whether earlier actions were lawful and within the constitutional sphere of states or were used as pressure tools that amounted to political targeting. Against this background, Bengal and Maharashtra are described as joining the line of resistance against coercive action.
What changed now (Bengal and Maharashtra’s response)
Bengal and Maharashtra are portrayed as saying “no” to coercion action after Assam and Bihar. The reported grounds for refusal from Bengal and Maharashtra are legal propriety (lawful limits), state autonomy (respecting the constitutional role of state governments), and denial that the earlier actions are “political witch-hunts.”