top of page

By:

Akhilesh Sinha

25 June 2025 at 2:53:54 pm

Between illegal migration and the promise of development

New Delhi: Assam's 2026 election reflects a fierce contest over identity, illegal migration, and development, where youth sentiment, tribal rights, border anxieties, and welfare politics converge to redefine the state's-and Northeast India's-political future.   Over the past decade, Assam's politics has undergone a transformation of remarkable intensity. This shift is not merely a story of power struggles or the thrill of electoral victories and defeats; rather, it reflects a deeper internal...

Between illegal migration and the promise of development

New Delhi: Assam's 2026 election reflects a fierce contest over identity, illegal migration, and development, where youth sentiment, tribal rights, border anxieties, and welfare politics converge to redefine the state's-and Northeast India's-political future.   Over the past decade, Assam's politics has undergone a transformation of remarkable intensity. This shift is not merely a story of power struggles or the thrill of electoral victories and defeats; rather, it reflects a deeper internal conflict within the state, one caught at the intersection of identity, demography, land, and development. What emerges is a portrait of a society negotiating competing anxieties and aspirations, where political change mirrors a broader search for equilibrium. Congress seeks to craft a broader social coalition built around the "shared concerns" of tribal.   In the current electoral landscape, an unexpected emotional issue has also surfaced, the reported death of popular singer Jubin Garg. This development has triggered a strong reaction, particularly among young people. The surge of sentiment on social media, marked by calls for justice and visible public outrage, suggests that if this issue sustains its presence in the campaign discourse, it could significantly influence youth voting behavior.   Another crucial dimension of identity politics is the demand to grant Scheduled Tribe status to six indigenous communities. The Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) had made this promise in the previous election, but it remains unfulfilled. The opposition has framed this as a case of electoral betrayal, while the BJP has cited administrative and constitutional complexities as the reason for the delay. The issue continues to carry both symbolic and electoral weight.   Political Narratives This election is not merely about the arithmetic of seats; it is equally about the reconfiguration of alliances and the reconstruction of political narratives. The Congress has distanced itself from the All India United Democratic Front (AIUDF) and formed a new platform, the "Assam Sonmilito Morcha," which includes regional players such as the Assam Jatiya Parishad. In the previous election, the alliance with AIUDF helped Congress consolidate Muslim votes, but it also enabled the BJP to polarize Hindu voters more effectively. This time, Congress appears to be attempting to move beyond that image, seeking to craft a broader social coalition built around the "shared concerns" of tribal, Assamese, and other communities.   On the other hand, the BJP's strategy also reflects notable recalibration. Its cautious approach to seat-sharing with the Asom Gana Parishad (AGP) and its focused attention on 15 seats in the Bodoland Territorial Region illustrate this shift. In this region, the BJP has allied with the Bodoland People's Front (BPF), with BPF contesting 11 seats and the BJP 4. In the previous election, BPF had aligned with Congress; however, its resurgence in the Bodoland Territorial Council elections has altered the political equations. This shift is significant, as the Bodoland Territorial Region remains central to Assam's evolving geopolitical balance, making it a decisive arena in the state's new political calculus.   Central Issue In this election, the question of "illegal immigrants" has once again emerged as a central and polarising issue. In Assam, concerns around undocumented migration, particularly involving those alleged to have entered from Bangladesh, have long shaped political discourse. Recent statements by Chief Minister Himanta Biswa Sarma referring to "Miya Muslims," along with large-scale eviction drives targeting what the government describes as illegal encroachments, have further intensified the debate. The state claims to have cleared thousands of acres of government land, framing these actions as necessary for restoring law, order, and enabling development.   The opposition, however, views these measures through a different lens, arguing that they deepen social divisions and disproportionately target specific communities. At the same time, proponents within the state's ruling establishment contend that without addressing illegal land occupation and demographic imbalances, "balanced development" remains unattainable. This assertion is being challenged by the Congress and other opposition parties, who invoke constitutional protections and the need for social harmony.   The impact of eviction and "de-bonding" drives has been particularly visible in sensitive border belts, often referred to as the "Chicken Neck" villages. In these fragile frontier regions, communities such as small farmers, tea garden workers, and borderland populations find themselves in a state of uncertainty, grappling with questions of security and identity. Here, electoral politics is often caught between two competing narratives: resistance to illegal immigration and the urgent demand for local livelihoods.   Direct Inducement On the development front, the ruling BJP is foregrounding its governance record, with the Orunodoi (Arunodoy) scheme as a centerpiece. Just ahead of the elections, under its third phase, direct financial assistance of Rs 9,000 was transferred to nearly four million women beneficiaries, amounting to an outlay of approximately Rs 3,600 crore. Beyond its welfare dimension, the scheme is also widely seen as a calibrated political strategy aimed at consolidating women voters, a demographic that is nearly equal in size to male voters in Assam and, in several regions, exhibits higher turnout rates.   The opposition has sharply criticised the scheme, describing it as a form of "direct electoral inducement." In its "People's Chargesheet," the Congress has leveled serious allegations against the government, including corruption, the prevalence of a "syndicate raj," the transfer of land to corporate interests, and misuse of administrative machinery. According to opposition claims, a structured network influences the allocation of contracts and resources, adversely affecting small businesses, tea garden workers, and ordinary citizens. Alongside these concerns, broader issues such as unemployment, inflation, and growing social discontent have also become integral to the electoral narrative.   While the BJP highlights its administrative assertiveness, such as crackdowns on child marriage and measures aimed at curbing polygamy, as key achievements, the opposition dismisses these as selective interventions, arguing that they divert attention from deeper economic challenges.   Ultimately, the Assam Assembly election of 2026 is not merely about a change in power; it represents a critical inflection point in the state's political trajectory. On one side, the BJP is seeking to legitimize its governance model by linking the issue of illegal immigration with development, security, and stability. On the other, the Congress is attempting to position itself as a viable alternative, emphasizing social balance, institutional politics, and renewed leadership.   For voters, the choice is stark: whether to endorse the promise of stability and continuity, or to pivot toward change. The results on May 4 will not only shape Assam's future but are also likely to influence the broader political direction of Northeast India.

