THE results of the recent Assam Assembly elections have once again brought the BJP-led alliance back to power with a clear majority. From the perspective of seats won, this victory is undoubtedly significant. However, a deeper analysis of the election outcome reveals that this verdict is not merely a straightforward expression of overwhelming public support. Rather, it reflects the complex and contradictory political reality prevailing in Assam today.

The BJP secured 37.81 per cent of the total votes polled and won 82 seats in the Assembly. Together with its allies — the AGP and the BPF — the BJP-led alliance secured 48.01 per cent of the votes polled and captured 102 seats. In other words, despite receiving less than half of the total votes polled, the ruling alliance managed to secure more than four-fifths of the Assembly seats. On the other hand, nearly 52 percent of the voters voted against the BJP-led alliance. Therefore, it would not be realistic to interpret this outcome as an exclusive and overwhelming mandate in favour of the BJP and its allies. The contradiction between vote share and seat share once again exposes the distortions inherent in the existing electoral system and raises important democratic questions regarding the true reflection of public opinion.

At the same time, however, opposition parties too have little reason for self-congratulation merely because more than half of the voters did not support the BJP-led alliance. Such an attitude would amount to political self-deception. The opposition forces need to undertake an impartial and objective review of the election results both within their respective parties and collectively in consultation with allied and like-minded parties. 

There was widespread public dissatisfaction against the previous BJP-led government on a range of issues — soaring prices of essential commodities, growing unemployment, continuous attacks on the livelihoods of workers, peasants and the poor, brutal eviction drives, aggressive communal politics, excessive proximity to big corporate groups such as Adani and Ambani, mounting allegations of corruption involving the Chief Minister’s family members and several ministers, as well as increasing attacks on democratic rights and civil liberties. During the tenure of the BJP government, anti-incumbency sentiments were clearly visible across the state. Movements and agitations emerged on issues such as inflation, unemployment, environmental destruction, land eviction, workers’ rights and farmers’ demands. Yet these economic hardships and popular agitations were not adequately reflected in the election results. One major reason for this was the failure of the opposition parties to transform widespread public resentment into a credible and strong alternative political force. The temporary electoral unity and seat-sharing arrangement forged shortly before the elections failed to fully inspire confidence among the people.

UNDUE DELAY IN OPPOSITION UNITY 

In fact, a large section of Assam’s people had hoped that this election would provide an opportunity to defeat the BJP’s authoritarian and communal misrule and establish a democratic and people-oriented alternative government. Independent intellectuals and sections of civil society committed to secular and democratic values also attempted to build a broader anti-BJP platform. However, the opposition parties failed to forge the necessary unity in time and in accordance with public expectations.

Particularly damaging was the delay in finalising seat-sharing arrangements among opposition parties, which weakened the possibility of conducting coordinated campaigns, joint rallies and a united political mobilisation across the state. As the principal opposition party in Assam, the Congress had the greatest responsibility in building opposition unity. However, it failed to discharge that responsibility in a timely and effective manner. At the same time, the role played by the leadership of regional party "Raijor Dal" (RD) in the process of opposition unity and seat adjustments was also not sufficiently constructive. Until the final stage, rigid and inflexible positions of its President often obstructed broader unity initiatives. Consequently, people did not develop the necessary confidence regarding the formation of a viable alternative government. Taking advantage of this situation, the BJP-led alliance managed to return to power once again. However, this victory cannot be viewed as a reason for triumphalism even for the ruling alliance. It would be incorrect to claim that the BJP enjoys spontaneous and overwhelming support from the majority of Assam’s people. 

COMMUNAL POLARISATION INTENSIFIED 

Communal polarisation has increasingly become the principal instrument of the BJP’s electoral politics. Under the leadership of Chief Minister Himanta Biswa Sarma, an aggressive discourse centred around “Miya hatred”, essentially anti-Muslim propaganda, was systematically propagated. Alongside this, an atmosphere of fear was created by projecting an imaginary “Muslim threat.” A significant section of common people was influenced by this sustained campaign and made to believe that unless the BJP returned to power, Assam would soon be overwhelmed by Muslims. The RSS also played a significant role in spreading such communal narratives.

