As reported by Hindustan Times, speaking at a women’s empowerment event in Lakhipur, Cachar district, on October 25, the Chief Minister said, “The parents of the male accused in love-jihad cases will also be liable for arrest under the new law. We want to save our women from traps where they become victims of love-jihad and polygamy. We are bringing stringent laws.”

Under the proposed legislation, if a minor girl is lured into an interfaith marriage, both the man and his parents could face multi-year imprisonment. This provision — introducing familial culpability — is unprecedented in any existing anti-conversion law enacted by other states.

According to Times of India, addressing another gathering in Silchar on October 24, Sarma also announced a ban on polygamy, warning that those who “marry more than one woman” would face up to seven years’ imprisonment. “Many men cause immense harm to women by marrying multiple times,” Sarma said, adding that the move sought to “protect the dignity of women and ensure uniformity of law.”

Earlier, on October 22, speaking to reporters in Nagaon, the Chief Minister described the upcoming Assembly session as “historic”, confirming that the government will table several “important and transformative bills” — including those on “love jihad”, polygamy, preservation of Satras (Vaishnavite monasteries), and land rights for tea tribes, as reported by Indian Express. He said that the detailed provisions would be disclosed after Cabinet approval.

Cultural preservation and legislative agenda

Alongside the anti-conversion and polygamy bills, the government will also introduce the Assam Satra Preservation and Development Board Bill, 2025, which was approved by the Cabinet on October 16. The bill aims to protect Vaishnavite monasteries (Satras) — the spiritual and cultural institutions established by the 15th-century saint Srimanta Sankardeva — from alleged encroachment and ensure state-supported preservation, as per LawBeat.

Sarma’s proposed package comes ahead of the 2026 state elections and is seen as part of his government’s broader agenda to “institutionalise” an Assam-centric, almost “majoritarian” cultural and moral order. The Chief Minister has previously said that banning polygamy and “deceitful religious conversions” is part of Assam’s move towards a Uniform Civil Code (UCC)-like framework, echoing the recommendations of the Justice (Retd.) Rumi Kumari Phukan Committee, which examined the legal viability of such a measure.

In recent speeches, Sarma has also linked population control to welfare eligibility, stating, “Some people say that Allah gives them children, so they cannot stop giving birth. I say, give birth as many as you wish, but do not expect government help to raise them or to send them to government schools,” as per Hindustan Times.

The Chief Minister also reacted sharply to comments by activist Medha Patkar, who had criticised the state’s eviction drives and questioned the investigation into singer Zubeen Garg’s death, saying: “Outsiders do not understand the suffering of the indigenous people of Assam. One community is trying to grab our land and take away our sisters through tricks like love-jihad. If Medha Patkar comes here to protest against evictions, we will take strict action.”
(Hindustan Times)

The ‘Love Jihad’ narrative and legal concerns

The term “love jihad” first appeared in 2009 in publications of the Sanatan Prabhat and Hindu Janajagruti Samiti, before being amplified by the Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh (RSS) and Vishwa Hindu Parishad (VHP). It gained political traction after 2014, when several BJP-ruled states — including Uttar Pradesh, Madhya Pradesh, Gujarat, and Haryana — enacted laws criminalizing religious conversions through marriage or deception.

However, Assam’s proposal represents a radical expansion of this framework. By extending culpability to the accused’s parents, it effectively criminalizes familial relationships and transforms allegations of interfaith marriage into matters of collective criminal liability.

Citizens for Justice and Peace, who is also a lead petitioner in challenging the said state anti-conversion laws in the Supreme Court, have warned that such laws are susceptible to misuse, enabling police overreach, community vigilantism, and communal profiling. As The Wire reported, there is no official data to substantiate claims of organized “love jihad” conspiracies, and in several states, arrests under such laws have disproportionately targeted Muslim men in consensual relationships.

The November 25 Assembly session, which Sarma has called “historic,” will be the last major sitting before the 2026 elections. Observers view it as a defining moment that could reshape Assam’s social and legal order — intertwining morality, religion, and state power under the banner of “protecting women” and “preserving indigenous identity.”

If passed, Assam’s “love jihad” and polygamy bills could become among the most far-reaching personal law interventions in independent India, setting a precedent for family liability in interfaith and marital cases, and testing the boundaries between individual freedom, faith, and the expanding reach of the state.

Related:

Gujarat High Court Widened Anti-Conversion Law: ‘Victims’ can be prosecuted as offenders

Supreme Court seeks states’ replies on pleas for stay of anti-conversion laws, to decide on interim stay after six weeks

“Anti-conversion laws being weaponised”: CJP seeks interim relief against misuse of anti-conversion laws

SC issues notice to 5 states in CJP’s renewed challenge to anti-conversion laws

CJP plea against anti-conversion laws: SC seeks to know status of cases challenging ‘anti conversion’ laws in HCs

CJP, other rights groups challenge Maharashtra Govt GR setting up a Committee to “monitor inter-faith marriages”

The post Assam Government to table ‘Love Jihad’ and polygamy bills, CM Sarma says parents of male accused will also face arrest appeared first on SabrangIndia.

The cases — Sanidul Sheikh v. Union of India and Reijya Khatun v. Union of India — were filed after both men, who had been released under Supreme Court-mandated COVID bail in 2021, were suddenly picked up again in May 2025 despite consistent compliance with all bail conditions. They have since been lodged in the Kokrajhar Holding Centre. CJP has been providing legal aid in both these cases.

State’s New Claim: “They were once sent back”

At the hearing, the FT counsel, appearing for the State, told the Bench that “the government is ready to deport them,” but added that “a stay order by this Court” prevented immediate action. The counsel went on to state that “the factual position is that they were once sent back. They came back. Now they are kept in the Kokrajhar Holding Centre.”

This was the first time such a claim had ever been made in the proceedings — no previous affidavit, submission, or oral statement had suggested that the two men had been “sent back” to Bangladesh before.

Appearing for the petitioners, Advocate Mrinmoy Dutta immediately objected: “This is being said for the first time, My Lords. It was never mentioned before.”

Petitioners demand proof of verification

Dutta pressed that before any talk of deportation, the government must first demonstrate factual and documentary verification of nationality, and clarify through which process and destination country deportation is being contemplated:

“Let them show the Court that they have completed the verification. If they have been able to verify, that is different. But they need to show where they will deport and how they will deport. Otherwise, my submission is that the detention is illegal.”

The argument underscored a crucial point — verification of nationality is a precondition to deportation, not a justification for continued detention. Yet, despite repeated demands for such evidence since June, the State has produced no records of nationality confirmation or communication from Bangladesh.

Bench Avoids Two Key Questions: Deportation claim and verification process

Despite the gravity of the new claim, the Bench did not press the State for supporting documentation or clarification on when and how the alleged earlier deportation occurred, or through which process. Nor did it examine the petitioner’s long-standing demand for production of verification records confirming nationality — a prerequisite under both domestic and international law before any lawful deportation can occur.

