Syllabus: GS-III: Human–environment interaction

Why in the news?

Assam has recently intensified eviction drives from reserve and unclassed forest lands to remove illegal encroachments. Forest officials report a measurable easing of human–elephant conflict (HEC) in several localities — notably Laokhowa, Burachapori, Lakhipur (Goalpara) and Chariuduar — after large tracts were cleared and grass and natural forage regenerated. 

Key highlights of recent eviction drives in Assam 

• Eviction hotspots: Laokhowa, Burachapori, Lakhipur (Goalpara) and Chariuduar (Sonitpur), Japariguri Village Grazing Reserve (VGR) in Biswanath, Rengma Reserve Forest in Golaghat.
• Area Under encroachment: As per MoEF report, a total of 3,620.9 sq. km of forest area of Assam was under encroachment.
• Reclaimed Area: 29 lakh bigha (approx. 42,500 acres) of land reclaimed since 2021.
• Nature of encroachment: Eviction drives revealed both small-holder encroachments and large illicit cultivations.
• Affected Population: Eviction affected both migrants as well as indigenous tribal population.
  • The state government clarified that the tribal population will be protected under the Forest Rights Acts, (FRA) 2006. 
• Policy spillovers: Tighter controls (including entry/settlement restrictions and ILP-type checks) in other North-East States have been reported as responses to migration/encroachment pressures.

Legal & constitutional framework relevant to eviction and forest protection

• Article 48-A (Directive Principles): State duty to protect and improve the environment and forests — normative basis for conservation action.
• Indian Forest Act, 1927 (IFA): Governs forest administration, penalises unauthorised occupation and removal of timber in notified forests.
• Forest (Conservation) Act, 1980 (FCA): Restricts diversion of forest land for non-forest use without central approval; empowers regulatory control over forest land use.
• Forest Rights Act (FRA), 2006: Recognises individual and community forest rights of Scheduled Tribes and other traditional forest dwellers — requires careful verification before any eviction that affects rights holders.
• Article 21 (Right to Life): Eviction operations must respect due process; arbitrary displacement affecting survival/livelihood can attract Article 21 scrutiny.
• Sixth Schedule: Autonomous District Councils (in some NE pockets) have special administrative powers; evictions in Sixth Schedule areas require coordination with local institutions and attention to customary rights.

Border Implications of Eviction Drives in Assam

Eviction drives in Assam have complex and far-reaching implications that go beyond forest management. They intersect with humanitarian, political, ethnic, and federal dynamics, requiring sensitive handling and coordination.

1. Humanitarian Concerns

• Displacement and loss of shelter: Many families—some living for decades on forest or borderland—face sudden displacement without adequate rehabilitation, leading to humanitarian crises involving shelter, food, and livelihood insecurity.
• Absence of social safety nets: Evicted populations often lack access to basic services (ration, healthcare, schools) as they are not officially resettled, violating the spirit of Article 21 (Right to Life and Livelihood).
• Women and children most affected: Eviction-induced displacement disrupts education, exposes women to vulnerabilities, and increases the risk of child labour and trafficking in border regions.
• Risk of statelessness: In sensitive border belts, evictions can blur nationality claims, creating fears of “stateless” existence, especially where documentation is weak and identity linked to land tenure.
  

2. Political Angle

• Link to migration politics: Eviction drives are often politicised and linked to narratives of illegal migration from across the Indo–Bangladesh border, with governments citing demographic pressures on forest areas.
• Polarisation and vote-bank debates: Political parties interpret eviction actions differently—some framing them as environmental restoration, others as demographic engineering or targeting of minorities.
• Centre–State–Local coordination gap: Evictions near international borders require close coordination between the Home, Forest, and Revenue departments, but decisions are often taken unilaterally, leading to administrative friction and public protests.
• Security justification: The state frequently invokes national security and anti-encroachment arguments near the Indo–Bangladesh frontier to justify evictions; however, these can obscure humanitarian obligations.

