GUWAHATI: The much-discussed “undercurrent” against the ruling dispensation in Assam ultimately proved illusory, as the BJP-led NDA not only held its ground but secured a third consecutive term, effectively neutralising anti-incumbency in a state where electoral fatigue is often decisive.
A six-party Opposition alliance, led by the Congress, had sought to consolidate anti-BJP sentiment into a unified challenge. But the effort came too late and lacked cohesion. While the BJP had been preparing for the electoral battle over a full five-year cycle, the Congress entered it weakened, organisationally depleted by defections and strategically constrained, with alliance-building finalised only weeks before polling.
The BJP’s campaign rested on a calibrated blend of development messaging and identity politics. On one hand, it foregrounded infrastructure expansion, welfare delivery, and governance reforms, on the other it sharpened anxieties around illegal immigration and land encroachment, particularly targeting Bengali-speaking Muslims, often referred to in political discourse as “Miyas.” The party repeatedly warned that a defeat would reopen the door to what it described as demographic and territorial pressures.
Central to this strategy was Chief Minister Himanta Biswa Sarma, whose political messaging over the past five years has consistently revolved around the issue of illegal immigration. His rhetoric, seen as polarising, signalled a willingness to deprioritise Muslim electoral support, which constitutes roughly a third of Assam’s population. This posture was reinforced during the campaign by Union Home Minister Amit Shah, who accused previous Congress governments of “normalising” infiltration and pledged decisive action against identified infiltrators if the NDA returned to power.
Such positioning enabled the BJP to consolidate a broad Hindu vote base, particularly among indigenous communities concerned about land rights and demographic change. The government’s eviction drives, targeting alleged encroachments on government and Satra lands, were touted as corrective measures. Officials claim that over 1.5 lakh bighas were reclaimed, a move that found support among sections of the electorate wary of shifting population patterns.
Alongside identity politics, welfare delivery played a crucial electoral role. The Orunodoi scheme, offering monthly financial assistance of ₹1,250 to economically disadvantaged women, emerged as a key instrument of voter outreach. With an estimated 40 lakh beneficiaries, it effectively embedded the state within a beneficiary-driven political economy, translating welfare into electoral loyalty.
Governance, too, seems to have become a differentiator. The BJP capitalised on its record of relatively transparent recruitment in government jobs, contrasting it with the Congress’s tenure from 2001 to 2016, which was marred by allegations of corruption. The Assam Public Service Commission cash-for-jobs scandal during Tarun Gogoi’s final term remains a reference point in public memory. Sarma repeatedly invoked this past, warning voters that a Congress return would revive compromised hiring practices.
Infrastructure expansion further reinforced the BJP’s development narrative. Roads, bridges, and educational institutions were built across regions, with the party projecting an image of geographically balanced growth. This was complemented by targeted outreach to tea garden communities, an influential voting bloc, through land rights initiatives, wage interventions, and social welfare measures.
The 2023 delimitation exercise also subtly reshaped the electoral landscape which diluted the Opposition’s advantage in several key seats. Muslim voters, once decisive in over 30 constituencies, saw their influence recalibrated to a narrower band.
In contrast, the Congress struggled to define a compelling counter-narrative. Its campaign attempted to foreground allegations of corruption against the incumbent government and invoked emotive issues, including the death of cultural icon Zubeen Garg. Promises of delivering justice and constructing a “New Bor-Asom” failed to gain traction, reflecting both message fatigue and organisational weakness.
Leadership asymmetry further compounded the Congress’s difficulties. Gaurav Gogoi remains one of its few leaders with statewide recognition, but his reach and resonance fell short of Sarma’s political dominance. Since its defeat in 2016, the Congress has been unable to secure a significant electoral comeback in Assam, and the latest result underscores its continued decline.
Political analysts view the NDA’s victory as indicative of a deeper structural shift. Jayanta Krishna Sarmah of Gauhati University pointed out the convergence of welfare politics and identity consolidation as a decisive factor. What began as social security measures, he argues, has evolved into a durable electoral mechanism. At the same time, the BJP’s sustained emphasis on protecting “Khilonjia” (indigenous) interests has anchored its appeal in the Brahmaputra Valley.
The outcome suggests that Assam’s politics is no longer shaped merely by cyclical anti-incumbency, but by a reconfigured alignment of welfare dependency, identity assertion, and organisational depth. For now, that alignment firmly favours the BJP.