Instead, the Court recorded that submissions had been heard from both sides and directed that orders will be delivered on October 24, 2025.

By not engaging with either issue — the alleged “previous sending back” or the requirement of verification — the Bench left unresolved the two fundamental questions that have defined this case since its inception:

1. Can persons released on Supreme Court-granted bail be re-detained without bail cancellation, solely on the State’s readiness to deport?
2. Can deportation be initiated without verification or proof of nationality — or, as now alleged, after an unexplained earlier “sending back”?

Legal and factual uncertainty deepens

The State’s assertion that both men had once been “sent back” — without any affidavit or documentary trail — now sits uneasily alongside its claim that they are being held “pending deportation.” The petitioners have maintained throughout that the detention is illegal, since both men were released under valid judicial bail orders, and no court has recalled or varied those directions.

The Bench’s decision to step back from addressing either the alleged prior deportation or the absence of verification records leaves a grey area — a vacuum between State assertion and judicial scrutiny, where neither legality nor process is yet established.

Background: From bail to re-detention

Abdul Sheikh and Majibur Rehman were declared foreigners by Foreigners Tribunals in 2018 and 2019. After over two years in detention, both were released on bail under the Supreme Court’s April 2020 order in Suo Motu WP(C) No. 1 of 2020, which allowed long-term detainees to be freed under conditions of weekly reporting. For nearly two years, both complied — signing attendance registers at Kajolgaon and Goalpara Police Stations every week — until their sudden re-detention in May 2025.

Their families’ petitions have challenged these arrests as unconstitutional, arguing that bail orders remain valid until recalled and that “verification” cannot justify re-incarceration. The State has since argued that deportation efforts, halted during the pandemic, have now resumed — though it has yet to produce any official verification or communication with Bangladesh confirming nationality.

Their petitions, filed by their relatives, argued that detention without recall of bail orders is unconstitutional, and that any “verification” could be undertaken without custody. The State, however, has maintained that it is reinitiating deportations and that detention in holding centres is lawful pending such deportation.

Previous detailed reports may be read here.

Related:

Calcutta High Court strikes down arbitrary deportations of West Bengal residents, orders return from Bangladesh

Bangladeshi Court declares deported Bengal families as Indians, orders their return

Gauhati HC defers final hearing in Majibur Rehman and Abdul Sheikh petitions; Questions state on justification for continued detention

Assam BJP’s AI video a manufactured dystopia, Congress files complaint, myths exposed

CJP scores big win! Citizenship restored to Mazirun Bewa, a widowed daily wage worker from Assam

Victory in Dhubri FT: Jarina Bibi declared Indian after years of ordeal

Assam’s New SOP Hands Citizenship Decisions to Bureaucrats: Executive overreach or legal necessity?

The post “They were once sent back”: Court refrains from probing State’s claim as Assam seeks to justify continued detention appeared first on SabrangIndia.

What remains now is analysis, Assam’s familiar habit of explaining emotion after it has passed. This wave of emotion had a cause and a face. The trigger was the sudden and, to many, suspicious death of the beloved icon Zubeen Garg in Singapore.

Guwahati moves in a familiar rhythm of celebration from Bohag Bihu to the New Year, where reverence and indulgence often share the same day. On September 17, Vishwakarma Puja carried that rhythm to its limit; Guwahati sold more than six crore rupees’ worth of liquor in a single day, among the highest on record. Two days later, the same city that had been celebrating labour and craftsmanship fell silent. The contrast between those two days captured how quickly Assam’s emotional weather can change.

The city that once celebrated together now mourned together, as if the two emotions were only different tempos of the same song. Almost immediately, the government declared five consecutive Dry Days. It was presented as a normal precaution, yet it signalled the nervousness of a state trying to calm itself. The administration seemed suspended between confusion and control, unsure how to contain the scale of emotion that followed.

Control in such moments is nothing new, but it is visible here in sharper form. The government not only polices crime or dissent, but it also regulates emotion. It reads public mood the way it reads flood forecasts, using familiar tools to prevent overflow. The Dry Day order worked as a small dam in that system.

After the singer’s death, the government also tried to manage information. Statements began arriving almost daily but haphazardly, each designed to reassure. The Chief Minister announced that India had invoked the Mutual Legal Assistance Treaty with Singapore. A Special Investigation Team was formed. Soon after, a judicial inquiry led by Justice Soumitra Saikia was set up. Each new step was meant to project progress and hold the narrative steady. Even the promise that future updates would come through the CM’s Facebook Live served the same purpose: one voice, one channel.

These measures are standard in a crisis, yet they revealed a change in tone. Himanta Biswa Sarma, who usually dominates Assam’s political space, appeared severely on the back foot for the first time in years. The administration’s machinery remains strong, but its confidence has weakened. Procedure can maintain order but it cannot build trust.

That unease soon became visible in policy. On October 7, barely ten days after the cremation, the Chief Minister announced that from November 1, the government would distribute not only free rice but also heavily subsidised lentils, salt, and sugar. He added that if the BJP won again in 2026, cooking oil would be included. Just a week earlier, in a public appeal, he had said, “Do not vote for us if we can’t give justice to Zubeen.” It was an unusual moment to announce welfare benefits and seek votes. The investigation is still open, and public anger has not yet faded. The scheme looked less like governance and more like reassurance, an effort to shift public feeling from confusion to gratitude.

Around the same time, a different but related controversy was gathering force. On October 1, the organiser of the Northeast Festival in Singapore (where Zubeen last performed), cultural impresario Shyamkanu Mahanta, was arrested by the CID. Belonging to a powerful family, Mahanta has long operated at the intersection of business, culture, and politics. His family occupies key positions across administration and academia, forming one of Assam’s most entrenched networks of influence. Mahanta’s arrest sent shockwaves through those circles and opened a new front in the political storm.

Zubeen Garg’s manager, Siddharth Sharma, was also arrested, and the police soon booked murder charges against them, and two others — singer Amritprabha Mahanta and drummer Shekhar Jyoti Goswami — were also taken into custody. Further, Opposition leaders began alleging that Golden Thread, a company associated with the Chief Minister’s wife, had organised the fashion segment of the Singapore event. The claim turned a sensitive investigation into a full political battle.

In response, the Chief Minister tried to claim that he was never close to Shyamkanu Mahanta, a striking reversal given Mahanta’s long-standing proximity to the government’s cultural and entrepreneurial initiatives. On October 5, during a press conference, Himanta Biswa Sarma went further. “They keep talking about others’ wives,” he said. “Have I talked about anyone’s family? Have I talked about [his] girlfriend who partied with Shyamkanu Mahanta?” The remark, targeting the singer-girlfriend of an opposition politician, was revealing. People have a right to question the Chief Minister’s family, but his turn to personal jibes showed a leader under pressure, struggling to regain hold over the story.

