Akhil Gogoi alleges backroom deals, accuses AASU leaders of promoting communalism under guise of nationalism

Sivsagar MLA Akhil Gogoi has launched a sharp attack on the All Assam Students’ Union (AASU) and the Assam Sahitya Sabha, questioning their credibility and role in safeguarding Assam’s interests. Gogoi alleged that despite projecting itself as a vigilant guardian of the state, AASU has failed to act decisively on key issues. 

“Where exactly is their vigilance?” he asked, claiming that the organisation’s public posture does not match its actions on the ground.

Gogoi also targeted the BJP government over the implementation of the Citizenship Amendment Act, alleging that the law has facilitated the rapid entry of Bangladeshi immigrants into Assam. He claimed that Samujjal Kumar Bhattacharya, associated with the implementation of Clause 6 of the Assam Accord, has been in continuous discussions with Chief Minister Himanta Biswa Sarma. According to Gogoi, although important reports related to Clause 6 were prepared, they have not been sent to Delhi, and member secretary Satyendra Garg has allegedly failed to forward them for necessary action.

Further escalating his criticism, Gogoi alleged that Samujjal Bhattacharya and Utpal Sharma have been holding behind-the-scenes consultations with Assam Agriculture Minister Atul Bora and the Chief Minister, while maintaining an outward appearance of transparency. He accused them of promoting communalism in the name of nationalism, adopting what he described as a soft stance towards Hindutva, and practising a distorted form of nationalism. Gogoi concluded by claiming that the present form of AASU’s regionalism was “adulterated” and no longer reflected genuine regionalist ideology.

Responding to the allegations, Utpal Sharma dismissed Gogoi’s remarks as politically motivated. He questioned Gogoi’s intentions, referring to his left-leaning ideological background, and challenged his claim of exposing any alleged nexus with the BJP. With elections approaching, Sharma suggested that Gogoi’s political strategy and focus on select constituencies could influence vote divisions, while the real beneficiaries of such tactics remained unclear to the public. Sharma further accused Gogoi of donning a regionalist façade to advance leftist politics, asserting that AASU had never derived its regionalist ideology from him. He warned that projecting personal political actions as “regional duty” risked distorting the core principles of regionalism.

Samujjal Kumar Bhattacharya also rejected Gogoi’s allegations, dismissing them outright as baseless. He described Gogoi as a “leftist and fake regionalist” and said the statements lacked factual grounding, terming them meaningless and devoid of substance.