Himanta Biswa Sarma’s Silchar Speech: A call for Hindu unity beyond linguistic divides

On August 31, Assam Chief Minister Himanta Biswa Sarma addressed a public gathering in Silchar and forcefully refuted the controversy over Bengali being labelled a “Bangladeshi language.” His remarks carried a political sharpness and cultural clarity that went beyond mere firefighting. At a time when identity politics in the Northeast is repeatedly stirred for partisan gains, Sarma’s words offered a counter-narrative of Hindu civilizational unity, rejecting the manufactured binary of Assamese versus Bengali. This is Silchar- the heart of Barak Valley and the predominantly Bengali speaking region of Assam.See the sea of people who came out today .Support for us is coming from every corner and community of Assam. Together we are building an Assam of everyone's dreams. pic.twitter.com/tq1aPPhMUs— Himanta Biswa Sarma (@himantabiswa) August 31, 2025 Sarma’s central claim that “there is no Assamese versus Bengali issue in Assam; we are all Hindus” was both a reassurance to the Bengali Hindu population of Barak Valley and a political statement directed at his rivals. By directly naming Congress leader Sushmita Dev as one who benefits from fanning identity disputes, Sarma turned the spotlight on how identity is manipulated in electoral politics. His remark that he would win Silchar with an even larger margin than Jalukbari was more than bravado; it was a signal of BJP’s growing appeal among Bengalis in the Barak Valley, long considered a Congress stronghold. The immediate controversy had begun with the Delhi Police describing Bangla as a “Bangladeshi language” in an official communication. The Trinamool Congress (TMC) seized the opportunity to attack the BJP, portraying the phrasing as an insult to Bengali identity. While Amit Malviya, head of the BJP’s IT cell, attempted to justify the terminology by linking it to shorthand identifiers for illegal immigration, his explanation lacked the cultural sensitivity necessary in matters of language and identity. Bengali is not merely a language it is a civilizational identity tied to Rabindranath Tagore, Bankim Chandra, Vivekananda, and countless intellectuals whose legacy belongs as much to India as to Bengal. Sarma wisely drew upon this cultural history, asking rhetorically, “Was Rabindranath Tagore from Bangladesh or West Bengal? Prime Minister Modi has granted classical language status to Bengali. How can the BJP insult the Bengali language and its people?” By invoking both Tagore and Modi, Sarma sought to anchor Bengali identity firmly within the Indian nationalist fold, countering the opposition’s charge that the BJP was undermining Bengalis. This rhetorical move was significant it separated the question of illegal immigration from Bangladesh from the cultural identity of Indian Bengalis, a distinction that political opponents often blur for electoral advantage. The context of Silchar also mattered. The Barak Valley, with its Bengali-speaking majority, has long felt marginalized in Assam’s political imagination. The violent history of the 1961 Language Movement in Silchar, where 11 protestors were killed while demanding recognition of Bengali, still haunts the collective memory of the valley. Sarma’s message that there is “no Assamese versus Bengali issue” sought to heal this historical wound. By dedicating statues of Netaji Subhas Chandra Bose and Mangal Pandey during his visit, he reinforced a shared nationalist narrative that transcends linguistic divides. Bose remains an icon of unity and sacrifice across India, while Mangal Pandey symbolizes the pan-Indian roots of the freedom struggle. The symbolism was deliberate: to remind Sylheti Bengalis in Silchar that their heroes are also India’s heroes. From a political perspective, Sarma’s intervention highlights the BJP’s strategy in the Northeast. The party cannot afford to alienate Bengali Hindus, who are a decisive demographic in Assam’s Barak Valley and in parts of Tripura. At the same time, the BJP must continue its tough stance against illegal immigration from Bangladesh, which has been its most potent political plank in Assam. The delicate balance lies in ensuring that the anti-illegal immigration narrative does not spill over into an anti-Bengali sentiment. Sarma’s speech was a masterclass in walking this tightrope denouncing divisive rhetoric while keeping the core ideological message intact. The larger question, however, is whether such unity narratives can withstand the churn of identity politics. For decades, Assamese-Bengali tensions have been fuelled by competing claims over land, resources, and political representation. While Sarma’s Hindu civilizational framing may help consolidate communities against a common adversary, the persistence of historical grievances and the constant provocation by rival parties will test the durability of this unity. Nevertheless, the Silchar speech stands out as an attempt to rewrite the script of Assam’s politics. By emphasising Hindu identity ov