CM Doesn’t Surprise, Thumbs Nose at EC, SC, The Dangerous Politics of Electoral Exclusion in Assam
There is little that is surprising in Assam Chief Minister Himanta Biswa Sarma’s latest diatribe. His attacks on people from the minority community and the boast that he had asked BJP workers to “trouble” them (whether by filing objections to their inclusion in the electoral roll or paying a rickshaw driver “Rs 4 instead of Rs 5”) is of a piece with the political idiom he has consistently employed since joining the BJP.
The distinction between “miyas” and Assamese Muslims that he seeks to make is fraught. Clearly, Sarma sees political benefit in amplifying polarising rhetoric ahead of the Assembly elections later this year. So what if it conflicts with constitutional and political propriety.
But this time, it’s more than a campaign speech. In effect, an elected Chief Minister, who has sworn to uphold the Constitution, is flaunting a bid to intervene, influence, and subvert the Special Revision of electoral rolls in Assam.
The Electoral Roll Controversy
In the past six months, the sanctity of the electoral roll has been at the centre of a contentious debate: Who gets in, who is asked to explain, who is deleted. Questions related to exclusion, timing, documentation and whether or not the Election Commission has the mandate to verify citizenship continue to be asked and answered in the Supreme Court.
The apex court’s much-needed nudge to the Election Commission of India has injected credibility into the process. After the Bihar Special Revision, the poll body has allowed the inclusion of Aadhaar among the list of accepted documents, softened its stance on citizenship criteria and made it easier for electors to trace their names to the 2003 rolls.
Sarma’s exclusionary rhetoric goes against this accommodative stance. While the Supreme Court and the Election Commission are working to make the process more inclusive, the Chief Minister is actively working to make it more exclusive.
The Call to “Trouble”
The Chief Minister’s call to BJP workers to fill out Form 7 to “trouble” one demographic group is not only divisive, it also flies in the face of law and procedure. Filing a false claim invites a penalty. Yet the Chief Minister is openly encouraging his workers to file objections, not based on genuine concerns about eligibility, but with the explicit intent of harassing a particular community.
This is not politics; it is weaponisation of administrative procedures. Form 7 is meant to be used for legitimate objections to electoral roll entries. When it is used as a tool of harassment, it undermines the integrity of the entire electoral process.
The Irony of Official Responses
Incidentally, when the Opposition questions the Special Revision process—and there are times its criticism has been more political than substantive—the Chief Election Commissioner gives a testy rebuttal, at times even sounding like a party spokesperson rather than a constitutional authority.
The Election Commission, which is supposed to be an impartial arbiter, has sometimes appeared defensive and partisan. When the Chief Election Commissioner sounds like a party spokesperson, the institution’s credibility suffers.
The Constitutional Dimension
The Election Commission’s Special Revision process is unfolding across states under the gaze of the nation’s highest court. The Supreme Court has intervened to ensure that the process is fair, inclusive, and procedurally sound. When the Chief Minister thumbs his nose at both, he needs a cautionary reminder.
A Chief Minister who has sworn to uphold the Constitution cannot openly work to subvert a constitutional process. He cannot encourage his workers to file false claims. He cannot target a specific community for harassment. These actions are not just politically divisive; they are constitutionally dubious.
The Political Calculus
Sarma’s calculus is clear: polarisation works. By dividing voters along communal lines, by painting one community as “outsiders” or “illegal,” he consolidates his own vote bank. The politics of exclusion has electoral benefits, at least in the short term.
But the long-term costs are immense. Social cohesion is eroded. Trust in institutions is undermined. The very idea of India as a pluralistic, inclusive democracy is threatened. When a Chief Minister openly targets a minority community, it sends a message that such targeting is acceptable, even encouraged.
The Role of the Courts
The Supreme Court has a crucial role to play. Its intervention in the electoral roll process has already made a difference. By insisting on inclusivity, by broadening the list of acceptable documents, by making it easier for electors to prove their eligibility, the Court has pushed back against exclusionary tendencies.
But the Court cannot police every statement, every action. Ultimately, it is the responsibility of political leaders to uphold constitutional values. When they fail to do so, the consequences are felt across society.
Conclusion: A Cautionary Reminder Needed
When the Chief Minister thumbs his nose at both the Election Commission and the Supreme Court, he needs a cautionary reminder. The reminder should come from all quarters: from the Court, from the Commission, from political parties, from civil society, from citizens.
The reminder is simple: the Constitution matters. Electoral processes matter. The rights of minorities matter. No leader is above the law. No political gain justifies subverting constitutional processes.
The Assam Chief Minister’s latest diatribe is not just another campaign speech. It is an assault on the integrity of the electoral process and a threat to the rights of minorities. It must be met with firm resistance.
Q&A: Unpacking the Assam Electoral Controversy
Q1: What did Assam Chief Minister Himanta Biswa Sarma say?
Sarma reportedly attacked people from the minority community and boasted that he had asked BJP workers to “trouble” them—by filing objections to their inclusion in the electoral roll or paying a rickshaw driver “Rs 4 instead of Rs 5.” He seeks to create a distinction between “miyas” and Assamese Muslims.
Q2: Why is this significant in the context of the electoral roll revision?
The Chief Minister is openly encouraging his workers to file Form 7 objections against a specific demographic group, not based on genuine eligibility concerns but with the intent to harass. This weaponises an administrative procedure and undermines the integrity of the electoral process.
Q3: What has been the Supreme Court’s role in the electoral roll process?
The Supreme Court has intervened to ensure the process is fair and inclusive. After its nudge, the Election Commission allowed Aadhaar among accepted documents, softened citizenship criteria, and made it easier for electors to trace their names to 2003 rolls. The Court’s intervention has injected credibility into the process.
Q4: How has the Election Commission responded to criticism?
When the Opposition questions the Special Revision process, the Chief Election Commissioner sometimes gives testy rebuttals, at times sounding like a party spokesperson rather than a constitutional authority. This perceived partisanship undermines the institution’s credibility.
Q5: What are the broader implications of Sarma’s statements?
Sarma’s exclusionary rhetoric threatens social cohesion, undermines trust in institutions, and challenges India’s pluralistic identity. By targeting a minority community for electoral harassment, he sends a message that such targeting is acceptable. The long-term costs to democracy and constitutional values are immense.