Between these events, the police briefly intensified control. Two social-media influencers, Victor Das and Ajay Phukan, were arrested from a protest site in Guwahati under the National Security Act for posts deemed provocative. The crackdown reflected a government resorting to coercion as a substitute for confidence. The same administration that until last month dictated Assam’s political tempo now finds itself reacting to rumours, social-media speculation, and public confusion that refuses to fade.

What is now unfolding in Assam is not just about one death or one investigation. It is about a government discovering that its reach has limits. For years, it seemed invincible, certain that decisive action could outpace doubt. But something has shifted. Welfare schemes and inquiries can steady the surface, yet the tremor beneath remains, quiet, persistent, and political.

The post The Uneasy Calm in Assam: The Limits of Control of a Nervous Government appeared first on SabrangIndia.

During the hearings, petitioners’ counsel criticised the State’s affidavit as “vague” and stressed that detention for “verification” is illegal when bail remains unrevoked, while the FT counsel argued that the petitions have served their purpose since the detainees’ whereabouts are known and visitation rights have been granted. The Bench comprising Justice Kalyan Rai Surana and Susmita Phukan Khaunddisagreed, observing that detention continues and must be legally justified, and adjourned the matter for final arguments on October 14, 2025. CJP has provided legal aid in both the cases.

Background and earlier hearings

The current stage follows a sequence of contentious hearings. On June 25 (Abdul Sheikh) and June 26 (Majibur Rehman), the State conceded that both detainees had fully complied with their bail conditions since release but claimed that their custody was lawful because deportations, stalled during COVID, were now being initiated. The Bench at the time pointed out that no attempt had been made to recall or vary the existing bail orders and directed the State to file affidavits justifying its position.

On July 23, those affidavits were challenged by the petitioners as “vague” and “as empty as possible,” particularly because they offered no legal reasoning for why bail-compliant individuals could be picked up without cancellation of their bail. The petitioners argued that detention for “verification” is unconstitutional, as verification could be undertaken without custody. The Bench directed that the Ministry of Home Affairs’ May 2, 2025 deportation notification, which the State had invoked, be placed on record.

Arguments before the Court

Appearing for the petitioners, Advocate Mrinmoy Dutta reiterated that the continuing detention of Majibur Rehman and Abdul Sheikh is unlawful. He drew the Court’s attention to the affidavit filed by he State, pointing specifically to paragraphs 43 and 45, which provided that the detentions are being justified merely for “factual and documentary verification.” Dutta argued that such verification, if required, could have been conducted without taking the individuals into detention, and that their prolonged incarceration directly violates the Supreme Court’s earlier bail orders, which remain unrevoked.

The FT Counsel, representing the State, maintained that both men are declared foreigners and are currently in holding centres “awaiting deportation.” The Counsel submitted that the government is unable to act further because the matter is sub judice, but argued that the habeas petitions have effectively served their purpose since the detainees’ whereabouts are now known, visitation rights have been granted, and no further relief lies within the habeas framework. If the petitioners wish to challenge the underlying FT declarations, the counsel suggested, they must do so through separate proceedings.

Court’s observations

The Bench rejected the argument that the petitions are exhausted merely because the detainees have been traced. “There is still detention, and we have jurisdiction,” the Bench observed, stressing that the State would have to provide clear justification for continuing custody.

When the FT counsel suggested that the Court could take the same approach as in other similar cases—by recording the grant of visitation rights and refraining from ordering deportation. The FT counsel’s affidavit, filed earlier, was criticised by the petitioners as vague, particularly in its explanation that detention was needed for “verification.” The Court noted that substantive arguments on the affidavit and the legality of detention had not yet been heard due to time constraints.

Order

Recording submissions from both sides, the Court adjourned the matter, noting that the Bench was available only for the first half of the day. The petitions will now be taken up for detailed hearing on October 14, 2025.

The Court’s order states:

The October 14 hearing is expected to be critical. The Court will examine:

Until then, Abdul Sheikh and Majibur Rehman remain in custody, with visitation rights granted to their families.

Related:

Assam BJP’s AI video a manufactured dystopia, Congress files complaint, myths exposed

CJP scores big win! Citizenship restored to Mazirun Bewa, a widowed daily wage worker from Assam

Victory in Dhubri FT: Jarina Bibi declared Indian after years of ordeal

Assam’s New SOP Hands Citizenship Decisions to Bureaucrats: Executive overreach or legal necessity?

The post Detention not explained away by visitation: Gauhati HC questions state on justification for continued detention of Majibur Rehman and Abdul Sheikh appeared first on SabrangIndia.

The final days

On September 14, 2025, Amzad succumbed to cancer at the State Cancer Institute, Guwahati. Just four months earlier, on May 28, 2025, he had been detained and confined in the Matia detention camp, Goalpara. His health rapidly deteriorated inside confinement, but despite medical advice recommending palliative care outside, he remained in custody until his last breath.

The Gauhati High Court was due to hear his pending case, WP(C) 5297/2025, on September 15, 2025 — just a day after his death.

A villager turned “D-Voter”

Amzad was a resident of Rowmari Pathar, a village on the banks of the Brahmaputra in Barpeta district. In 1997, his name was marked as a “D-voter” in the electoral rolls of Chenga constituency. His wife, Maymala Begum, and his mother were similarly marked.

Poverty and illiteracy meant that Amzad could not afford to fight the label. “Our family’s legacy is recorded since the 1951 NRC. His father, Hajo Sekh, and forefathers were registered voters even in 1966,” said Abdul Jalil, Amzad’s cousin.

The Tribunal’s verdict

In 2017, Amzad’s case was referred to the 7th Foreigner Tribunal, Barpeta (Case No. 998/17). He appeared through years of hearings, even during the pandemic. On December 9, 2022, the Tribunal declared him a “foreigner.”

But the family says they were never informed. “Our lawyer kept telling us there were just two more hearings left. We didn’t even know the judgment had already come,” recalled Maymala.

Unaware of the decision, Amzad continued his work as a daily wager — until police abruptly detained him in May 2025.

Fear and helplessness

Amzad and Maymala have seven children — three sons and four daughters. Yet in his final months, his wife dared not visit him in detention or hospital. Branded a “D-voter” herself, with her case still pending in the High Court, she lived in constant dread of being seized too.

Maymala hold up a tiny photo of Amzad

“What if I was also caught and locked in Goalpara Camp?” she asked, torn between grief and fear. Despite her parents’ names being recorded in the 1951, 1971 and 2019 NRCs, she alone was excluded.

Ignored appeals

Amzad’s condition worsened after his cancer diagnosis on August 11, 2025. The Superintendent of the detention camp even advised the family to seek his release for treatment. Jalil, his cousin, wrote a formal plea to the Goalpara Deputy Commissioner on September 1, 2025, requesting that Amzad be freed for medical care.