At the same time, the BJP skilfully expanded beneficiary-oriented welfare schemes in order to consolidate a dependent vote bank. In many areas, people were allegedly made to fear that if they did not support the BJP, their names might be removed from beneficiary lists. Yet these welfare schemes were government programmes funded by public money — not charity distributed by the BJP. They represented the legitimate rights of the poor people, not acts of political generosity.

The ruling party systematically attempted to convert complex socio-economic and political issues into communal questions during the election campaign. Instead of meaningful discussions on unemployment, inflation, healthcare, education, agriculture and environmental destruction, public discourse was repeatedly diverted towards divisive identity-based propaganda. Such communal polarisation weakened issue-based democratic politics and created confusion among sections of voters.

PARTISAN ROLE OF ECI 

Meanwhile, the role of the Election Commission of India also raised serious concerns. In practice, the Commission appeared to do little to restrain repeated violations committed by the ruling party. In Assam, constituency boundaries had already been redrawn in 2023 delimitation exercise in a manner widely criticised as communally motivated and politically partisan. Before the 2026 Assembly elections, under the pretext of Special Revision (SR) of electoral rolls, many genuine citizens allegedly faced harassment and deletion of names from voter lists.

Moreover, despite repeated allegations regarding misuse of government machinery, enormous financial expenditure, hate-filled communal campaigning and violations of the Model Code of Conduct by BJP leaders, the Election Commission largely remained passive. Serious allegations were also raised regarding unequal treatment of opposition parties, selective administrative pressure and partisan functioning of sections of the police administration. In many places, even during the period when the Model Code of Conduct remained in force, the police appeared to function according to the directions of BJP leaders and ministers. Such developments further strengthened public suspicion regarding the fairness and neutrality of the electoral process.

Opportunistic sections among the leadership of certain ethnic and community-based organisations also entered into tacit understandings with the ruling establishment for narrow political interests. In the process, ordinary people belonging to those communities were politically misled, which further helped the BJP electorally.

WEAKNESS AND LIMITATIONS OF LEFT 

This election has also exposed the weakness and limitations of Left and democratic forces in Assam. Not a single Left representative could be elected to the Assembly. Nevertheless, one important truth remains unchanged: the struggles, sufferings and aspirations of workers, peasants, the poor and marginalised sections find their most consistent expression within Left and progressive politics. Communist parties continue to combine parliamentary and extra-parliamentary struggles and remain active in movements for social transformation. They do not remain confined merely to parliamentary calculations. However, under present conditions, parliamentary politics also remains an important field of democratic struggle. Therefore, the present electoral setback faced by the Left must be recognised honestly.

At the same time, the present situation also demands serious introspection from Left and democratic forces regarding organisational weaknesses at the grassroots level, limitations in reaching younger generations and the decline of sustained independent political mobilisation. Strengthening trade union struggles, peasant movements, student-youth organisations and issue-based democratic campaigns will be essential for rebuilding democratic resistance in the coming period.

CHALLENGES AHEAD 

With the BJP-led alliance returning to power for a third consecutive term with a huge majority, fears have also increased regarding the future of communal harmony and social unity in Assam. Politics based upon division and communal polarisation diverts public attention away from the real problems of everyday life. There is also a genuine possibility that the new government may attempt to strengthen a more centralised and authoritarian model of governance in the coming years. Democratic rights, freedom of expression and dissenting voices may face increasing attacks. The tendency to utilise communal divisions for narrow political interests may become even more aggressive.

Simultaneously, there is a strong likelihood that corporate-oriented economic policies favouring big capitalist groups will be pursued more aggressively. As a result, workers, peasants, middle-class sections and ordinary citizens will face further economic pressure and insecurity in their livelihoods and living conditions.

The opposition forces must learn an important lesson from this election: merely criticising the government is not enough to build an alternative. What is required is a clear political vision, sustained grassroots-level engagement with the masses, organisational strengthening and continuous struggles on people’s issues.

Therefore, the coming period cannot be viewed merely as another phase of electoral politics. It must become a period of building stronger democratic movements for the defence of secularism, democratic rights, livelihoods and social justice. Democratic and progressive forces must recognise this reality and prepare themselves for broader unity and sustained struggles. The future direction of Assam’s politics will depend to a great extent upon the strength and vitality of mass movements and democratic struggles.