Fresh controversy has erupted over India’s handling of so-called “undocumented migrants” after Assam Chief Minister Himanta Biswa Sarma openly acknowledged practices that appear to fall outside legal frameworks—and, strikingly, expressed a preference for strained relations with neighbouring Bangladesh.
In remarks that have drawn sharp criticism, the chief minister of one of India’s largest and most politically significant northeastern states appeared not only to confirm the existence of informal cross-border expulsions—commonly referred to as “pushbacks”—but also to justify them as a necessity beyond the reach of law.
Speaking in an interview with Anandabazar Publications, Sarma conceded that the removal of individuals deemed “non-citizens” cannot be carried out strictly within legal boundaries.
“You cannot solve it legally. It is our struggle,” he said.
For critics, the statement is extraordinary. It amounts to a serving constitutional office-holder publicly admitting reliance on measures that bypass due process—raising questions not only about legality but about accountability at the highest levels of state governance.
The controversy centres on individuals flagged as “disputed citizens” under India’s National Register of Citizens (NRC), a contentious exercise that has left around 1.7 million people in limbo. Many of those affected are Bengali-speaking Muslims and members of other marginalised communities, fuelling longstanding concerns over discrimination.
Sarma suggested that while Hindu residents identified in the NRC would be allowed to stay, others could face expulsion—an assertion that has alarmed rights groups, who warn it points to selective enforcement along religious lines.
At the heart of the issue are accounts of how these expulsions are carried out.
According to the chief minister’s own description, individuals are detained by India’s Border Security Force (BSF) for periods ranging from 10 to 40 days. They are then transported to remote border areas and forced across into Bangladesh—often under cover of darkness and without any formal deportation process.
Crucially, these operations reportedly take place without coordination with Bangladeshi authorities, meaning those expelled are effectively abandoned at the frontier.
Sarma himself acknowledged the logistical and diplomatic complications, noting that Bangladesh does not officially accept such individuals. He also referred to a ruling by the Supreme Court of India permitting district magistrates to issue eviction orders against non-citizens—but pointedly admitted that the ruling does not specify where such individuals should be sent.
For legal experts, this gap is precisely where informal practices have emerged.
While no official data has been released, Sarma indicated that the scale of such operations has increased sharply—from around 50 cases in one year to approximately 1,400 in the next.
The implications are profound. Forcible transfers without due process raise serious questions under both Indian constitutional law and international norms.
At issue is the principle of non-refoulement, which prohibits sending individuals to places where they may face harm, as well as protections against arbitrary detention.
Particularly controversial were Sarma’s reported comments advocating “economic non-cooperation”—effectively restricting livelihoods to pressure individuals into leaving.
He suggested making life “miserable economically” for disputed residents, a stance critics say amounts to endorsing collective punishment and systemic exclusion.
Beyond legal concerns, the remarks have also unsettled observers of Bangladesh-India relations.
Cross-border migration and security issues are typically handled through established diplomatic channels. Yet Sarma’s comments appeared to challenge that framework directly.
In one of the most striking aspects of the interview, he expressed frustration that improved ties between India and Bangladesh slow down expulsions.
“We feel good when we see that the relationship … is not good,” he said, adding that friendlier relations make pushbacks more difficult.
He went further, saying he “always pray[s]” that relations between the two countries do not improve—an extraordinary statement for a senior elected official, particularly given the broader emphasis on regional cooperation in South Asia.
Analysts say such remarks are highly unusual, if not unprecedented, for a sitting chief minister, as they appear to openly contradict the diplomatic posture of the central government.
The controversy has prompted renewed calls for transparency and oversight.
Experts stress that any deportation process must involve clear legal procedures, verification of nationality, and formal coordination with the receiving country.
In the absence of such safeguards, critics warn, practices like pushbacks risk undermining both the rule of law and India’s international standing.
At the centre of the storm is a deeper question: what does it mean when a senior political leader not only acknowledges legally ambiguous actions—but frames them as necessary, and even desirable in the context of strained international relations?