But no response ever came. Instead, officials summoned the gaon bura (village headman) to inform the family that Amzad’s health was failing. By the time they reached Guwahati Medical College, it was too late.

Doctors’ reports clearly stated that “no treatment modality was left” and only palliative chemotherapy was possible — yet the authorities refused to act.

The final farewell

After two days of official formalities, on September 16, 2025, Amzad’s body was handed over to his family. That evening, he was buried in Rowmari Pathar, just 1.5 km from where he had been detained months earlier.

He was buried as an Indian, in the very soil that had disowned him. His two sons working as migrant labourers in Chennai could not even return to attend the funeral.

A cry for justice

Assam CJP Team visits the grieving family at their home 

A delegation from Citizens for Justice and Peace (CJP), including state in-charge Nanda Ghosh, advocate Abhijeet Choudhury, DVM of Barpeta Jafar Ali, and local volunteers, visited the grieving family. Jalil showed them the unanswered letter he had sent to the Deputy Commissioner.

“I begged the authorities to release him for treatment. But they kept him locked up until he died. And then, they gave us his body,” Jalil told them.

The cruel paradox

Amzad Ali’s story is not just a personal tragedy; it reflects a wider, systemic cruelty. For decades, thousands have lived under the burden of being branded “doubtful” or “foreigners.” Amzad lived that stigma, died in custody, and was finally buried in the land he always called home.

A citizen in life, denied recognition by the state. A foreigner in papers, but an Indian in death.

Amzad’s death is the second in Matia detention camp this year. On April 17, 2025, Abdul Matleb also died under similar circumstances. Both men were declared “foreigners” during their lifetime, only to be buried in their native villages in Assam. 

The story of Abdul Matleb may be read here.

Separate report on Ali’s death may be read here.

Related:

From Detention to Deportation: The mass deportations and detention crisis at Assam’s Matia centre

SC: Only 10 deported, 33 of 63 contest foreigner status from the Matia Transit Camp, Assam

Supreme Court condemns appalling conditions at Matia Detention Centre in Assam, labels situation a ‘sorry state of affairs’

Victory in Dhubri FT: Jarina Bibi declared Indian after years of ordeal

The post From Assam’s Soil to Detention and Back: The tragic death of Amzad Ali appeared first on SabrangIndia.

Taking to X, CM Sarma wrote “Now playing on illegal infiltrators playlist

Assam Police take me home, to the place I belong..

33 new infiltrators have been PUSHED BACK to where they belong — Bangladesh.

BEWARE: Our stringent efforts continue and will further intensify in the coming days.”

Now playing on illegal infiltrators playlist

Assam Police take me home, to the place I belong..

33 new infiltrators have been PUSHED BACK to where they belong — Bangladesh.

BEWARE: Our stringent efforts continue and will further intensify in the coming days. pic.twitter.com/7e99AuGD5X

— Himanta Biswa Sarma (@himantabiswa) August 30, 2025

This official acknowledgement marks another significant escalation. In May 2025, civil society groups had already documented attempted and unlawful pushbacks of Bengali-speaking Muslim women from Assam, several of whom were subsequently rescued and brought back after widespread outcry. Now, CM Sarma has warned that the crackdown would only intensify. It is crucial to note that CM Sarma did not specify the exact entry point for this latest batch.

Showing Adarniya Shri @AmitShah ji the firm progress we have made in evicting illegal settlers from Assam’s lands. pic.twitter.com/hhcgNAyZa9

— Himanta Biswa Sarma (@himantabiswa) August 30, 2025

As per The Assam Tribune. Law enforcement claims a steady weekly removal of 70 to 100 individuals, enforced by Assam Police and BSF, now on heightened alert across the 1,885 km border with Bangladesh.

Due process bypassed

Revived from dormancy, the Immigrants (Expulsion from Assam) Act, 1950 grants district commissioners the authority to expel individuals entering after March 24, 1971, without tribunal intervention. This draconian tool bypasses due legal process, enabling swift deportations both of long-resident undocumented immigrants and fresh entrants

Since mid-2025, Assam has reported weekly pushbacks ranging between 70 to 100 individuals—a ramped-up, relentless enforcement effort. Surveillance along the 1,885 km Indo–Bangladesh border has been beefed up by the Assam Police and BSF, particularly in historically vulnerable stretches.

Notable, as per Times of India, on multiple occasions, Dhaka has publicly denied accepting individuals pushed across the border by Indian authorities, insisting that only documented Bangladeshi citizens with verified proof can be received. In this context, the Assam government’s claim of pushing back “33 infiltrators” raises unresolved questions: Who verified their nationality? On what legal basis were they expelled? Were Bangladeshi authorities even informed?

Under Indian law, Foreigners Tribunals are the only quasi-judicial bodies authorised to determine questions of citizenship and foreigner status. Deportation requires central government sanction, diplomatic coordination, and formal handover to the other state. By contrast, “pushbacks” involve physically expelling people across the border without judicial or diplomatic procedure. Such actions therefore bypass both due process and constitutional safeguards, undermining the principle of rule of law.

Political messaging vs constitutional duty

Arguments have been raised against Assam government’s repeated claims of “success” in pushing back alleged infiltrators serve a political narrative rather than a legal process. Branding individuals as “illegal foreigners” without tribunal adjudication or central authorisation weaponises citizenship disputes, heightening insecurity among minority communities. This approach stands in sharp contrast to India’s constitutional guarantee of equality before law and due process, as well as its obligations under international human rights law prohibiting arbitrary expulsion.

Yet, legal resistance is growing. Habeas corpus petitions in Gauhati High Court and the Supreme Court challenge the constitutionality of such pushbacks. Families of deportees allege disappearances and forcible handovers without documentation, raising fears of statelessness.

Meanwhile, according to a report of Times of India, opposition leader Debabrata Saikia has called on the Union government to review BSF’s monitoring framework, warning of diplomatic tensions with Dhaka if India persists with unilateral expulsions.

Ultimately, while Sarma’s expulsions play well as a populist performance of strength, they expose deep fractures in Assam’s legal regime—trading due process for political spectacle, and risking human rights violations in the name of security.

Related:

Not a Foreigner! Foreigners’ Tribunal declares Sukumar Baishya Indian citizen

Assam government to withdraw ‘Foreigner’ cases against Non-Muslims under Citizenship Amendment Act

Assam’s Citizenship Crisis: How Foreigners Tribunals construct an architecture of exclusion and rights violations

The post Concerns rise along Assam’s escalating pushbacks, 33 additional alleged Bangladeshis “pushed back” appeared first on SabrangIndia.

Sukumar Baishya, outside his home, holding up the Foreigners’ Tribunal Order

A journey marked by displacement and persecution

Born in 1963 in Patkata No. 1, Sukumar is the son of Lt. Sahadeb Baishya, who migrated from Binnati, East Pakistan (now Bangladesh) to Assam in 1952–53 due to religious persecution. His father obtained a Certificate of Registration as a Citizen of India on December 24, 1956.

