Assam Chief Minister Himanta Biswa Sarma has stirred a political debate by raising questions about the disparity in rules for foreign marriages involving Indian Foreign Service (IFS) officers and lawmakers. In a social media post on X, Sarma highlighted that IFS officers must obtain prior government permission before marrying foreign nationals, who are required to acquire Indian citizenship within six months of marriage. However, he pointed out that no such stringent rule applies to lawmakers. Foreign spouses of lawmakers can retain their original nationality for up to 12 years, Sarma claimed, calling this period “far too long.” “During my interactions with an IFS officer in Singapore, I learned that officers in the Indian Foreign Service cannot marry a foreign national without prior permission from the Government of India. Moreover, even when permission is granted, it comes with the condition that the spouse must acquire Indian citizenship within six months,” Sarma posted. “Allowing a foreign spouse of a lawmaker to retain foreign citizenship for 12 years is far too long. Loyalty to the nation must always take precedence over all other considerations.”
Sarma’s comments are widely viewed as an indirect attack on Congress MP and Deputy Leader of Opposition (Dy LoP) Gaurav Gogoi. Gogoi’s wife, Elizabeth Colebourn, a British citizen, works with Oxford Policy Management on climate initiatives. Although Sarma did not name Gogoi directly, the timing and nature of the remarks have fueled speculation. Adding to the controversy, a section of social media has recently resurfaced concerns about Elizabeth’s academic background. Viral posts allege that her PhD supervisor, Ali Tauqeer Sheikh, was a key advisor to Pakistan’s Planning Commission. These claims have reignited discussions over the national loyalty of lawmakers’ foreign spouses.
Gaurav Gogoi has yet to respond to the allegations or Sarma’s remarks. However, the issue is gaining traction in political circles and online forums, with many debating the appropriate balance between personal freedoms and national security.