Selective Outrage

India’s left-liberal media has long prided itself on being the torchbearer of secularism, dissent and moral rectitude. In the aftermath of ‘Operation Sindoor,’ the precision military strike launched by the Modi government against Pakistan-based terror camps, it has revealed its not a principled commitment to peace or truth, but a disturbing penchant for ideological prejudice, performative sanctimony and selective outrage.


The operation itself was a textbook display of calibrated force and geopolitical prudence. Prime Minister Narendra Modi, often caricatured as ‘authoritarian’ by the ‘liberal’ English-language commentariat, chose patience over provocation. He consulted opposition leaders, held detailed discussions with defence chiefs and took key international stakeholders, notably the United States and Russia, into confidence before authorising limited military action. The symbolism of ‘Operation Sindoor’ was also carefully crafted: a pointed reminder that the attack’s real victims were Hindu women widowed by Pakistan-sponsored militants in Kashmir. The government’s briefings were also strategic and symbolic as two ranking female officers, one of them Muslim, were made the public face of the mission, underlining a new Indian confidence that blends military muscle with democratic pluralism.


But this was unacceptable for India’s entrenched ‘left-liberal’ press, steeped in academic jargon, Western validation and a knee-jerk hostility to anything remotely ‘Hindutva.’ That a Muslim officer briefed the nation on ‘Operation Sindoor’ was branded ‘tokenism’ by such commentators. Others crudely alleged that the April 22 Pahalgam massacre was the logical culmination of reported atrocities against Muslims since Modi came to power in 2014.


The semantic nitpicking over ‘Operation Sindoor’ was maddening. An editor of a prominent magazine dubbed the operation’s name as ‘patriarchal’ and coded in Hindutva tropes. In a bizarre case of moral inversion, sindoor was likened to symbols of ‘honour killings’ and gender oppression, ignoring both its cultural resonance and the cruel reality that these women had lost their husbands in cold blood. For years, India’s ‘secular’ commentariat nurtured a preordained binary: the Congress may be flawed but was at least ‘secular’ while the BJP was an inveterate ‘fascist.’ Thus, the 2002 Gujarat riots are always focused upon but the Congress-backed pogrom of the Sikhs in 1984 is either downplayed or rationalised. Terrorism in Kashmir is tragic, but state retaliation is ‘jingoism.’ A strong Muslim voice in government is ‘tokenism’ but its absence is ‘exclusion.’ Even journalistic rigour is selectively applied. When Pakistan claimed to have downed Indian jets, some Indian outlets rushed to amplify the story before verification, inadvertently echoing enemy propaganda.


Dissent is vital in any democracy. But when its becomes indistinguishable from disdain, when editorial choices are dictated by ideological conformity, then the press becomes a caricature of itself. Ironically, many of these journalists enjoy robust free speech and loudly lament India’s supposed slide into ‘fascism’ from the safety of their X handles. Yet they turn a blind eye to Putin’s repression, Erdogan’s purges or Xi Jinping’s camps. In their eyes, Modi remains the greatest threat to democracy even as they broadcast their outrage freely, without fear of censorship or reprisal. ‘Operation Sindoor’ was a statement of cultural self-confidence. That confidence has rattled those who have spent their careers gatekeeping Indian discourse. Today, their monopoly is over. The people are watching and they no longer believe that the emperor has clothes.

Comments

bottom of page