Sukumar’s life story is deeply intertwined with Assam’s turbulent political history. Sukumar’s life was further scarred during the 1983 Assam Movement, when his house was burnt down and all his possessions destroyed. Despite his indisputable roots in India, he found himself accused of being a foreigner who had entered Assam after March 25, 1971.

The case and the State’s allegations

The case against Sukumar arose from a reference under Rule 2(1) of the Foreigners’ Tribunal Order, 1964. He was alleged to be a “foreigner from a specified territory” who entered Assam post-1971.

Sukumar contested this vigorously, asserting that:

• He is Indian by birth, with a father who was a registered Indian citizen since 1956.
• The Investigating Officer (IO) never visited his home, never examined him or his witnesses, and filed a false, baseless, and unverified inquiry report.
• The case was registered in 2004 but he received notice only in February 2021 — a delay of 17 years, which he argued should render the case barred by limitation.

 
CJP Team Assam with Sukumar Baishya outside his home

Documentary evidence submitted

With CJP’s legal support, Sukumar placed on record ten key documents establishing both his own Indian citizenship and his linkage to his father, including:

1. Certificate of Registration (24/12/1956) for his father, issued under Section 5(1)(a)(d) of the Citizenship Act, 1955.
2. Voter List of 1966 – Father’s name recorded under 41 No. Bijni L.A.C.
3. Voter List of 1971 – Father’s name recorded again before the 1971 cut-off.
4. Original Sale Deed (02/07/1956) in his father’s name.
5. Jamabandi Records showing land mutation in 1988 in the names of Sukumar and his brothers after their father’s death.
6. Voter List of 1997 – Sukumar and his wife Renu Bala Baishya recorded at the same address.
7. Voter List of 2005 – Sukumar and both wives (Renu Bala and Anjali Bala) recorded.
8. Ration Card with Sukumar’s and his father’s names.
9. Link Certificate from the President of Palengbari Gaon Panchayat.
10. Additional Jamabandi Records linking the family to the land since the 1950s.

Tribunal’s legal reasoning and findings

The Tribunal framed two key issues:

1. Whether Sahadeb Baishya was a citizen of India.
2. Whether Sukumar Baishya was his son.

On paternity (Issue 2):

• Jamabandi records, the 1997 voter list, and testimony from Sukumar’s younger brother Manindra Baishya and the Land Records Assistant (Manikpur Revenue Circle) proved beyond doubt that Sukumar was the son of Sahadeb Baishya.
• The Ration Card was not accepted as it was not formally proved, but other documentary and oral evidence were sufficient.

On father’s citizenship (Issue 1):

• The Certificate of Registration (1956) and pre-1971 voter lists established Sahadeb as a registered Indian citizen residing in Assam since at least 1956.
• The 1956 sale deed and continuous land records corroborated long-standing residence and ownership.

Final determination: The Tribunal held that Sukumar had successfully discharged the statutory burden under Section 9 of the Foreigners Act, 1946, proving he was not a foreigner but an Indian citizen by birth. He was absolved of all allegations.

Human impact and community reaction

When the CJP legal team — Dewan Abdur Rahim (Legal Team Member), Nanda Ghosh (State In-Charge), Sudrasan Das (Community Volunteer), Tapash Chakraborty, and Asikul Hussain (Driver) — visited Sukumar to hand over the judgment copy, he broke down in emotion, thanking CJP for restoring his dignity and security.

Neighbour Dulal Baishya, 80, who has witnessed the horrors of the Assam Movement and decades of communal tensions, expressed gratitude for CJP’s intervention. He also voiced his fears: “I’ve witnessed the Assam movement and its horrors, and I’ve seen communal clashes in Assam over the years. Despite all this, I’ve never considered leaving. Recently, one of my relatives moved to North Bengal. But with the government’s citizenship, eviction, and land rules, I’m worried about my own future. As a common person, I’m scared about how I’ll be able to live in this state.”

A wider pattern of injustice

Sukumar’s case is not isolated. Even 78 years after independence, Bengali-speaking Hindus and Muslims in Assam, especially those from poor and marginalised backgrounds, are still being compelled to prove their citizenship, often decades after their families settled in India.

This case underscores the urgent need for:

• Transparent and fair citizenship determination processes.
• Protection from arbitrary investigations and false reports.
• Recognition that bureaucratic processes should not become tools of exclusion against vulnerable communities.

The complete order may be read here.

Related:

Liberty under Siege: Reclaiming the right to speedy trial from the grip of special laws

Assam government to withdraw ‘Foreigner’ cases against Non-Muslims under Citizenship Amendment Act

Banasha Bibi, Bengali-speaking Muslim woman with disability, declared Indian in CJP-Led Legal Win

Assam’s Citizenship Crisis: How Foreigners Tribunals construct an architecture of exclusion and rights violations

The post After years of delay, justice at last for Sukumar Baishya as Foreigners’ Tribunal declares him an Indian citizen appeared first on SabrangIndia.

On August 18, during the hearing on connected writ petitions, Justice Sanjay Kumar Medhi expressed his strong reservations, remarking:

“3,000 bighas! The entire district? What is going on? 3,000 bighas allotted to a private company? We know how barren the land is… 3,000 bighas? What kind of decision is this? Is this some kind of joke or what? Your need is not the issue—the public interest is the issue.”

According to LiveLaw, the counsel for Mahabal Cement argued that the land allotted comprised only barren areas and was required for the company’s operations. However, the bench did not accept this contention and directed the North Cachar Hills Autonomous Council (NCHAC) to produce the records and policy basis for granting such an unusually large tract of land.

The court underscored that Dima Hasao is a Sixth Schedule district under the Constitution of India, where priority must be given to safeguarding the rights and interests of the tribal communities. It further observed that the proposed allotment site in Umrangso falls within an environmentally sensitive zone, home to hot springs, migratory bird habitats, and diverse wildlife.

In its order, the Court noted:

“A cursory glance into the facts of the case would reveal that the land which has been sought to be allotted is about 3000 bighas which itself appears to be extraordinary.”

The real story is tribal land rights in Assam

Several users, including the official handles of the Congress and CPI(M), claimed that the land was being handed over to the Adani Group. The conglomerate was forced to issue a formal statement on August 18, calling the claims “baseless” and clarifying that it has no connection with the cement company in question.

This misattribution, however, distracted attention from the real conflict: the struggle of tribal villagers in Sixth Schedule areas of Assam against land allotments that threaten their customary rights.

Notably, Newslaundry had earlier documented local opposition to other projects in Dima Hasao, including Ambuja Cement’s limestone mining project, spread over 1,200 bighas and linked to the Adani Group, which too has faced stiff protests from villagers fearing displacement.

