In the midst of heightened political activity ahead of the Mumbai civic elections, a recent statement by All India Majlis-e-Ittehadul Muslimeen (AIMIM) chief Asaduddin Owaisi has sparked significant debate and reactions across the political spectrum. Owaisi, speaking at an election meeting in Solapur, Maharashtra, suggested that, in the future, a hijab-clad daughter could become the Prime Minister of India. The remarks, made as part of his campaign for the upcoming civic elections, were intended to underscore the constitutional inclusivity of India, which allows any citizen, irrespective of religion or attire, to hold the country’s highest offices.

In response, Assam Chief Minister Himanta Biswa Sarma, a senior BJP leader, provided a pointed rebuttal on Saturday. While acknowledging that, constitutionally, any Indian citizen can become the Prime Minister, Sarma emphasized the cultural and civilizational identity of India, describing the nation as intrinsically Hindu. “Constitutionally, there is no bar. Anyone can become the Prime Minister. But India is a Hindu nation, Hindu civilisation, and we will always believe, and we are extremely confident that the Indian Prime Minister will always be a Hindu person,” he said while speaking to the media.

Sarma’s statement reflects the increasingly assertive stance of several political leaders in framing India’s identity in religious and civilizational terms, especially in the context of upcoming elections where questions of cultural and religious representation often become focal points. His comments underline a perspective shared by many within his party and allied political circles, which argue that while the Constitution is secular and provides equality, India’s social and cultural fabric is rooted in Hindu civilisation, shaping political expectations.

Owaisi’s Original Remarks and Constitutional Context

Owaisi’s statement came on the heels of his campaign address in Solapur, where he highlighted the inclusivity of the Indian Constitution in contrast to other countries such as Pakistan. “The constitution of Pakistan clearly states that a person belonging to only one religion can become the Prime Minister of the country. Baba Sahib’s constitution says that any citizen of India can become Prime Minister, CM, or mayor. It is my dream that a day will come when a hijab-clad daughter will become the Prime Minister of this country,” Owaisi said.

Owaisi’s emphasis on the constitutional permissibility of such an event draws attention to Article 84 of the Indian Constitution, which sets out the qualifications for becoming a Member of Parliament, as well as Articles 75 and 164, which govern the selection of the Prime Minister and Chief Ministers, respectively. These provisions do not discriminate on the basis of religion, caste, gender, or attire, meaning that, legally, any Indian citizen meeting the age and citizenship criteria can aspire to hold the office of Prime Minister.

The AIMIM chief’s reference to a hijab-clad woman reflects his broader political messaging aimed at highlighting minority representation and constitutional equality in India, particularly among Muslims, women, and marginalized communities. By invoking the image of a hijab-clad Prime Minister, Owaisi attempted to convey the symbolic inclusivity possible in a secular democracy like India—a scenario he contrasts with countries where religious identity restricts political eligibility.

Political Reactions and Debates

Owaisi’s statement did not go unnoticed by the opposition or ruling party circles. BJP National Spokesperson Shehzad Poonawalla responded sharply, challenging Owaisi on his party’s internal inclusivity. “Hijabwali will become PM says Miyaan Owaisi. Miyaan Owaisi—constitution stops nobody, but I challenge you to make a Pasmanda or Hijabwali as your president of AIMIM first,” Poonawalla wrote in a post on X, implying that Owaisi’s own party does not sufficiently represent women or marginalized groups in its leadership.

This exchange has fueled ongoing debates on religion, representation, and constitutional secularism in Indian politics. Sarma’s comments, paired with Poonawalla’s critique, illustrate a broader political narrative being emphasized by the BJP and its allies: that while India is constitutionally secular, its civilizational ethos is rooted in Hindu identity, which continues to influence political perceptions of leadership.

Historical and Cultural Context

The remarks also tap into historical narratives about the socio-political evolution of India. Since independence, India has maintained a secular Constitution, enshrining freedom of religion and equal opportunity across communities. Leaders like Dr. B.R. Ambedkar, often referred to as the chief architect of the Indian Constitution, ensured that the Constitution allowed citizens from all religions, genders, and social backgrounds to aspire to high office. However, the political reality has often reflected the demographic majority, with most prime ministers in India’s history being Hindu men, reflecting both social norms and the electoral base.

Owaisi’s statement can be seen as an effort to challenge this historical pattern and emphasize minority representation, particularly among Muslims and women, while Sarma’s reaction reflects an assertion of the prevailing socio-political majority. The contrasting perspectives highlight the tension between constitutional ideals and perceived societal realities, which has been a recurring theme in Indian electoral politics.

The Upcoming Mumbai Civic Elections

The timing of these statements is significant, as the Mumbai civic elections are scheduled to be held on January 15, 2026, with results announced the following day. Political messaging around representation, minority rights, and cultural identity is central to these campaigns, especially in metropolitan areas like Mumbai, where diverse communities coexist. Owaisi’s remarks were part of his larger campaign effort to mobilize Muslim and minority voters, while BJP leaders like Sarma and Poonawalla are reinforcing narratives around Hindu identity and civilisational continuity to consolidate their voter base.

Civic elections in Mumbai, one of India’s largest urban centers, often serve as bellwethers for national political trends, and statements on leadership representation, inclusivity, and identity resonate strongly with the electorate. The ongoing debates over the possibility of a hijab-clad Prime Minister thus reflect both local electoral strategies and broader national political narratives.

Implications for Indian Politics

The exchange between Owaisi and Sarma brings several issues to the forefront: the constitutional right of citizens to hold office, the role of religion and identity in politics, and the representation of marginalized communities in leadership positions. Owaisi’s remarks highlight aspirations for greater inclusivity, particularly for Muslim women, in political leadership, while Sarma’s response emphasizes continuity with India’s Hindu civilizational ethos.

Political analysts argue that such statements also serve as tools to mobilize core voter bases and create electoral narratives. In this case, Owaisi’s remarks appeal to Muslim and female voters seeking greater representation, while Sarma’s statement and similar BJP messaging appeal to Hindu-majority constituencies concerned with cultural identity and historical continuity.

This dynamic, experts suggest, illustrates the intersection of constitutional principles, historical social structures, and electoral politics in India, where debates over identity and representation remain highly relevant in shaping political discourse.

Conclusion

The recent exchange between AIMIM chief Asaduddin Owaisi and Assam Chief Minister Himanta Biswa Sarma underscores the ongoing dialogue in India between constitutional equality and civilizational identity, particularly in the context of political leadership. While the Indian Constitution permits any citizen to become Prime Minister, irrespective of religion or attire, the political and social discourse continues to reflect India’s majority demographics, cultural ethos, and historical traditions.

As the Mumbai civic elections approach, debates over representation, inclusivity, and identity are likely to intensify, serving as a microcosm of larger national political dynamics. Owaisi’s statement about a hijab-clad Prime Minister and Sarma’s confident assertion that India will always have a Hindu Prime Minister highlight the enduring tension between the aspiration for a fully inclusive political culture and the realities of historical and cultural identity.

Whether these debates will translate into electoral outcomes remains to be seen, but they undeniably reflect the complex interplay of law, religion, culture, and politics in contemporary India. Both statements, while politically charged, also underscore the vitality of democratic discourse, where differing perspectives on leadership, identity, and representation are openly expressed and contested in the public sphere.