‘Deletion can’t be end of matter’: Indian Express, Telegraph editorials tear into Sarma’s hate video

Himanta Biswa Sarma has stirred another controversy. This time, an AI-generated video shared by the Assam BJP – showing the chief minister firing at men wearing skull caps – has triggered a police complaint and petitions before the courts, even though the party later deleted the post.

Only a handful of editorial pages addressed the episode head-on. The two national dailies that did said the deletion does little to blunt the damage, calling the episode emblematic of hate speech and election-season polarisation.

The Indian Express said the party may have deleted the post, but “that cannot be the end of the matter.” Referring to Sarma’s earlier remarks targeting “Miyas”, it argued: “This video, coming after that rhetoric, is, by any definition of the term, hate speech.” It warned that when such speech comes from someone in high office, “it strikes at the heart of, and violates, the constitutional promise of equality, dignity and fraternity.”

The paper also questioned Sarma’s response, noting that he “claims ignorance about the video but hasn’t said a word in condemnation,” and said responsibility lay squarely with the party leadership: “Acting on it is, first, the new BJP chief’s responsibility. Nitin Nabin cannot let this be.” Linking the episode to the state’s fraught history and upcoming elections, it described Sarma’s approach as one that “aims for consolidation through polarisation.” It added that accountability was unlikely under the current administration, asking, “In Sarma’s government, which officer is independent enough to book the creators of this video?” The editorial concluded that “Those behind the video need to be held accountable because Sarma’s hate video also implicates his party.”

The Telegraph struck a similarly critical note, arguing that even a deleted post leaves a lasting impact: “Social media posts, much like the picture of yore, speak a thousand words. Even a deleted one does so.” It said the post’s purpose was clear: “the poison will – is meant to – linger as the elections draw closer.” According to the paper, “religious polarisation and demonisation of minorities have been part of a tried-and-tested electoral strategy for the BJP.”

It described Sarma as “working hard at speaking with a forked tongue,” citing “his periodic targeting of miyas, a derogatory term for Bengali-speaking Muslims,” and accused him of diverting attention from governance failures. “By seeking to direct – limit – public attention towards issues with a pronounced majoritarian tilt, he is trying to evade scrutiny of his own record in governance,” the editorial said. It argued that the BJP’s success also reflected “a failure on the part of India’s Opposition,” and called for secularism to move beyond rhetoric into public life, saying, “That inclusive spirit must now be liberated from high portals and pedagogic discussions and made to embrace India’s streets for a public renewal of the compact with the Constitution.”

This is not the first time that editorials have criticised Sarma’s attempts to incite hate.

In 2024, after the alleged gangrape of a minor in Nagaon district in August, Sarma and several ministers had labeled the incident an “attack on the indigenous”. Opposition leaders had claimed that Sarma tried to whip up communal frenzy, pointing to attacks on minority communities in Sivasagar district.

The Hindu had noted that Sarma’s comments reflect a dangerous trend of politicising ethnic and religious differences for electoral gain. 

Complaining about the media is easy. Why not do something to make it better? Support independent media and subscribe to Newslaundry today.