The Company at the Centre: Mahabal Cement

The dispute at the heart of the viral video involves Mahabal Cement Pvt. Ltd., which received an allotment of around 3,000 bighas in Umrangso – an environmental hotspot known for its hot springs, migratory bird stopovers, and diverse wildlife.

As per a report in Newslaundry, since December 2024, 22 residents of Nobdi Longku Kro and Chotolarpheng villages have been challenging the allotment in court. They allege that the Dima Hasao Autonomous Council (DAHC) granted the land without following due process.

A sixth schedule district and tribal land customs

Dima Hasao, established as a Sixth Schedule district in 1951, is administered by the North Cachar Hills Autonomous Council (NCHAC), which manages land rights and governance for the predominantly tribal population.

The district contains both surveyed and un-surveyed land. While surveyed land falls under council administration, un-surveyed land is governed by tribal customs, where gaon buras (village headmen) distribute land and collect taxes on behalf of the council.

As per the report in Newslaundry, the petitioners contend that their families have lawfully cultivated and lived on these lands since 1975, paying taxes through gaon buras. The land, they say, is communal property under tribal custom.

But in 2024, villagers were informed by revenue officials that their land had been acquired for Mahabal Cement. Some residents claim that the local patwari coerced them into signing No Objection Certificates (NOCs) and accepting cheques of ₹2 lakh as compensation.

On May 16, 2024, residents of Nobdi Longku Kro submitted a formal objection letter to the DAHC, accusing officials of using “coercion” and “disinformation” to force through an “involuntary acquisition.”

The court battle

The legal fight over the land began earlier. In November 2024, a PIL filed by an activist on behalf of the villagers was disposed of by the Gauhati High Court, which said residents could return if new circumstances arose. By December, villagers filed a fresh petition.

• On February 2, 2025, the High Court directed authorities to explain how such a vast tract of land – 3,000 bighas – was allotted to Mahabal Cement. It also asked the DAHC to update the court on land demarcation related to the allotment.
• By April 2025, the DAHC submitted an affidavit stating that a resolution had been passed in January to provide alternate land to the affected residents. A March 6 notification confirmed the re-allotment of plots about 500 meters away, in equal proportion to what was acquired, along with compensation for agricultural use.
• Meanwhile, Mahabal Cement filed a separate writ petition, complaining of “disruption” of its cement project. The court later clubbed both petitions for joint hearing.

It was during the August 12 hearing of the merged petitions that Justice Medhi’s remarks went viral. The court observed:

“A cursory glance into the facts of the case would reveal that the land which has been sought to be allotted is about 3,000 bighas, which itself appears to be extraordinary.”

The Bench also stated:

“This Court directs Shri C. Sarma, learned Standing Counsel, NCHAC to obtain the records containing the policy to allot such a huge chunk of land measuring 3000 Bighas to a factory. The aforesaid direction has been given by taking into account that the district is a 6th Scheduled District under the Constitution of India where the priority has to be given to the rights and interest of the tribal people residing there. Further, the area involved is Umrangso in the district of Dima Hasao which is known as an environment hotspot containing hot spring, stop over for migratory birds, wild life etc.”

While the company claimed the land was granted through a tender-based mining lease, the bench questioned whether such a decision was compatible with Sixth Schedule protections for tribal rights and the ecological sensitivity of the area.

The matter has now been listed for September 1, 2025, with the court directing the NCHAC to produce the full policy records behind the allotment.

The complete order may be read here.

Shutdown called in Tinsukia as tribal groups resist state cabinet move

As per a report of The Hindu, massive protests broke out in Diphu, the headquarters of Karbi Anglong district, on Wednesday (August 20) as tribal groups opposed the Assam government’s move to hand over tribal land to large corporate houses.

Karbi Anglong is one of three districts in Assam governed under the Sixth Schedule of the Constitution, which safeguards tribal rights and provides autonomy to local councils.

The protest in Diphu was led by All-Party Hills Leaders Conference president Jones Ingti Kathar, with demonstrators raising slogans against Tuliram Ronghang, the BJP-led Chief Executive Member of the Karbi Anglong Autonomous District Council area.

Assam Jatiya Parishad president Lurinjyoti Gogoi, who joined the rally, accused Mr. Ronghang of colluding with corporate houses and “betraying the interests of tribal and indigenous communities.” He contrasted the “₹200-crore mansion” allegedly linked to Mr. Ronghang with the “makeshift huts” where hill tribals continue to live, accusing the BJP of endangering the cultural and economic survival of these communities, according to The Hindu report.

Related:

Assam government to withdraw ‘Foreigner’ cases against Non-Muslims under Citizenship Amendment Act

Banasha Bibi, Bengali-speaking Muslim woman with disability, declared Indian in CJP-Led Legal Win

“She Can’t Just Disappear”: Gauhati High Court told as state fails to produce handover certificate in Doyjan Bibi “pushback” case

The post Gauhati High Court questions allotment of 3000 Bighas of land to private cement company in Assam appeared first on SabrangIndia.

According to the report, the decision follows a meeting chaired by the Home and Political Department on July 17, 2025, under instructions from Chief Minister Himanta Biswa Sarma. According to the official minutes, Foreigners Tribunals have now been instructed that they are “not supposed to pursue cases of foreigners belonging to the six specified communities…who had entered into Assam on or prior to 31.12.2014.” District Commissioners and police heads have been asked to hold immediate meetings with tribunal members and submit periodic action-taken reports on the withdrawal of such cases. This executive diktat, that clearly discriminates against citizens based on faith (violation of Articles 14, 15 and 21 of the Indian Constitution) and has still to be accessed in the public domain (through a notification etc)

This comes just over a year after the Union Government notified the long-pending rules of the CAA in March 2024, nearly five years after the Act was passed in Parliament amidst widespread protests. The law fast-tracks Indian citizenship for undocumented migrants from Bangladesh, Pakistan, and Afghanistan belonging to six religious groups—excluding Muslims, Sri Lankans and Buddhists—on the condition that they entered India before the cut-off date of December 31, 2014.

The state’s internal notification also “encourages and supports” affected persons from these communities to apply for Indian citizenship under the CAA. Simultaneously, district authorities have been told to ensure compliance with earlier state instructions to withdraw cases against individuals from the Gorkha and Koch-Rajbongshi communities—both identified as politically significant electoral blocs.

Electoral calculations, policy contradictions

The timing of these directives is politically significant. Assam heads to the polls in 2026, and the withdrawal of cases against Bengali Hindus, Koch-Rajbongshis, and other non-Muslim groups may be read as a strategic move to consolidate the BJP’s support base. In April 2025, the CM had already promised to revoke 28,000 pending FT cases against Koch Rajbongshis—a move greeted with both celebration and skepticism. Detailed report may be read here.)

