Congress Criticizes Assam CM for 'Revolutionary' Remarks on ULFA-I Leader

New Delhi, India Jul 12, 2026 ALN: The Opposition Congress has directed its criticism towards Chief Minister Himanta Biswa Sarma for his recent remarks regarding the chief of the United Liberation Front of Asom-Independent (ULFA-I). The party argues that Sarma's description of the banned outfit leader as a "revolutionary" sends a dangerous message to the youth of Assam.

During a press conference at the Jorhat District Congress Bhawan on Saturday, Congress leader Borthakur expressed her concerns about the Chief Minister's comments made during an Assembly debate, labeling them as "provocative and irresponsible."

"What concerns us is that a person occupying the highest constitutional office in the state is making provocative and irresponsible statements. Such remarks can mislead the younger generation," she stated.

Borthakur highlighted Sarma's suggestion that if murals of revolutionaries are to be created, the portrait of ULFA-I chief Paresh Baruah could also be included. She questioned the appropriateness of glorifying a leader of a banned militant organization.

"The Government of India has declared ULFA a banned organization. In such a situation, encouraging the portrayal of its chief as a revolutionary is extremely unfortunate. If an ordinary citizen had made such a statement, would the police not have acted against him? People are arrested even for liking social media posts related to banned organizations. Why should there be a different standard for the Chief Minister?" she asked.

Borthakur further expressed concern about the potential impact of such statements on young people. "If the Chief Minister himself, who also heads the Home Department, says that the youth should paint Baruah's portrait as a revolutionary, then tomorrow if some young people begin idolizing him or choose to follow the same path, who will take responsibility?" she questioned.

She also accused the Chief Minister of frequently invoking stringent laws such as the National Security Act (NSA) to intimidate critics. "The Chief Minister often speaks about invoking the NSA. Such laws should not become instruments of intimidation. Constantly threatening citizens reflects fear and weakness rather than strength. A responsible leader should exercise restraint in both words and actions," she asserted.

Clarifying that her criticism was aimed at the Chief Minister's statement and not at Baruah personally, Borthakur emphasized, "This is not about insulting or defending any individual. It is about understanding the consequences of what a Chief Minister says. Every word spoken from such a high office carries weight. The Chief Minister, being a student of law himself, should understand the legal and social implications of glorifying the head of a banned organization."

She called on Sarma to retract his remarks, urging him to focus on governance rather than making statements that could be interpreted as glorifying militancy.

The remarks made by Chief Minister Sarma come against the backdrop of long-standing tensions in Assam, where the ULFA-I has been a significant player in the insurgency that has plagued the region for decades. The ULFA was founded in 1979 with the aim of establishing a sovereign Assam, free from Indian control, and has been involved in armed conflict against the Indian state. The group split into two factions in 2011, with ULFA-I being the more radical offshoot that continues to advocate for independence through militant means.

Historically, the ULFA and its leaders have been viewed with a mixture of fear and sympathy by different segments of society, with some seeing them as freedom fighters while others view their actions as terrorism. This duality complicates the public discourse around figures like Paresh Baruah, who has become a symbol of resistance for some, while representing violence and disruption to others.

In recent years, the Indian government has adopted a hardline approach to insurgency in the Northeast, which includes military operations and peace talks. However, the effectiveness of these measures has been debated, as sporadic violence continues to erupt, and the grievances of the local population remain largely unaddressed. The recent comments by Sarma could be interpreted as an attempt to engage with the sentiments of those who feel a sense of loss and marginalization, but they also risk inflaming tensions and undermining ongoing peace efforts.

The Congress party's criticism of Sarma reflects a broader concern over the political rhetoric surrounding insurgency and militancy in Assam. Political leaders are often faced with the challenge of balancing the need to address the aspirations of the youth while also ensuring that they do not inadvertently glamorize violence or promote divisive narratives. Borthakur's remarks highlight the delicate nature of this balance, especially in a state where the scars of conflict are still fresh.

Furthermore, the invocation of laws such as the National Security Act (NSA) has become a contentious issue in Assam and across India. Critics argue that such laws can be misused to suppress dissent and curtail free speech, particularly against those who oppose the ruling government. The Congress party's emphasis on this point serves to underscore the importance of upholding democratic values and protecting citizens' rights, particularly in a landscape where political discourse is increasingly polarized.

The implications of Sarma's statements could extend beyond immediate political fallout. If young people in Assam begin to view figures like Baruah as role models, it could lead to a resurgence of militancy and a cycle of violence that the state has been trying to escape. The Chief Minister's remarks, therefore, not only have the potential to influence public perception but also carry the weight of responsibility for the future trajectory of peace and stability in the region.

As the situation develops, it will be crucial for leaders in Assam to navigate these complex dynamics with care. The need for dialogue, understanding, and reconciliation is more pressing than ever, particularly in a state that has faced years of conflict and unrest. The Congress party's critique of Sarma serves as a reminder of the importance of responsible leadership and the potential consequences of rhetoric that can be perceived as glorifying violence.

In conclusion, the ongoing discourse surrounding the Chief Minister's remarks on ULFA-I leader Paresh Baruah highlights the intricate relationship between politics, identity, and conflict in Assam. It raises essential questions about the responsibilities of political leaders in shaping narratives that can either foster peace or incite division. As stakeholders in the region continue to grapple with the legacies of insurgency, the need for thoughtful and measured communication from those in power remains critical.