A chief minister serves not only as a political leader but also as a representative of the constitutional relationship between the State and its citizens. When such an officeholder, either directly or symbolically, targets a minority community for humiliation or threat, the harm extends to the constitutional order itself. Therefore, the now-deleted video posted on the official social media account of the ruling party in Assam, which shows Chief Minister Himanta Biswa Sarma miming a point-blank shooting of men clearly identifiable as Muslims, merits examination beyond standard political criticism. This incident is not isolated; it follows a series of statements by him about Muslims he calls “Miya”, referring to Bangla-speaking Muslims in Assam with Bangladeshi roots.
This episode cannot be dismissed as mere campaign rhetoric or partisan provocation. The distinction is significant: these images were spread not by fringe actors, but by the official party apparatus linked to a sitting chief minister. Also, the incident cannot be excused by pointing to regional fears, migration across borders, or past conflicts in other parts of the subcontinent. Effective governance requires clarity and fairness, not hints, threats, or mixing citizenship with religious identity. Terms such as ‘infiltrator’, when used repeatedly without a clear legal basis, lose their official meaning and create suspicion about entire communities. This practice hides the differences between refugees escaping economic hardship, long-settled citizens, and those who may have broken immigration laws. In the end, it weakens constitutional protection.
The risks associated with such actions are cumulative. When a chief minister repeatedly presents a certain community as suspicious, unworthy, or disposable, it normalises everyday discrimination and encourages vigilantism. Such an approach signals to the broader public that constitutional impartiality is optional. While political disagreement is essential to democracy, dehumanisation weakens its foundations. India’s constitutional framework provides governments with considerable authority to address migration, law and order, and national security. However, it does not sanction using these concerns to create a climate of hostility towards an entire community. Ultimately, the issue at stake is not merely one of electoral strategy, but of constitutional integrity. Opposition leaders have now petitioned the Supreme Court, which has agreed to list the matter. Although it would have been significant for the court to address the issue suo motu, its prompt review may help clarify the constitutional boundaries.