Discourses From the East
In recent weeks, Assam has found itself at the centre of an intensifying debate over freedom, authority, and dissent. The arrest of several members of the Assam-based organisation Bir Lachit Sena, currently under government scrutiny, has triggered widespread discussion about whether the state’s approach to governance is gradually taking the form of a police-administered order rather than a participatory democracy. While the police maintain that the arrests were necessary to ensure public peace and discipline, critics view them as symptomatic of a deeper anxiety, the diminishing space for dissent and the growing use of state power to regulate political and cultural expression.
This unfolding situation exposes a fundamental tension within democratic governance: the conflict between maintaining public order, which the government presents as its duty, and safeguarding individual liberty, which critics fear is being eroded. The crucial question, therefore, is not merely about law enforcement but about limits, how far can a government go to preserve order before it begins to undermine the very liberty it is meant to protect?
The Arrests and Their Context
The Bir Lachit Sena, named after the revered Ahom general Lachit Borphukan, claims to represent Assamese interests and cultural pride. Its leaders have been vocal about issues such as illegal migration, land rights, ethnic identity, and political representation. While the organisation’s rhetoric draws upon regional anxieties and historical grievances, its activities have at times extended into forms of intimidation and vigilantism.
According to official statements, the recent arrests were made on charges of incitement, spreading misinformation, and creating public disorder. The police have justified their actions by asserting that no organisation or individual can act above the law. However, several civil society organisations, student unions, and human rights activistshave expressed concern that the state is increasingly relying on the police apparatus to suppress dissent rather than engage with it. This emerging atmosphere of fear and uncertainty has produced both a moral and constitutional dilemma: in its attempt to maintain order, is the state undermining the very democratic principles it seeks to defend?
Also Read: Unburying Nellie: What the Tiwari Report Means for Assam’s Unhealed Wounds
Freedom of Expression and the Weight of Law
At the core of this conflict lies the tension between freedom of expression and state control. The Indian Constitution, under Article 19(1)(a), guarantees the right to free speech and expression, a right that serves as the foundation of democracy itself. However, this freedom is subject to “reasonable restrictions” under Article 19(2), which allows the state to intervene in cases concerning public order, decency, or sovereignty. The question, therefore, is not whether restrictions exist, but how they are applied. The meaning of “reasonable” cannot be determined solely by the authority of the state. It must also be guided by moral restraint, judicial scrutiny, and civic sensibility. When the state begins to treat criticism as sedition or protest as provocation, it shifts from governance to coercion. The increasing use of police power in non-criminal political or social matters erodes the moral foundation of democratic dialogue and raises the spectre of a police state. The Constitution was never meant to create citizens who obey silently; it was designed to produce citizens who question intelligently. As Henry David Thoreau once declared, “Disobedience is the true foundation of liberty.” His belief was that genuine freedom lies not in conformity but in conscience, in the moral courage to resist injustice without resorting to violence. Dissent in that spirit, is an act of moral engagement that strengthens the republic. Yet, in Assam’s recent experience, this essential form of participation seems increasingly at risk.
Liberty and Its Misuse
Liberty is the cornerstone of freedom of speech and expression, a right so fundamental that many historians have preferred it to the very idea of life. Democracy can only prosper when individuals can express objections, reservations, and criticisms without fear of retribution.
However, this indispensable right has also been misused throughout history by those seeking to assert their own agenda against the state, often under the guise of nationalism or social justice. This fear of liberty being weaponised against the very spirit of democracy compelled the framers of the Indian Constitution to impose certain restrictions on speech. The challenge, therefore, is one of balance, between protecting liberty and preventing its misuse. When groups like the Bir Lachit Sena invoke freedom to justify coercive or exclusionary acts, they compromise the moral value of the very liberty they claim to defend. Similarly, when the state uses the pretext of law and order to suppress dissent, it betrays its constitutional responsibility. In this fragile balance, both the state and civil society must act with restraint and responsibility. Liberty without law is chaos; law without liberty is tyranny.
Also Read: Politics of Bridges: How Bhagadatta Remains Relevant Despite Being the Talk of the Past?
The Roots of Self-Proclaimed Nationalism
The emergence of organisations such as the Bir Lachit Sena is not accidental. They arise from deep-seated socio-political frustrations, the perception that mainstream politics has failed to address local grievances or represent cultural identity. These groups often position themselves as protectors of Assamese dignity, speaking to anxieties about demographic change, land alienation, and political marginalisation. such sentiments cannot be dismissed outright. They reflect real fears and disillusionment that deserve dialogue and policy response. However, problems emerge when such organisations operate outside the constitutional framework. Lacking accountability, they often resort to coercion or moral policing in the name of protecting community honour.
This duality, of representation and radicalism, positions such nationalist organisations as both a reflection of institutional shortcomings and a potential source of democratic instability. Their emergence underscores the limitations of formal institutions in mediating tensions between the state and society. Yet, when their mobilisations cross into acts of intimidation or vigilantism, they pose a direct challenge to the rule of law and constitutional governance. Consequently, the state’s response must be proportionate and principled rather than coercive. While arrests and bans may yield short-term control, they fail to address the underlying grievances and socio-political alienation that give rise to such movements in the first place.
Public Distrust and the Question of Credibility
. When citizens begin to perceive the state’s actions as politically motivated or selectively applied, even lawful actions lose legitimacy. The controversy surrounding Zubeen Garg, one of Assam’s most popular cultural figures, serves as an example. His recent remarks on socio-political issues triggered sharp divisions in public opinion and intense social media debates. Many have speculated that the timing of the arrests of Bir Lachit Sena leaders, coming shortly after this controversy, may have been politically convenient, diverting attention from growing criticism of the government.
While such claims remain unverified, they highlights a larger problem, the erosion of trust between the people and the administration. In a democracy, perception often shapes political reality. When citizens believe that the machinery of law is being used as a political tool, the moral authority of the state begins to weaken, even if the legal procedures remain intact.
Also Read: অসমৰ “মামা” ৰাজনীতি: মৰমৰ নামত নিয়ন্ত্ৰণ
The Shadow of Overreach
A police state is not defined merely by the presence of police. It is characterised by a government’s tendency to control public behaviour through fear, surveillance, and arbitrary enforcement. Assam may not have reached that stage, but the pattern of over-policing dissenters, detaining activists, and restricting protests suggests a worrying shift. Democracy cannot flourish when citizens fear arrest for expressing unpopular opinions. True authority, as Thoreau reminded us, is moral, not coercive. A state that fears criticism is a state uncertain of its legitimacy. Instead of resorting to arrests, the government should open spaces for negotiation, dialogue, and policy engagement. Strength does not lie in silencing opposition but in confronting it with reason and fairness.
Law, Liberty, and Responsibility
Maintaining law and order is a constitutional obligation, but it must not be achieved at the cost of liberty. The rule of law means that both citizens and the state are bound by the same moral and legal principles. Any use of law for political ends weakens the democratic compact.
Civil society, too, carries responsibility. Activism must remain peaceful and accountable; public action must be guided by the ethics of persuasion, not coercion. The path to reform lies through constructive engagement, building institutions, fostering debate, and expanding civic education, not through intimidation or force.
What Assam needs is a renewal of trust and civic participation. The state should focus less on punishing dissent and more on addressing the economic, social, and cultural grievances that give rise to discontent. Only by recognising dissent as an expression of belonging, not rebellion, can Assam rebuild its democratic faith.
Pallavi Devi is an Assistant Professor of Constitutional Law at the Department of Law, Gauhati University, and *Injamul Haque is a postgraduate student (LL.M., second semester) at the same institution.
