A political storm has erupted after AIMIM chief and Hyderabad MP Asaduddin Owaisi expressed his wish to one day see a hijab-clad woman become the prime minister of India, triggering sharp reactions from the BJP and a particularly blunt response from Assam chief minister Himanta Biswa Sarma. What began as a comment on constitutional inclusivity has now escalated into a wider debate on religion, identity, and the nature of India’s democracy.

The controversy unfolded over the weekend, with leaders across parties weighing in, trading accusations, and invoking the Constitution to defend their positions. At the heart of the row lies a fundamental disagreement over whether religion should even implicitly shape expectations about who can hold the country’s highest elected office.

Owaisi’s remark and the spark of controversy

The row began on Saturday when Owaisi was addressing an election meeting in Solapur, Maharashtra. Speaking about constitutional values and inclusiveness, the AIMIM chief contrasted India’s Constitution with that of Pakistan to underline what he described as the secular and democratic foundations of the Indian state.

Referring to B.R. Ambedkar, Owaisi said the Indian Constitution does not restrict top constitutional posts to any religion or caste. “The constitution of Pakistan clearly states that a person belonging to only one religion can become the Prime Minister of the country,” he said, according to news agency ANI. “Babasaheb’s constitution says that any citizen of India can become Prime Minister, chief minister, 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 framed the statement as an expression of aspiration rooted in constitutional equality, rather than a political demand or prediction. However, the reference to a “hijab-clad” woman quickly drew attention, with critics accusing him of injecting religious symbolism into a constitutional discussion.

Himanta Biswa Sarma’s response

Assam chief minister Himanta Biswa Sarma responded sharply to Owaisi’s statement, escalating the issue into a national political controversy. While acknowledging that the Constitution does not bar anyone from becoming prime minister, Sarma asserted that India’s civilisational identity would shape its leadership.

“Anyone can become the Prime Minister,” Sarma said, but added, “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.”

The remark immediately drew criticism from opposition leaders and constitutional experts, who argued that such a statement undermines the secular character of the Indian republic and contradicts the oath taken by constitutional office-holders.

Owaisi hits back: ‘Tubelight in his head’

Owaisi responded on Sunday with a stinging rebuttal, accusing Sarma of making a petty and unconstitutional remark. Speaking to reporters, the AIMIM chief questioned where in the Constitution such a religious requirement was written.

“There is a ‘tubelight’ in his head,” Owaisi said, using a colloquial expression to mock Sarma’s logic. “He took an oath on the Constitution. Where is this written in the Constitution?”

Doubling down on his argument, Owaisi again invoked Ambedkar and the framers of the Constitution, saying they deliberately rejected the idea of religious qualification for political office. He contrasted this with Pakistan’s constitutional framework, arguing that India consciously chose a different path.

“Babasaheb Ambedkar was more intelligent and educated than Himanta Biswa Sarma,” Owaisi said, calling the Assam CM’s comments “petty” and accusing him of misrepresenting the spirit of the Constitution.

Congress joins the criticism

The Assam chief minister’s remarks also drew criticism from the Congress, with party leaders accusing Sarma of lowering the dignity of constitutional discourse. Congress MP Imran Masood slammed the suggestion that religion should determine who holds positions of power in India.

“A person’s position of power cannot be determined by religion here,” Masood said, according to ANI. “He is the chief minister, a constitutional post; he should be mindful of his language.”

Masood also reminded Sarma of former prime minister Manmohan Singh, who served two terms as India’s PM and was a Sikh, not a Hindu. His comment was aimed at highlighting what the Congress sees as the historical falsity of Sarma’s claim.

For the Congress, the episode was further evidence, it argued, of the BJP’s increasing tendency to blur the line between religion and the Constitution, even while holding positions sworn to uphold secular values.

BJP turns the attack on Owaisi

While some BJP leaders stood by Sarma or remained silent, others turned their fire on Owaisi instead, accusing him of deliberately stoking communal sentiment for political gain.

BJP spokesperson Prakash Reddy accused the AIMIM chief of repeatedly making statements that polarise society. “Once again, Asaduddin Owaisi, MP of Hyderabad, has made a statement about a hijab-clad woman becoming the Prime Minister,” Reddy said. “Once again, he wants to revive communal tensions and do politics only on a communal basis.”

Another BJP leader, RP Singh, criticised Owaisi for focusing on the hijab, arguing that Muslim women across the world have held top political offices without wearing religious attire.

“In many countries around the world, Muslim sisters and daughters have served as Prime Ministers and Presidents, but they never wore a hijab,” Singh said, as quoted by ANI. “He is deliberately playing politics on this issue. We expect him to first bring forward a leader from his own party who wears a hijab.”

The BJP’s counter-argument framed Owaisi’s statement not as a defence of constitutional equality, but as an attempt to foreground religious identity in national politics.

A larger debate on secularism and identity

Beyond the immediate exchange of barbs, the controversy has reopened a larger debate about the nature of Indian secularism and the role of religion in public life. Supporters of Owaisi argue that his statement was a reminder that the Constitution guarantees equal opportunity to all citizens, regardless of faith, and that imagining a hijab-clad prime minister is no different from imagining leaders from any other background.

Critics, however, say invoking specific religious symbols risks reinforcing identity-based politics and distracts from governance and policy issues. Himanta Sarma’s critics counter that his remark went further, effectively suggesting an informal religious test for the country’s top office—something explicitly rejected by the Constitution.

Legal experts point out that the Indian Constitution makes no reference to religion in determining eligibility for the posts of president, vice-president, prime minister, or chief minister. Any citizen who meets the legal criteria can contest elections and hold office, irrespective of faith.

Political implications

Politically, the exchange reflects deepening polarisation ahead of key elections. For the BJP, the controversy allows leaders to rally their base around civilisational narratives. For Owaisi and the AIMIM, it offers an opportunity to position themselves as defenders of constitutional secularism and minority rights.

At the same time, the sharp language used on both sides—particularly phrases like “tubelight in his head”—underscores how quickly constitutional debates can descend into personal attacks in India’s charged political climate.

As the dust settles, the episode is likely to be remembered less for the original statement and more for the questions it raised: Is India’s leadership defined solely by constitutional law, or by cultural majoritarian expectations? And how should political leaders speak about religion when they themselves occupy constitutional offices?

For now, the war of words between Asaduddin Owaisi and Himanta Biswa Sarma shows no sign of cooling, with the hijab remark becoming yet another flashpoint in India’s ongoing struggle over identity, secularism, and the meaning of equality under the Constitution.