Himanta Biswa Sarma video is hate speech, Delete is no answer

The Assam BJP uploaded on Saturday a video showing an image of Chief Minister Himanta Biswa Sarma firing at men wearing skull caps, with the caption “point blank shot” — it deleted the video Sunday. But that cannot be the end of the matter. The video came a little over a week after Sarma publicly exhorted the people of his state and the Election Commission’s SIR exercise to target “Miyas”, a name given to Bengali-speaking Muslims, also a term of a communal dog whistle politics. This video, coming after that rhetoric, is, by any definition of the term, hate speech. In a diverse country, hate speech is not always only an individual offensive expression or aberration. When a Chief Minister uses it, and the media amplifies it, it strikes at the heart of, and violates, the constitutional promise of equality, dignity and fraternity. Sarma claims ignorance about the video but hasn’t said a word in condemnation. Acting on it is, first, the new BJP chief’s responsibility. Nitin Nabin cannot let this be.

An election is approaching in Assam and the BJP is bidding for a third straight term against a divided opposition. Clearly, under Sarma, it seems to have taken a call that it cannot rely only on welfare schemes, or infrastructure development, or even, by all accounts, the CM’s own popularity. In a state with a fraught history, and criss-crossing religious, ethnic and sub-regional faultlines, Sarma’s politics aims for consolidation through polarisation. His is an attempt to stoke fears among the indigenous Assamese by peddling spectres of a demographic takeover by “outsiders”. Of course, there are legitimate concerns in Assam about illegal immigrants from Bangladesh, and these have also been recognised by the Supreme Court. But the same Court has also engaged, intensively, with hate speech as a constitutional harm, one that legitimises the exclusion of communities. In October 2022, the Court gave a seminal order — directing police authorities to register FIRs suo motu in cases involving hate speech without waiting for a formal complaint. Failure to act, it said, would invite contempt proceedings. But, not surprisingly, enforcement has remained uneven. In Sarma’s government, which officer is independent enough to book the creators of this video?

Overall Analysis

The editorial strongly condemns the Assam BJP’s decision to upload — and then quietly delete — a video depicting Chief Minister Himanta Biswa Sarma firing at men wearing skull caps. The author argues that deletion alone cannot absolve responsibility, especially given the political and social context in which the video appeared. By linking the video to Sarma’s earlier rhetoric targeting “Miyas,” the piece establishes a clear continuum between speech, symbolism, and political intent.

The editorial frames the video unequivocally as hate speech, emphasizing that when such content originates from or is associated with a Chief Minister, it transcends individual offense and becomes a constitutional violation. The language stresses how hate speech corrodes the values of equality, dignity, and fraternity — core principles of the Indian Constitution. The author is particularly critical of Sarma’s silence and refusal to condemn the video, interpreting it as tacit endorsement rather than ignorance.

In the second part, the editorial situates the episode within the electoral calculus of Assam. It suggests that the BJP, under Sarma, is deliberately shifting from governance-based politics to polarisation, exploiting Assam’s complex ethnic and religious fault lines. While acknowledging legitimate concerns about illegal immigration, the author carefully distinguishes these from communal targeting, reinforcing credibility by citing Supreme Court jurisprudence on hate speech.

The reference to the Supreme Court’s 2022 order directing police to act suo motu against hate speech strengthens the argument that institutional failure — not legal ambiguity — enables such incidents. The closing question about whether any officer in Assam would dare act independently delivers a sharp, rhetorical critique of political influence over law enforcement.

Overall, the editorial uses firm, legally grounded language to argue that hate speech by those in power is not a trivial lapse but a serious democratic injury requiring accountability, not erasure.

Important Vocabulary (5)

1. Dog whistle – coded language that signals a message to a specific group while appearing innocuous to others.
2. Polarisation – the division of society into sharply opposed groups.
3. Faultlines – underlying divisions or tensions within society.
4. Seminal – highly influential or foundational.
5. Suo motu – action taken by authorities on their own initiative, without a formal complaint.

Conclusion & Tone

The editorial concludes that deleting the video is insufficient and that failure to act against hate speech from the highest political office sets a dangerous precedent. It calls for accountability, institutional courage, and adherence to constitutional values, especially in an election-bound state with a sensitive social fabric.

Tone: Stern, accusatory, and constitutionally grounded — blending moral urgency with legal clarity.