Assam Chief Minister Himanta Biswa Sarma has triggered a fresh political and communal debate after claiming that around 4 to 5 lakh people identified as ‘Miyas’ would be removed from the state’s Special Intensive Revision (SIR) of electoral rolls and citizenship related databases.
The remark came amid an ongoing public discussion led by journalist Sravasti Dasgupta, joined by Sobhana K. Nair and Saba Naqvi, who analysed the political messaging behind the statement, the framing of “Assamese vs Bangladeshi” and the larger Bangladesh backdrop shaping the discourse.
What the CM said
Addressing a public gathering earlier this week, Sarma said the state government was intensifying its verification drive to identify “illegal migrants” and claimed that a large number of entries in official records belonged to people who were “wrongly included.”
He used the term ‘Miyas’, a politically loaded word often used in Assam to refer to Bengali speaking Muslims of alleged migrant origin, stating that these names would be deleted from the SIR process.
The Chief Minister linked the move to Assam’s long standing concerns over demographic change, asserting that the state was only implementing mechanisms provided under law to ensure “Genuine Citizens” are not deprived of their rights.
Political and communal pitch
During the discussion, Sravasti Dasgupta pointed out that the language used by the CM blurs the line between legal status and religious identity, turning an administrative exercise into a communal narrative.
Sobhana K. Nair noted that the phrase “Miya” has historically been used in a derogatory sense and that its use by a constitutional authority risks legitimising a communal framing of citizenship.
Saba Naqvi added that such statements often rely on a simplified binary of “Assamese vs Bangladeshi” ignoring the complex history of migration, documentation and identity in the state.
Assam vs Bangladesh framing
The debate highlighted how references to Bangladesh are repeatedly used in Assam’s political rhetoric. Speakers pointed out that while cross-border migration has been a genuine issue in the past, invoking Bangladesh in current political speeches often serves to consolidate a voter base by portraying a permanent external threat.
The panel argued that this narrative gains strength during election seasons and during verification exercises like NRC updates or voter list revisions, even though courts have repeatedly stressed the need for individual verification, not group profiling.
Legal and constitutional concerns
Civil rights groups have warned that mass deletions based on broad labels could violate constitutional protections. They emphasised that citizenship and voter eligibility must be decided on documentary proof and due process, not on linguistic or religious identity.
Legal experts say the SIR process is meant to correct errors in electoral rolls and is not a substitute for tribunals or judicial scrutiny. Any large scale deletion without transparent criteria could face court challenges.
Opposition reaction
Opposition parties accused the Assam government of using fear politics. Congress and AIUDF leaders said the CM’s statement was aimed at polarising society and diverting attention from governance issues such as unemployment and flood management.
A senior Congress leader said, “You cannot decide citizenship by calling people ‘Miyas’. The Constitution does not recognise such categories.”
The Bangladesh backdrop
The discussion also touched upon recent political instability and developments in Bangladesh, which have influenced regional narratives on migration and security. Panelists argued that domestic political issues in India are being linked to Bangladesh’s situation to justify tougher rhetoric in Assam, even when there is no fresh evidence of large scale new migration.
What lies ahead
While the Assam government maintains that the exercise is lawful and necessary, critics fear that statements like these deepen social divisions and stigmatise entire communities. The panel concluded that the real challenge lies in balancing border management, citizenship law and social harmony in a state with a history of migration related conflict.
As the SIR process continues, the spotlight will remain on how many names are actually removed, under what criteria and whether the process can withstand legal and constitutional scrutiny.
