Summary of this article
The BJP’s surge to 100+ seats marks a sharp rise from 2021, underlining Sarma’s expanding political dominance.
The Indian National Congress faces a steep decline, reduced to 22 seats and key losses, including Gaurav Gogoi in Jorhat.
Welfare schemes, youth voters, and post-delimitation shifts have significantly reshaped Assam’s electoral landscape.
The electorate has chosen Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) decisively in Assam and with it Himanta Biswa Sarma. They have handed the party a third consecutive term in office, its second under Chief Minister Himanta Biswa Sarma, following its initial victory in 2016 under Sarbananda Sonowal. Sarma himself has described the win as a “hattrick with a century”, a phrase that captures both the scale and symbolism of the mandate.
With the BJP-led alliance touching 101 seats in the 126-member assembly at the time of publication, Assam appears more firmly entrenched within the party’s ideological and organisational fold more than ever before. The scale of the surge is striking, especially when set against the BJP’s 60-seat tally in 2021.
The Opposition, led by the Indian National Congress and joined by Raijor Dal, the Assam Jatiya Parishad, and a handful
of Left parties, struggled to present a cohesive challenge. For the Congress, in particular, the outcome has been bruising: it has managed to secure just 22 seats, slipping further from its 2021 tally of 29.
In a major setback, Gaurav Gogoi lost his assembly debut in Jorhat to the BJP’s Hitendra Nath Goswami by a margin exceeding 23,000 votes. For Gogoi, a three-time Member of Parliament, this defeat underscores the party’s broader decline in the state since 2016. Across upper and northern Assam, thought to favour the Congress, the party has been reduced to the margins, winning in just one seat. Its overall tally remains limited and geographically scattered.
In many ways, the verdict reads as “an affirmation of the Chief Minister’s leadership,” as senior journalist Sanjoy Hazarika argues, rather than simply a rejection of the Opposition. He pointed out that the scale of the result may not have been anticipated, with projections already suggesting the alliance would approach the 100-seat mark. He highlighted the role of young and first-time voters, particularly students benefiting from scholarships and welfare schemes, noting that these programmes appealed across genders.
The results themselves reflect a visible shift. A number of constituencies along the Bangladesh border areas―that once had a substantial presence of Bengali-speaking Muslims―have moved towards the BJP. These were seats where the Indian National Congress and the All India United Democratic Front, led by Badruddin Ajmal, had performed strongly in 2021.
Journalist Sandipan Talukdar points to welfare delivery as a decisive factor, noting that “many beneficiaries would have wanted the schemes to continue”. At the same time, he characterises the Opposition as “indecisive”, with an alliance that came together too late to be fully effective. In his reading, it failed to build the necessary momentum and lacked the ground strength to match the BJP’s formidable organisational network. Youth voters, he adds, were an important constituency, describing the election as “also a test for the party in the context of delimitation”.
Talukdar explains the shift in the border constituencies by pointing to a consolidation of minority votes in favour of the Congress. The All India United Democratic Front (AIUDF), he suggests, was kept out of the Opposition alliance, largely due to persistent allegations that it benefits the BJP. As a result, many Muslim voters appear to have shifted strategically towards the Congress.
Akhil Ranjan Dutta, a professor of political science at Gauhati University, offers a layered explanation, saying that he has “looked at it from four vantage points”—namely civilisational narratives and strategies, aspirational and transactional politics, infrastructural politics, and leadership—arguing that these strands have been effectively anchored together. In his view, the civilisational dimension stretches across issues such as delimitation, framed as a way to “secure the future of the indigenous people,” alongside measures like increasing Scheduled Tribe (ST) constituencies from 16 to 19 and expanding those in the Bodoland districts from 11 to 15. He also points to a notable shift in discourse: rather than relying on the Assam Accord, references to deportation now invoke the 1,950 Immigrants Expulsion Act, a move he suggests is meant to bypass contradictions with the Citizen (Amendment) Act (CAA). Campaigns against “infiltrators,” as well as narratives around “love jihad” and “land jihad,” combined with promises like implementing a Uniform Civil Code, are presented as responses to a perceived “civilisational threat”.
At the same time, he describes a layer of aspirational and transactional politics driven by welfare schemes—such as Orunodoi, which benefits around 40 lakh women and is proposed to expand further, alongside initiatives like Nijut Moina, Nijut Babu, Nijut Sipini for weavers, and Lakhpati Baideo—arguing that these programmes create direct, tangible connections with voters. This is complemented by infrastructural politics focused on roads, bridges, and development in rural and flood-prone areas, which he paraphrases as reinforcing the state’s material progress. Central to all of this, he emphasises, is the Chief Minister’s leadership, noting that he “had not taken anything for granted,” strategically combining polarisation with outreach through aspirational policies.
Finally, he attributes the opposition’s failure to three main factors: a fragile coalition, “high-voltage defections” in the lead-up to the elections, and an overreliance on civil society, rather than sustained grassroots engagement.
It is as senior advocate Santanu Borthakur, vice president of the Gauhati High Court Bar Association, puts it, “Difficult to comprehend—I am still astonished by the outcome,” especially as many had expected the Congress to improve it seat tally. He pointed to strong support for the BJP among women voters and noted that communities such as Bengali Hindus and tea tribes have largely remained aligned with the party. He also suggested that smaller political players contributed to unsettling the Opposition.
Hazarika also said there was “overwhelming support across the board” for Sarma’s programmes, while the Opposition alliance failed to generate comparable backing. He suggested that if the alliance had come together earlier, “they might have done somewhat better”. Referring to defections from the Congress to the BJP in the run-up to the polls, he argued that this showed the mandate was “not just against the Opposition, but very much for the party and its leadership.”
On community voting patterns, he observed that earlier agitations among tribal and Other Backward Classes (OBC) groups had subsided before the elections, with many aligning with what they saw as the dominant political force. He also pointed to the impact of delimitation and candidate selection, remarking that “nothing in this election happened without the Chief Minister’s approval”.
At the same time, Hazarika cautioned against overgeneralisation. While margins are significant in several constituencies, in several others it is not much. What stands out instead is the combination of welfare outreach, leadership projection, and organisational strength. He stressed that voters continue to judge whether representatives “respond to local concerns, remain accessible, and deliver on issues that matter to their constituencies” as factors that remain central to electoral outcomes.
