Selective eviction drives may hamper Assam’s ecology

Update: 2025-07-14 12:14 GMT
Selective eviction drives may hamper Assam’s ecology
A file image of evictees following the Goalpara eviction in Paikan Forest in July (AT Photo)
  • whatsapp icon

On Saturday morning, a significant eviction operation was carried out by the Goalpara district administration and the Forest department in the Paikan Reserve Forest. The goal was to reclaim 1,032 bighas (138 hectares) of encroached forest land in line with ongoing efforts to restore biodiversity in protected ecological zones.

The operation, which saw the eviction of 1,080 families from key areas like Bidyapara and Betbari, was not only a reminder of the urgency surrounding environmental conservation but also a stark representation of the human cost of such measures.

Established in 1982, the Paikan Reserve Forest (RF) had long been encroached upon by people, with families living there for generations. The eviction was made possible through the legal framework of the Assam Forest Regulation, 1891, which allows forest authorities to remove unauthorised occupants from RF areas. This action was in response to a suo moto Public Interest Litigation by the Gauhati High Court, urging swift action against forest encroachments.

But, the numbers tell a more complex story, especially when viewed against the broader context of the State’s eviction drives over the past year. While the Paikan eviction was largely peaceful, with 70 percent of residents voluntarily vacating their homes after receiving prior notices, it is impossible to ignore the larger questions surrounding the State’s approach to evictions.

This raises key questions that demand urgent attention: If individuals and families have lived on the land for decades, received government benefits like housing and electricity, and even built public infrastructure, how can they suddenly be categorised as “illegal encroachers”? How can the State justify demolishing homes it once legitimised through State schemes? There seems to be a glaring contradiction in governance. If these settlements were deemed unauthorised, why were the authorities complicit in facilitating them for years?

One of the most troubling aspects of these operations is the selective nature of enforcement. While the government is cracking down on encroachment in certain areas, large tracts of land in places like Kaziranga, Sonai Rupai, and reserve forests in Guwahati and Pobitora are still under encroachment. These regions pose significant threats to the State’s biodiversity and ecological balance.

However, despite the long-standing environmental risk, the government has been somewhat lenient. If the State’s goal is to restore and protect the environment, why is there no consistent action across all ecologically sensitive zones? This uneven approach is deeply problematic. If the government is genuinely committed to environmental conservation, it must enforce a blanket policy across all regions, rather than focusing on select areas. The failure to do so creates the perception of selective justice, which only deepens existing social and political divides. It also raises the spectre of bias – questions about why some encroachments are prioritised while others are ignored, and whether political or demographic factors play a role in these decisions.

Similar News