Himanta Biswa Sarma’s ‘Nixonian’ Strategy: Zubeen Garg Death and Assam Politics

Assam’s politics has always been a volatile mix of identity, insurgency, and culture. Into this mosaic steps Chief Minister Himanta Biswa Sarma (HBS), often described as the most astute political operator the state has seen in decades. If India has its “Chanakya,” Assam has its “Nixon.” Like Richard Nixon, HBS thrives on ambiguity, sharp rhetoric, calculated gambles, and a mix of populism with ruthless political pragmatism.

His latest intervention—the dramatic declaration that “Zubeen Garg was murdered, and if justice is not delivered, the BJP will be rejected in 2026”—is not merely a statement but a crafted political maneuver. It turns the death of a cultural icon into a strategic tool, reshaping Assam’s political terrain.

Nixonian Parallels: Fire, Fear, and Control

Nixon’s politics was defined by a duality: rhetorical aggression masking calculated control. HBS mirrors this in Assam. His fiery one-liners rarely answer questions directly but instead redirect public sentiment. By calling Zubeen’s death a “murder,” he escalates the case from a personal tragedy to a nationalistic-cultural wound. By tying it to the 2026 elections, he transforms grief into a test of political legitimacy.

This is rhetoric as governance—words that do not merely express but govern the political imagination of the people. Like Nixon, HBS thrives on being both the disruptor and the stabilizer: the one who sets fires and the one who promises to put them out.

The Zubeen Factor: Culture as Political Capital

Zubeen Garg was not just a musician; he was a cultural movement. His songs, performances, and bohemian persona embodied Assamese aspirations, anxieties, and pride. For the youth, he was rebellion with rhythm; for the masses, he was comfort in chaos; for Assamese identity, he was continuity and voice. His sudden death—framed by HBS as “murder”—converts him into a martyr figure.

HBS’s strategy here is twofold:

1. Cultural Saviour Image – By taking ownership of Zubeen’s legacy, HBS projects himself as a protector of Assamese culture, a role no other politician has dared to assume so directly.

2. Pre-empting Opposition Mobilization – By seizing the narrative early, HBS blocks the opposition from weaponizing Zubeen’s death. Instead, he becomes the “face of justice,” leaving rivals with little space to maneuver.

The Information–Misinformation War

In the digital era, deaths of icons no longer remain private grief; they evolve into contested narratives. Assam today is flooded with rumors, half-truths, and conspiracy theories around Zubeen’s death. The “Nepal-style Gen Z campaign,” the ultimatums against Shyamkanu Mahanta and associates, and the storm of social-media debates have turned this into a political referendum.

HBS understands that in this battlefield of perception, truth matters less than control of narrative. By positioning himself as the guarantor of justice, he manages both outrage and expectation. In Nixonian fashion, he plays on fear (that justice may be denied) and hope (that only he can ensure it).

Political Utility: Killing Two Birds with One Stone

HBS’s approach to the Zubeen factor is strategically elegant:

Consolidating Cultural Nationalism – He channels Assamese pride into loyalty toward his leadership.

Neutralizing Political Unrest – By making Zubeen’s death a question of governance under him, he blunts anti-establishment anger and turns it into a demand for his own continued rule.

This dual strategy allows him to emerge both as protector of the Assamese soul and stabilizer of Assamese politics.

Risks of Overreach

Yet the strategy carries serious risks:

1. Credibility Trap – By raising expectations, HBS risks backlash if justice is delayed or diluted. His words create a yardstick by which his government will be judged in 2026.

2. Cultural Backlash – If people perceive he is exploiting Zubeen’s death for political mileage, the narrative may turn from “saviour” to “opportunist.”

3. Opposition Leverage – Congress and regional parties can weaponize his rhetoric, asking: “Who holds power? Why no justice under your watch?”

4. Identity Polarization – By politicizing Zubeen’s death, he risks deepening the trust deficit in institutions, especially if competing narratives fracture Assamese society.

Broader Strategic Implications

HBS’s use of Zubeen’s death is not just about 2026. It reflects his larger model of governance:

Rhetoric as Policy – Emotive statements shape governance priorities more than structured policy debates.

Culture as Politics – Assamese identity and cultural icons are drawn into the electoral battlefield, blurring boundaries between politics and art.

Control through Ambiguity – By leaving questions half-answered, HBS keeps opponents guessing and the public hooked.

In this sense, his politics is not just about winning elections but about redefining Assamese politics around himself—a Nixonian personalization of power.

Himanta Biswa Sarma’s handling of the Zubeen Garg case exemplifies his unique brand of politics—rhetoric that governs, governance that dramatizes, and strategy that turns crisis into opportunity. By invoking Zubeen as both martyr and mandate, he seeks to consolidate cultural capital and political authority in one stroke.

But like Nixon, HBS walks a razor’s edge: the same rhetoric that makes him appear indispensable today could, if justice falters, become the rallying cry against him tomorrow. The Zubeen factor, therefore, is not just a cultural wound—it is Assam’s political litmus test.