3. Ethnic and Sociocultural Dimensions

• Ethnic fault lines: Many eviction zones overlap with areas inhabited by indigenous tribal groups, Scheduled Tribes (Plains and Hills), and migrant-origin communities—creating a potential ethnic flashpoint.
• Community identity vs. state control: Indigenous groups view forest landscapes as ancestral commons, while the state asserts legal ownership under the Indian Forest Act (1927)—this duality fuels distrust.
• Impact on inter-community harmony: In areas like Sonitpur, Nagaon, and Darrang, eviction drives have occasionally triggered tensions between tribal and non-tribal residents, reviving historic grievances about land alienation.
• Cultural erosion: Displacement of traditional forest communities can erode their cultural practices, spiritual linkages to forest deities, and ecological stewardship systems.

4. Inter-State Disputes and Federal Coordination

• Unclear forest boundaries: Assam shares long forested borders with Arunachal Pradesh, Meghalaya, Nagaland, and Mizoram, where boundary demarcations remain contested.
• Eviction drives risk escalating border tensions: Clearing forest land claimed by both Assam and a neighbouring state can rekindle dormant border disputes, leading to administrative stand-offs (e.g., Assam–Mizoram clashes in 2021; Assam–Meghalaya boundary skirmishes).
• Jurisdictional ambiguity: Forest beats and revenue circles often overlap, making it unclear which state’s officials have authority; eviction without joint verification can trigger accusations of encroachment or aggression.
• Need for inter-state forest management mechanism: Coordinated eviction and reforestation strategies are essential to avoid conflict and ensure ecological continuity across administrative borders.

5. International and Transboundary Repercussions

• Cross-border elephant corridors: Evictions near the Assam–Bhutan and Assam–Bangladesh borders affect transboundary wildlife movement. 
  • Improperly planned clearance can disrupt elephant corridors that straddle both countries.
• Human migration spillover: Evictions near the Indo–Bangladesh border may push displaced populations toward frontier zones, heightening border security and humanitarian challenges.
• Diplomatic sensitivity: Unverified claims of “foreign encroachment” risk diplomatic friction if not backed by credible documentation and joint monitoring.
  

In essence:

Eviction drives in Assam’s border districts are not merely administrative acts — they are politically charged, ethnically sensitive, and geopolitically consequential. Balancing security and ecological goals with humanitarian fairness is crucial. Without a humane, transparent, and participatory approach, evictions may solve one problem (forest encroachment) only to create others — displacement, ethnic tension, and inter-state mistrust.

Key facts on man–elephant conflict in Assam 

• Assam is among India’s worst-affected states for man–elephant conflict because of dense human settlement in riverine/hill fringes, high agricultural dependence and fragmented habitats.
  • The wild elephant population in Assam increased from about 5,246 in 2002 to 5,719 in 2017.
  • From 2014-22 across India, 3,938 human lives were lost to wild elephant attacks; in Assam the figure was 561 during that period. 
• Conflict manifests as crop raids, damage to property, human casualties and elephant mortality, with social and economic consequences for rural communities.
  • Between 2019-20 and 2023-24, more than 300 people were killed in man-elephant encounters in Assam.
  • Over that five-year period in Assam about 3,500 dwellings and crop damage spanning around 43 sq. km of land were reported. 
• Human fatalities and crop losses lead to severe livelihood stresses and periodic social unrest; recurring compensation and relief burden public finances.

How evictions can help ease man–elephant conflict?

• Habitat restoration → increased food & water: Removing encroachments allows grass and native forage to regenerate, providing elephants with sustenance inside forests, reducing their incentive to raid fields.
• Reduction of edge effects: Re-establishing contiguous forest cover limits edge habitats that attract both humans and elephants, reducing frequent encounters.
• Improved movement corridors: Clearing illegal settlements and restoring corridors enables elephants to move along traditional migratory routes without entering villages.
• Enhanced surveillance & protection: Post-eviction management helps law enforcement and forest guards monitor habitat health and deter illicit activities (timber poaching, further encroachment).
• Long-term resilience: Larger, intact forest patches sustain prey, hydrology and microclimates that reduce stress on elephant populations, indirectly lowering conflict incidence.
  

Other measures adopted to reduce man–elephant conflict 

• Gaja Mitra proposals: Proposed compensation for crop damage is ₹7,500 per bigha of paddy destroyed by elephants; 
  • ex-gratia for next of kin in case of death in elephant attacks proposed at ₹5 lakh; 
  • The government reports it has disbursed over ₹20 crore as compensation to victims during its current tenure.

