Opinion Himanta Biswa Sarma doesn’t surprise with his divisive rhetoric, thumbs nose at EC, SC

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 CM, who has sworn to uphold the Constitution, is flaunting a bid to intervene, influence, the Special Revision of electoral rolls in Assam.

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 ECI has injected credibility into the process. After the Bihar SIR, 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.

Advertisement

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. Incidentally, when the Opposition questions the SIR 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’s SIR process is unfolding across states under the gaze of the nation’s highest court. When the Chief Minister thumbs his nose at both, he needs a cautionary reminder.