Key player for development

Assam, a state famed for its cultural confluence of myriad tribes and religious communities and abundant natural resources is today at the crossroad. There is a growing disquiet, even within political circles, that the pursuit of sectarian ideology threatens the agenda of all-round development and progress. The state’s political narrative appears to be aligning itself with, or in some instances, seeking to outdo the tenets of radical Hindutva. This shift, driven by the ruling political establishment, is not merely a change in tone; it represents a fundamental threat to the delicate social contract that has historically sustained the state’s pluralistic fabric. The primary tool of this new political order is anti-religious minorities, a political ideology that fundamentally rejects pluralism. Pluralism is not a luxury; it is the essential bedrock of any dynamic, growing society-the environment that ensures positive contributions and beneficial changes can emerge from citizens of all religious and ethnic backgrounds. By framing a significant segment of the population as the perpetual “other,” this exclusionary mindset starves the state of its full human potential and actively undermines civic unity.A central justification often invoked for this divisive politics is the genuine, long-standing issue of illegal immigration. However, many keen observers point out a critical and dangerous flaw in this approach: the political focus has dangerously blurred the lines between the specific problem of illegal immigration and the wholesale targetting of a religious community. If the concern is genuinely about addressing illegal immigrants, the state apparatus should address the issue strictly and legally against those proven to be immigrants, regardless of their religion. This aggressive communalism is, at its heart, a strategy of prejudice and division. It diverts public attention from core governance issues-economic growth, infrastructure, and social uplift -and redirects it toward perpetual internal conflict. The communal agenda serves only to promote discord, turning a free society into a fractured one. The tragic irony is that this ‘hate virus,’ once deployed, rarely remains confined to a single target. The political energy marshaled against one non-Hindu group is already showing signs of spillover, infecting the social and political standing of other non-Hindu indigenous communities in Assam. This includes various tribal and non-Assamese-speaking indigenous groups whose unique identities are being subtly undermined by a push for a singular, politically defined majoritarian identity. The pursuit of radical majoritarianism threatens to alienate the very indigenous populations whose cultural identity the state purports to protect .Assam possesses immense potential for growth, given its strategic location, oil and tea industries, and rich biodiversity. To squander this potential by allowing politics to be used as a vehicle for disseminating hatred is an act of self-sabotage. The constant stoking of communal fires creates a perpetually volatile and potentially dangerous climate. The most insidious consequence of this politically sanctioned communal rhetoric is its corrosive effect on the rule of law. By normalising prejudice, the state inadvertently empowers and validates individuals who profess the same ideology of hate, encouraging them to bypass legal channels and act as vigilantes. Assam’s political establishment must urgently recalibrate its priorities. It must recognize that Assam’s broad-based inclusive development is a potent force for development of the region. The long-term prosperity and peace of the state depend not on achieving ideological purity through division, but on re-embracing the spirit of inclusive pluralism-the only sustainable foundation for a modern, thriving, and peaceful society.