• “Hati Bondhu” Initiative: Launched by Assam Forest Department (2023) in collaboration with local communities and NGOs.
  • Objective: To build human–elephant coexistence through community participation and grassroots awareness.

• Early warning & community engagement: Use of mobile alerts through ‘HattiApp’, community patrols, night shelters and watch-and-ward systems.
• Physical and biological barriers: Fencing (where feasible), trenches, solar-fenced paddocks, beehive fences and chilli rope barriers to deter elephants from farms.
• Landscape measures: Identification and protection of elephant corridors; reforestation of buffer zones and enrichment plantations of fodder species.
• Translocation & population management: Selective translocation of problem individuals (controversial and limited success) and better veterinary response.
• Alternate livelihoods & incentive models: Eco-tourism, community-run conservation enterprises and payments for ecosystem services to align local incentives.
• NGO & civil society initiatives: Community food provisioning (e.g., banana stem drives) and rapid response teams support conflict mitigation.

Challenges & criticisms of Assam’s eviction approach

• Rights and due process concerns: Evictions risk violating FRA entitlements or customary rights in 6th Schedule areas and Article 21.
• Rehabilitation shortfalls: Reports often cite inadequate rehabilitation — loss of livelihood, absence of alternate land, delayed compensation and social dislocation.
• Targeting & fairness: Encroachment includes both landless settlers and powerful land grabbers; enforcement often perceived as selective or politically influenced.
• Environmental trade-offs: Eviction alone does not guarantee ecological recovery unless followed by active restoration, anti-poaching measures and long-term management.
• Displacement of pressure: Eviction in one area can shift illicit cultivation/settlement to elsewhere (a displacement effect evident in new hotspots).
• Administrative capacity: Eviction requires inter-departmental coordination (forest, revenue, police), transparent records and monitoring — often weak at ground level.
  

Way forward 

• National protocol for eviction & conservation: Prepare a uniform national guideline that balances forest protection, tribal autonomy and human dignity.
• Mandatory Environmental & social impact assessment: Conduct Environmental and Social Impact Assessments before mass eviction to understand ecological benefits and human costs; publish findings and mitigation plans.
• Strict compliance with FRA & Sixth Schedule processes: Ensure rights recognition and settled claims are respected; do not evict legally recognised claimants; use participatory grievance redressal.
• National rehabilitation policy & procedural safeguards: Displaced persons should be rehabilitated under National rehabilitation & resettlement policy 2007.
• Landscape-level planning: Treat eviction as part of a broader landscape restoration strategy — secure corridors, create fodder plots, water points and anti-poaching patrols.
• Regional coordination: Coordinate actions across districts and with neighbouring states (and transboundary partners) to avoid displacement of pressure and ensure contiguous habitat protection.
• Community engagement & co-management: Empower local communities and tribal bodies for forest management (Community Conserved Areas, JFM), tapping traditional ecological knowledge.
• Monitoring & transparency: Use satellite mapping, periodic public reporting of eviction areas, rehabilitation status, and ecological indicators (forage cover, elephant movement).
• Conflict mitigation packages: Combine eviction with enhanced compensation schemes, quick payment mechanisms, crop-insurance models and community early-warning systems.
• Capacity building & legal clarity: Strengthen forest administration, revenue records, and judicial oversight to reduce arbitrary actions and ensure rule-of-law.
  

Conclusion 

Evictions from encroached forest land can help restore habitat and reduce man–elephant conflict if they are part of a carefully sequenced, rights-respecting and ecology-driven strategy. Eviction as a blunt instrument risks social injustice, legal challenge and merely shifting the problem. The prudent path is an integrated approach: verify and protect legitimate forest rights, remove illegal encroachments with due process, restore habitats, provide robust rehabilitation, and engage communities as partners in conservation. Only then can Assam reconcile conservation imperatives with social justice and long-term human–elephant coexistence.

Sample mains-style question

“Eviction of forest encroachers has reduced man–elephant conflict in certain parts of Assam. Critically examine the ecological logic and socio-legal challenges of eviction as a strategy. Suggest a policy framework that balances forest conservation, wildlife protection and the rights of forest-dependent communities.”

SOURCE