Syeda Hameed’s Remarks on Bangladeshis: Why Assam Will Not Take It Lightly

When activist and former Planning Commission member Syeda Saiyidain Hameed declared in Assam on Sunday that “What is wrong if they are Bangladeshis? Bangladeshis are also humans. Earth is so large; Bangladeshis can live here”, she may have thought she was advancing a humanitarian perspective. But in Assam—a state that has paid in blood, fire, and tears for decades of unchecked migration—such words are not merely provocative, they are a direct affront to lived history.

Hameed’s remarks, framed in religious terms about eviction being “quamat (apocalypse) for Muslims,” may resonate with sections of liberal activism. But in Assam, they strike a very different chord. Here, migration is not an abstract academic debate. It is not a theoretical humanitarian problem. It is the core of a political struggle that has shaped the destiny of an entire people, claimed 855 martyrs during the Assam Agitation, and continues to determine who belongs, who votes, and who survives in an increasingly fragile demographic balance.

AASU’s Sharp Rebuke

The All Assam Students’ Union (AASU), which has historically stood at the frontline of the anti-foreigners’ movement, minced no words in condemning Hameed’s comments. President Utpal Sharma called her statement “anti-Assam and anti-India,” reminding her—and perhaps the rest of the country—that Assamese identity has already been scarred by decades of demographic invasion.

“By saying that Bangladeshi nationals are not harming the people of the state, she dishonours the sacrifice of 855 martyrs who laid down their lives during the Assam Agitation,” Sharma said in a video statement. His words were not just emotional—they carried the weight of an entire generation that fought, protested, and bled to ensure that Assam did not lose itself under the sheer weight of migration.

This is Syeda Hameed, former member of the Planning Commission during congress era. Just look at the audacity! If she feels so strongly about the “rights” of illegal Bangladeshis in Assam, why doesn’t she accommodate them in her own home? Perhaps her like-minded friends can also… pic.twitter.com/7ZVdtx3uDc

— BJP Assam Pradesh (@BJP4Assam) August 24, 2025

For AASU, and indeed for many in Assam, Hameed’s sweeping humanitarian rhetoric ignores ground realities. Illegal encroachments, they argue, have threatened Assamese language, land, and political rights. Sharma pointed to Gauhati High Court observations about illegal migrants entering voter lists and becoming “kingmakers” in state politics. In his words, this is not a hypothetical crisis, but a lived threat to the very foundation of Assam’s society.

Gaurav Gogoi Adds to the Debate

Interestingly, even political voices that are often accused of being “soft” on the migration issue have reacted cautiously to Hameed’s comments. Assam Pradesh Congress Committee (APCC) president Gaurav Gogoi distanced himself from Hameed’s line, stating bluntly: “We do not want Bangladeshis. In all these recent eviction drives, how many Bangladeshis have actually been found?”.

Gogoi’s statement is telling. While condemning the government for allegedly using the “Bangladeshi” tag selectively against Muslims, he made it clear that the Congress too does not endorse the idea of legitimizing illegal migration. His words underline a central truth: in Assam, no mainstream political force can afford to ignore the depth of resentment against unchecked migration.

The Collision of Narratives

What this controversy reveals is a sharp collision between two narratives. On one side, civil society activists like Hameed, Prashant Bhushan, and Harsh Mander frame the debate in terms of human rights, religious persecution, and universal belonging. On the other, organizations like AASU, and a large section of Assamese society, see the same issue as a question of survival, of protecting land, language, and culture from becoming footnotes in their own homeland.

This is why Hameed’s words sparked not just disagreement, but outrage. For Assamese people, such remarks reopen old wounds—the memory of villages set on fire, communities displaced, and the relentless pressure on resources, jobs, and identity. They hear not compassion, but condescension, from voices that appear blind to Assam’s history.

Why Assam Will Not Forget

Assam has long lived at the uneasy intersection of migration and identity. The Assam Accord of 1985 was meant to draw a line in history—those who came after March 24, 1971, were to be declared foreigners. For the people, that Accord was not just a legal pact, but a solemn assurance that their sacrifices would not be in vain.

To dismiss this with a casual “Earth is so large, Bangladeshis can live here” is not only politically naïve, it is profoundly insensitive. It ignores the Accord, the martyrs, and the fragile demographic balance that Assamese society is fighting to preserve.

A Closing Word

The Syeda Hameed episode is more than a controversy; it is a warning. It tells us that Assam’s questions of identity and migration cannot be brushed aside under the guise of humanitarian platitudes. For Assamese people, this is not about denying humanity to anyone. It is about refusing to become strangers in their own homeland.

And if this incident proved one thing, it is that on the question of illegal migration, from AASU to the Congress to ordinary Assamese citizens—the message remains clear: Bangladeshis are not welcome in Assam.

Also Read: Supreme Court Halts Uriamghat Evictions, Grants Interim Relief

Also Read: Assam CM Receives Memorandums on Inclusion of 7 Groups in Tirap Belt