Guwahati: Raijor Dal president and Sivasagar MLA Akhil Gogoi has responded sharply to noted intellectual Dr Hiren Gohain’s September 5 Facebook post, rejecting what he described as a “personalised” and “biased” assessment of his political career, the Raijor Dal and its approach to opposition politics in Assam.
In a five-page letter dated September 9 and addressed to Gohain, Gogoi defended his party’s decision to assert itself as an independent regional political force and accused the veteran intellectual of being overly dependent on the Congress in the name of opposition unity.
The letter comes days after the Assam Pradesh Congress Committee announced the termination of its political alliance with the Raijor Dal, citing alleged violations of alliance norms and what it described as “malicious propaganda” and “character assassination” against Congress leaders.
Also read: Congress ends political alliance with Akhil Gogoi-led Raijor Dal
Gogoi rejects allegation of ‘personal ambition’
Gogoi said Gohain had portrayed his political decisions as stemming from an “unlimited personal ambition” and described such an assessment as a failure to recognise the history of his political struggle.
Also read: ‘No limit to ambition’, scholar Hiren Gohain tears into Raijor Dal chief Akhil Gogoi
He argued that people who take movements beyond intellectual discussions and onto the streets have historically been branded by “status quoist forces” as arrogant, dangerous, reckless, anarchist, anti-development or reactionary.
Referring to his nearly two-and-a-half decades of political activism, Gogoi cited farmers’ movements, prolonged periods of imprisonment and what he described as physical and psychological persecution by the state.
He maintained that reducing this long political journey to personal ambition was an “ideological stagnation” in Gohain’s assessment.
Gogoi also defended the Raijor Dal’s demand for electoral space, arguing that seeking seats in an election is a legitimate right of a regional or emerging political party and is directly connected with its survival and political identity.
Accuses Gohain of favouring Congress
A major portion of the letter focuses on Gogoi’s criticism of what he described as Gohain’s excessive reliance on Congress as the principal vehicle for opposition unity against the BJP and RSS.
Gogoi alleged that Gohain had accepted the perspective of the larger national party while portraying the demands of a smaller regional party as unreasonable.
He questioned why, according to him, Gohain had not subjected Congress to similar criticism over its electoral preparedness, delayed alliance-building and handling of opposition unity.
Gogoi also accused Congress of having failed to build alliances sufficiently early before the 2026 Assembly election and claimed that its eventual performance was among the poorest in Assam’s electoral history. He further alleged that Congress’s failures, arrogance, lack of electoral preparedness and alleged understanding with sections of the ruling establishment had been overlooked while the Raijor Dal was being made the “villain”.
These are Gogoi’s political allegations and characterisations in the letter and are not independently established by the document.
Defends Raijor Dal’s opposition to BJP-RSS
Gogoi rejected any suggestion that criticism of Congress meant that the Raijor Dal was soft on the BJP or RSS.
He claimed that the Raijor Dal had remained at the forefront of opposition to what he called the “fascist” and communal politics of the BJP-RSS.
Pointing to his role inside the Assam Legislative Assembly, Gogoi said he had consistently opposed bills and government decisions that he considered anti-people or communal, while also raising issues outside the Assembly when they could not be adequately discussed on the floor of the House.
He cited the recent floods in Upper Assam as an example, arguing that his efforts to make the government accountable and compel the Chief Minister to visit affected areas should not be interpreted as praise for Chief Minister Himanta Biswa Sarma.
According to Gogoi, describing such actions as “Himanta Biswa Sarma worship” reflected political immaturity and a lack of factual understanding.
Says Congress cannot lead fight against BJP
Gogoi was particularly critical of what he termed the “Congress-centric” approach to fighting the BJP.
He argued that Congress, despite its historical role in Indian politics, had become ideologically weakened and disconnected from the people after decades of what he characterised as authoritarian rule, corruption and neoliberal economic policies.
He said opposition to the BJP-RSS should instead be built around a “healthy ideology”, a programme capable of generating hope and the participation of younger generations.
“Congress can certainly be a partner in this journey, but not its leader,” Gogoi argued in the letter.
He also referred to the 2021 Assembly election, accusing Gohain of supporting what he called Congress’s “historic mistake” of aligning with AIUDF and attempting to portray newly formed regional parties as the villains.
Gogoi recalled that he had contested the 2021 election from jail and went on to win the Sivasagar seat. He said he subsequently functioned as the lone opposition voice in the Assembly, while alleging that the Congress Legislature Party’s role during that period was weak and submissive.
Gogoi outlines Raijor Dal’s alternative Assam agenda
The letter does not remain confined to his disagreement with Gohain. Gogoi also sets out what he describes as the Raijor Dal’s alternative vision for Assam if the party comes to power.
He identifies five principal economic and developmental pillars, along with a broader federalism agenda.
1. Year-round agriculture:
The party proposes modern irrigation and scientific agricultural practices to transform Assam’s farm sector into a food-surplus and profitable sector. Gogoi calls this approach “Green Swaraj” and says farmers would receive an MSP guarantee.
2. Increased production and employment:
The Raijor Dal proposes establishing micro, small and medium enterprises across villages and urban wards to increase local production and create employment. This has been described as “Gramya Swaraj.”
3. Cities as supply-chain centres:
Gogoi proposes strengthening digital delivery networks, developing skilled freelancers and promoting entrepreneurship to make urban centres key hubs in Assam’s supply chain. He refers to this as “Nagar Swaraj.”
4. Skill development and professional Assam:
The party proposes providing unemployed young men and women with world-class technical and professional skills, alongside what Gogoi describes as guaranteed and dignified employment opportunities. A proposed initiative called “Finishing School” is mentioned in the letter.
5. Capturing markets:
The Raijor Dal proposes creating markets for Assam’s agricultural and industrial products at local, national and international levels. Gogoi says the party would seek to dismantle what it calls “middlemen” and “syndicate” systems, expand access to markets in eastern India and the Northeast, and establish mandis to improve market infrastructure.
6. Federalism and greater autonomy:
Gogoi also reiterates the Raijor Dal’s demand for a stronger federal structure, including greater rights over Assam’s resources and land and greater autonomy under Article 371A of the Constitution.
‘How can this make me like Himanta Biswa Sarma?’
Gogoi directly challenges Gohain’s comparison of the rise of the Raijor Dal with the political rise of Himanta Biswa Sarma.
He asks how implementing the party’s six-point programme centred on agriculture, employment, production, skills, markets and federal rights could make him politically similar to Sarma.
Gogoi said the Raijor Dal’s political objective was fundamentally different from that of the BJP and argued that its programme sought to establish democratic governance, an alternative economic model and greater autonomy for Assam.
Ends with appeal and warning
In the concluding section, Gogoi accused Gohain of criticising the rise of the Raijor Dal as being “dangerous” for Assam politics while allegedly giving Congress a “clean chit”.
At the same time, Gogoi acknowledged Gohain’s seniority and said constructive criticism from him would always be welcome.
However, he warned that if Gohain continued to stand “as a shield” for what he described as bourgeois-Congress politics rather than remaining connected to the main stream of political struggle, history could view his role as an obstacle to the new generation’s political journey.
Gogoi ended by urging Gohain to reconsider what he called his “Congress-oriented political lens” and assess the Raijor Dal’s alternative political vision in light of the changing political reality in Assam.