However, the credibility of these decisions remains under question. Despite the state’s commitment to drop all FT proceedings against Koch Rajbongshis, hearings continue against members of the community, such as Kishor Barman, whose case was heard at the Kajalgaon FT just days after the CM’s announcement.

These inconsistencies echo past episodes. For instance, despite an earlier 2021 promise to halt all new FT references against Gorkhas, members of the community have continued to face exclusion and legal scrutiny, including a former army jawan whose case reached the Gauhati High Court.

Moreover, while the government claims that indigeneity is a basis for withdrawing cases, especially in the case of Koch Rajbongshis. other indigenous communities like the Goria, Moria, Deshi, and Sayeed Muslims continue to be targeted by the FT system. The term “Khilonjia” (original inhabitants) remains undefined in Assam’s legal framework, raising troubling questions about the political selectivity of who gets protected and who remains vulnerable.

The CAA-NRC Convergence: A weaponised citizenship regime?

These developments lay bare the core fears that had animated the mass protests against the CAA in 2019–2020: that the law, in tandem with the National Register of Citizens (NRC), would create a two-tiered citizenship regime—offering protection and rehabilitation to non-Muslim undocumented migrants, while leaving Muslims, Sri Lankans and Buddhists vulnerable to statelessness and detention.

In August 2019, Assam released the final NRC list, excluding over 19 lakh people—around 5.7% of applicants. As per CM Sarma’s own admission in March 2024, this excluded group included five lakh Bengali Hindus, two lakh Assamese Hindus (from groups like Koch-Rajbongshi, Kalita, and Sarma), and 1.5 lakh Gorkhas.

Sabrangindia was the first to report on the demography of the exclusion. (Over 7 lakh Hindus among those excluded from the NRC, leaked data suggests)

The BJP’s public stance has been that Hindus left out of the NRC would be protected through the CAA—a promise that is now being visibly executed. But for Muslims similarly excluded from the NRC, no parallel legal shield exists. Instead, they continue to face FT proceedings, with the risk of indefinite detention, being illegally pushed back or statelessness.

A legally divisive, politically calculated shift

The state’s current instructions, coupled with CM Sarma’s selective commitments, reinforce what critics have long argued: that the CAA-NRC framework is less about identifying undocumented migrants and more about institutionalising religious discrimination in India’s citizenship law. Assam’s implementation model offers a blueprint of how this discrimination is playing out on the ground—one in which the fate of a person’s citizenship is decided not by facts or legal consistency, but by their religion, political expediency, and electoral arithmetic.

As Assam moves closer to the 2026 elections, the government’s latest moves seem less about course correction and more about shaping a religiously filtered citizenry—an outcome long feared by constitutional scholars, civil society groups, and affected communities alike.

Related:

‘An Explosive Situation’: Gun licences, evictions, and the manufacturing of a majoritarian crisis in Assam

Assam’s Foreigners’ Tribunals bypass constitutional safeguards: Report

Development by Displacement: Assam evicts thousands for Adani project without due process

The contested interpretation of the Immigrant Expulsion from Assam Act, 1950

The post Assam Government moves to drop ‘foreigner’ cases against non-Muslim communities citing Citizenship Amendment Act appeared first on SabrangIndia.

The Chief Minister’s remark came in response to a query on whether the state could become volatile if his government proceeded with its plan to issue gun licences exclusively to “original inhabitants” of Assam. His answer: not only is an explosive situation expected, it is welcome.

This is not political theatre. It is policy-as-provocation. Sarma’s statement, and the policies that surround it, point to a deliberate campaign of ethnic polarisation, state-backed dispossession, and Islamophobic scapegoating—paired with corporate interests and executed through a language of legality and security. This exposé traces the calculated threads of that campaign.

Weaponising Identity: The gun licence policy

On May 28, 2025, Sarma first declared that from August 1, the government would allow online applications for arms licences, but only for “indigenous” people—khilonjia—living in “vulnerable remote areas” of five districts: Dhubri, Barpeta, Morigaon, Nagaon, and South Salmara-Mankachar.

One should note that these districts are not arbitrarily chosen. They are overwhelmingly populated by Bengali-speaking Muslims, who the BJP-RSS ecosystem consistently labels as “infiltrators” or “illegal immigrants.” Two of them—Dhubri and South Salmara-Mankachar—border Bangladesh. Sarma cited vague feelings of “insecurity” among indigenous groups as justification, but no evidence of law-and-order breakdown was provided. Instead, the justification seems rooted in demography and fear.

As per The Assam Tribune, Sarma told the media “Someday the situation will be explosive. How will our people survive if there is an explosion?”

He paired this rhetoric with assurances that the “final approval” for gun licences would rest with district commissioners after police verification, as per the Indian Arms Act. But the context, armed mobilisation of one ethnic group in regions where another is numerically dominant, is what makes this policy chilling. It is not about self-defence. It is about creating authorised paramilitarisation of Assamese Hindus in Muslim-majority districts.

The Asom Jatiya Parishad (AJP) condemned the statement as “reckless and dangerous,” saying it “betrays the constitutional duty of a Chief Minister to ensure law and order, not incite unrest.”

“Urging people to bear arms is not just irresponsible—it’s an admission that the government can no longer ensure basic law and order,” said AJP leaders Lurinjyoti Gogoi and Jagadish Bhuyan while addressing a press conference, reported GuwahatiPlus. They further stated that “This is the same government that came to power pledging to protect Jati, Mati, and Bheti, but now it’s propagating fear instead of security.”

Evictions and Ethnic Targeting: The ground beneath the guns

The gun licence policy cannot be separated from another state project unfolding in parallel: massive, violent eviction drives targeting Bengali-speaking Muslims and marginalised tribal populations across Assam.

These evictions, carried out under the guise of forest protection or encroachment removal, have surged dramatically since the Advantage Assam 2.0 Investor Summit in February and the Rising Northeast Investors’ Summit in May 2025.

As provided by Liberation, a central organ of CPI(ML), fact-finding team from CPI(ML) visiting Goalpara’s Ashudubi village on July 16–17 uncovered the scale and cruelty of these operations:

• Over 1,100 houses demolished with 60 bulldozers
• Entire village encircled with trenches to block humanitarian aid
• At least two deaths: Monirul Islam, who committed suicide after receiving an eviction notice; Anaruddin Sheikh, who died of a heart attack as his house was razed
• No rehabilitation or resettlement, despite High Court orders mandating it

The CPI(ML) called the eviction campaign a “war-like operation”. Their report revealed that the eviction area, Ashudubi, had been renamed “Paikan” solely to label it as forest land and circumvent existing settlement rights.

“The victims are poor peasants and working-class Muslim families who have lived in the area for 60–70 years. Government buildings existed there too, but it was renamed and cleared,” the report said.

In the past four years of Sarma’s regime, over 1.19 lakh bighas (roughly 160 sq. km) have been cleared, often with lethal force. These are not isolated instances but part of an escalating trend.

