A political and legal controversy surrounding the mural of Assamese singer Zubeen Garg has intensified after the Students’ Federation of India (SFI), Assam State Committee, strongly criticised Chief Minister Himanta Biswa Sarma’s remarks on public murals, accusing him of attacking artistic freedom and democratic rights.
The controversy began after a mural of Zubeen Garg painted beneath a flyover in Guwahati was partially erased during a beautification drive. According to the Chief Minister, the workers involved—who were themselves fans of the singer—failed to recognise the portrait. Following public outrage, the mural was repainted. However, Sarma remarked that the new artwork resembled Argentine revolutionary Che Guevara more than Zubeen Garg.
The Chief Minister also announced that future murals of Zubeen Garg should follow an officially approved reference image. Questioning the presence of Che Guevara’s murals in Assam, Sarma said that if artists wished to depict a “local revolutionary”, they could paint ULFA-I commander Paresh Baruah instead of the Cuban icon.
The remark triggered widespread criticism, as Paresh Baruah heads the banned insurgent outfit United Liberation Front of Asom-Independent (ULFA-I), which continues to reject the Centre’s peace accord signed by the pro-talks faction in 2023. Critics argued that the Chief Minister’s statement appeared to elevate a wanted insurgent leader to the status of a revolutionary.
According to lawyer Upamanyu Hazarika, by mentioning Baruah as an alternative to Che Guevara, the Chief Minister had effectively accorded him the stature of a revolutionary. Hazarika questioned how the head of a government that continues to ban ULFA-I under the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act (UAPA) could make such a statement, adding that expressions encouraging support for banned organisations could invite legal scrutiny under the same law.
Responding to the criticism, Sarma clarified that his remarks had been misconstrued. He said the Assam government maintains a zero-tolerance policy towards ULFA-I and does not endorse any of Paresh Baruah’s activities. According to the Chief Minister, he merely pointed out that Assamese people were familiar with Baruah but not with Che Guevara, and never suggested that anyone should paint Baruah’s mural. He added that any person painting such a mural would face legal action.
Despite the clarification, the controversy has continued, with many observers arguing that the Chief Minister’s original remarks were made in the context of deciding whose images should appear on Assam’s public walls, making his subsequent explanation less convincing.
The debate has also revived memories of the 2022 arrest of 19-year-old Barshashree Buragohain under the UAPA over a poem that allegedly expressed indirect sympathy for ULFA-I, despite not mentioning the outfit by name. Critics have questioned whether similar legal standards should apply to public statements made by constitutional authorities.
Meanwhile, the Assam State Committee of the Students’ Federation of India (SFI) has mounted a strong defence of the artists involved in the mural controversy. Addressing a press conference on Saturday, the organisation alleged that the Chief Minister’s remarks reflected an authoritarian mindset and amounted to a direct attack on artistic freedom and democratic values.
SFI asserted that every artist, poet and writer in Assam enjoys the constitutional right to creative expression, irrespective of political ideology, and maintained that no government has the authority to decide what kind of art should be created or how artists should express themselves.
The organisation accused the Chief Minister of insulting Zubeen Garg and claimed that the singer himself had openly admired Che Guevara’s ideals and inspired younger generations with socialist thought. According to SFI, the Chief Minister’s criticism stemmed from his opposition to those ideals rather than the artwork itself.
The student body also condemned Sarma’s warning that those painting murals beneath newly constructed flyovers could face arrest, calling the statement undemocratic. SFI clarified that it has never opposed development projects or flyover construction, and said its protest against the Dighalipukhuri flyover project was aimed solely at protecting the area’s historic green cover. It claimed that sustained public protests, supported by civil society and Zubeen Garg, had compelled the government to alter the project’s original design.
SFI further argued that creating public art is a democratic right and cannot be treated as a criminal offence. The organisation also reiterated its commitment to continue protests in defence of public education, including opposition to the reported suspension of postgraduate admissions at Cotton University and the closure of government schools in Assam.
Declaring that legal threats would not deter its movement, SFI said it would continue to campaign for artistic freedom, democratic values and socialist ideals.
