AS Assam heads toward the 2026 Assembly elections, governance under the present regime appears to be increasingly defined not by policy or performance, but by the systematic cultivation of hate and communal division. What should have been a democratic contest over livelihoods, development and accountability is being reshaped into a campaign built on intimidation, polarisation and calculated spectacle. The conduct of the Assam Chief Minister has ceased to resemble democratic leadership and begun to mirror something far more dangerous. It is a politics of intimidation, cruelty and dehumanisation, and finally power at any cost. 

The now-deleted video circulated on February 7, from the official social media handle of the ruling BJP in Assam, was not an accident. It depicted Chief Minister Himanta Biswa Sarma symbolically firing a gun at two Muslim men. The imagery was explicit. It portrayed members of a religious minority as targets to be eliminated. It dramatised violence as virtue. It converted communal hatred into campaign propaganda. This was not metaphor in isolation. It was an open incitement dressed as political messaging.

CM”S FIRING VIDEO

For a constitutional authority to be visually associated with the shooting of citizens belonging to a minority community is not merely irresponsible, but inhuman and profoundly anti-constitutional. The oath of office requires protection of all citizens without discrimination. Article 14 guarantees equality before law. Article 21 protects life and liberty. To symbolically rehearse violence against a section of the population is to mock these guarantees and dangerously legitimise hostility in public life.

The video was deleted after widespread outrage at national and international level. But deletion cannot cleanse the intent. The episode revealed a daredevil political temperament willing to flirt with genocidal imagery to consolidate majoritarian support. Such conduct echoes the methods of contemporary neo-fascist strongmen globally: manufacture enemies, inflame passions, intimidate minorities and convert fear into votes.

Legal accountability has so far remained elusive. Petitions were filed before the Supreme Court seeking registration of an FIR and appropriate action against the Chief Minister. However, a three-judge Bench headed by the Chief Justice of India declined to entertain the plea at this stage and directed the petitioners — including the Communist Party of India (Marxist) and the Communist Party of India — to approach the Gauhati High Court. The petitioners submitted that the social media post, circulated on February 7, 2026, from the “official handle of the Bharatiya Janata Party, Assam” on X (formerly Twitter), namely “BJP Assam Pradesh” (@BJP4Assam), and widely disseminated thereafter, constituted “the most blatant and disturbing manifestation of the pattern complained of.” The matter now awaits further legal recourse. Meanwhile, the absence of any visible action within the state has only deepened concerns about the even-handed enforcement of constitutional protections.

AGGRESSIVE ANTI-MUSLIM CAMPAIGN

The hate spectacle did not emerge in a vacuum. It followed months of aggressive allegations by the Chief Minister claiming a “Pakistan link” involving opposition MP Gaurav Gogoi. It was an accusation that, by its very nature, invokes national security. Matters concerning alleged foreign links fall squarely within the domain of the Union Government, particularly the Ministries of Home Affairs and External Affairs. Yet no formal statement, confirmation or action from the Union authorities has been placed in the public domain. Despite this, the Chief Minister assumed the role of accuser-in-chief, convening a widely publicised press conference that promised explosive disclosures. It produced no verifiable evidence in the public domain. What was projected as a grave national security revelation instead appeared to exceed the constitutional remit of a state executive and ultimately collapsed into what many observers described as a political embarrassment and flop show. When accusations of such magnitude fail to withstand scrutiny, escalation often follows.

Parallel to these controversies are serious and repeated allegations concerning the accumulation of vast properties by entities linked to the Chief Minister and his family. Opposition parties have publicly alleged that as much as 12,000 bighas of land, along with hotels, media ventures, private educational institutions and tea gardens, were amassed under questionable circumstances. For obvious reasons, the government denies wrongdoing. However, the scale of the claims and the absence of an independent, transparent investigation continue to fuel public suspicion. In a democracy, power must welcome scrutiny, not evade it.

LAND FOR CORPORATES

Beyond personal allegations lies a broader policy issues and structural pattern. By various estimates cited in political discourse, nearly 40,000 bighas of land were freed by evictions or other means and have been allotted or earmarked for major corporate conglomerates, including groups associated with Adani, Ambani and Ramdev. These decisions are defended in the name of development and investment. The scale, speed and opacity of these transfers or proposed transfer of land represent a corporate-first policy regime in which public resources are made accessible to large capital while erosion-affected communities, small farmers and local populations struggle for land security. The optics are stark: corporate consolidation at the top, communal polarisation in the political sphere, and economic distress at the grassroots.

Unemployment among youth remains high. Problems of livelihood are increasing day by day. Inflation burdens working families. Farmers face instability. Flood and erosion displace thousands every year. Public dissatisfaction over governance failures, economic hardship and perceived cronyism has been steadily mounting across sections of society. As grievances deepen, the Chief Minister’s rhetoric has grown sharper and more confrontational. It suggests that communal polarisation is being deployed not from strength, but from political anxiety. Instead of addressing these structural crises with transparency and accountability, the ruling establishment appears to have embraced polarisation as strategy.

ELECTORAL ROLLS MANIPULATION

Electoral engineering adds another layer of concern. The recent Special Revision (SR) of the electoral rolls witnessed an extraordinary volume of deletions, disproportionately affecting voters belonging to the religious minority communities in several constituencies. Civil society groups and opposition leaders have alleged targeted objections and procedural irregularities. While authorities describe the process as routine verification and upgradation, the scale and concentration of deletions have raised fears of systematic disenfranchisement. If communal mobilisation is one instrument, manipulation of voter rolls is another. Winning “by any means necessary” cannot be the governing ethic of a constitutional democracy.

Taken together — the hate imagery, the unsubstantiated national security theatrics, unresolved corruption allegations, expansive corporate land allocations, and controversial voter list revisions — a pattern becomes visible. It is a pattern of authoritarian and neo fascist drift, where power is centralised, dissent is vilified, minorities are targeted and institutions appear hesitant.

UNITY FOR COMING ELECTIONS

Assam stands at a decisive moment. The forthcoming election is not merely a competition between parties. It is a struggle between two political visions: one rooted in constitutional principles, pluralism and social justice, the other driven by polarisation, concentration of power and corporate proximity.

Hate politics is often projected as strength. In reality, it is frequently the language of insecurity. It is the reflex of leadership that senses growing public discontent and chooses division over accountability. The increasing aggression in tone and symbolism suggests not confidence, but fear of losing control over the political power and narrative.

Fragmented resistance will not suffice. Democratic and secular forces must recognise the urgency of unity. The defence of Assam’s plural character cannot be left to isolated voices. Only broad, principled opposition unity can effectively challenge the BJP and its allies and restore faith in democratic governance.

The people of Assam deserve leadership grounded in accountability, compassion and constitutional restraint — not theatrical hostility or reckless provocation. Power sustained through fear corrodes institutions. Democracy renewed through unity endures. The choice before Assam is historic.