Corporate colonisation behind the curtain

While the public justification for evictions rests on fears of “illegal Bangladeshi settlers,” the actual beneficiaries of the land-clearing campaigns are large corporates:

• Dhubri & Goalpara: 4,000 bighas cleared for Adani’s 3,000 MW thermal plant
• Dima Hasao: Adani cement factory being set up
• Kokrajhar: Adani power project underway
• Karbi Anglong: Reliance constructing compressed biogas plants

The chronological proximity of eviction escalations and investment summits is no coincidence. It reflects a state-backed project of corporate land acquisition, achieved through ethnic cleansing. Communal rhetoric is the political mask for a deeper economic dispossession.

A detailed report on the same may be read here.

Torchlight rallies and calls for exclusion

On July 25, thousands of Assamese and tribal residents in Dhemaji district held a torch rally shouting slogans like “Bangladeshi Go Back” and “Bangladeshi Hosiar.” Their demands: vacate the district in 15 days—or else. The state government has neither condemned the threats nor responded with restraint.

The signs from Assam all indicate an impending mass ethnic cleansing – from the statements of the CM to the social media posts.

And every single institution that is supposed to prevent this is either helpless or unwilling to act. https://t.co/NGkKWrsH5d

— Sarayu Pani (@sarayupani) July 27, 2025

Assamese Awakening
Thousands and Thousands of Assamese and tribals people came out on streets of Dhemaji district with ‘Mashals’ shouting “Bangladeshi Hosiar” “Bangladeshi Go Back” in support of @himantabiswa Government for eviction of suspected Bangladeshi Muslims from… pic.twitter.com/1ckDVSvvLO

— Oxomiya Jiyori (@SouleFacts) July 25, 2025

আপাদমস্তক আত্মসম্মান-বিহীন একটি জাতি। Meanwhile an actual ethnic cleansing similar to the one in 70s and 80s is imminent in Assam. This is what happens when people think of history only in terms of religion and forget that violence and ethnic cleansing can take other forms too. pic.twitter.com/Je4Tt5H2Dn

— Jayati (@Jayati_M93) July 27, 2025

These visuals are chillingly reminiscent of the early 1980s. In 1983, just before the Nellie massacre, in which over 2,000 Bengali-Muslims were butchered, then-BJP leader Atal Bihari Vajpayee gave a speech in Guwahati warning that a “river of blood” would flow if elections were held. In one of his speeches, Vajpayee was quoted as saying, “Foreigners have come here and the government does nothing. What if they had come into Punjab instead? People would have chopped them into pieces and thrown them away.” His words were read into the Lok Sabha record by former CPIM MP Indrajit Gupta in 1996. Today, Sarma’s rhetoric follows the same pattern, this time coupled with arms and state backing. 

NRC Weaponisation: Bengali Hindus not spared

This manufactured polarisation is not confined to Muslims. Bengali-speaking Hindus are also being targeted through revived NRC-linked harassment.

As per media reports that emerged on July 28, in Cooch Behar, West Bengal, 72-year-old egg-seller Nishikanta Das received a Foreigners Tribunal notice from Assam accusing him of illegally entering India between 1966 and 1971. His voter ID, Aadhaar, and ration card were rejected. Though Das proved his citizenship during a police detention in 2001, the tribunal now demands documents in his deceased father’s name.

“My father passed away 45 years ago. I’ve now found the document but will not return to the tribunal. I’ve had enough,” he told The Times of India.

Das’s story highlights that even working-class Hindu migrants are not immune. The Trinamool Congress has alleged that the BJP is using NRC-linked harassment to manufacture fear among all borderland Bengalis—Muslims and Hindus alike. Rajbanshis and Matuas, both marginalised communities, are now in the crosshairs.

Conclusion: A recipe for chaos, not governance

At the heart of Assam’s current political project lies not administrative reform or inclusive development, but a sustained strategy of majoritarian consolidation anchored in fear, suspicion, and cultural dominance. Chief Minister Himanta Biswa Sarma has overseen a carefully layered campaign: one that marries communal dog-whistling with structural violence, cloaking targeted exclusions as policy, and presenting repressive crackdowns as law and order imperatives.

The “indigenous-first” gun licensing policy is not about citizen security but about engineering a psychological state of siege, where “indigenous” Hindus are imagined as under attack and armed self-defence becomes both justified and state-endorsed. Eviction drives, often militarised, disproportionately target Bengali-speaking Muslims, branding them as “encroachers” without legal inquiry or rehabilitation. At the same time, land is quietly handed over to industrial houses or infrastructural projects with opaque benefits for local communities. What is sold to the public as “development” is, in fact, a reordering of land and belonging, violently enforced through bulldozers, police firings, and a language of ethnic hierarchy.

The State’s actions do not exist in isolation. They are embedded within and legitimised by an ideological climate in which Bengali-speaking Muslims are persistently labelled as infiltrators, encroachers, and outsiders, regardless of their legal status, decades of residence, or community contributions. The NRC has left millions in limbo. Yet, no political will has emerged to remedy the resulting humanitarian crisis. Instead, Sarma’s administration continues to leverage this uncertainty as a tool of coercion and compliance.

Worse still, under the guise of this polarisation, it is the poor — across communities — who suffer the most. Whether it is a landless Muslim family evicted from their home at gunpoint, or an Adivasi worker displaced by corporate land takeovers, or a low-income Hindu villager pushed to arm themselves out of fear, the brunt of the state’s divisive politics is borne by those with the least protection and voice. Public resources are redirected to militarisation, surveillance, and spectacle. Welfare is replaced by repression. Governance becomes theatre. The poor become collateral damage in a battle for ideological dominance.

This is not just the story of one Chief Minister’s political ambitions. It is the anatomy of a regime that is weaponising statecraft to redraw the boundaries of citizenship, belonging, and fear. Assam today stands at a precipice where pluralism is under siege, dissent is criminalised, and the very idea of India’s constitutional promise is being hollowed out—bulldozed, one community at a time.

Related:

The contested interpretation of the Immigrant Expulsion from Assam Act, 1950

Assam: When six ordinary Indian women were forcibly pushed out from India–No Man’s land– Bangladesh & then back

Assam Border Police cracks down on residents battling citizenship rights without due process, pushes 145 locals over the border?

Supreme Court and the Rofiqul Hoque Judgment: A new chapter in Assam’s citizenship jurisprudence on discrepancies in documentary evidence

Pushed Out of Sight: The covert deportation and detention crisis at Assam’s Matia detention centre

28,000 cases withdrawn or votes secured? Assam CM’s move to drop ‘Foreigner’ cases against Koch Rajbongshi promise under scrutiny

The post ‘An Explosive Situation’: Gun licences, evictions, and the manufacturing of a majoritarian crisis in Assam appeared first on SabrangIndia.