Eviction drive not directed against any particular religion: Assam minister

Assam Minister Defends Forest Evictions, Rejects Religious Targeting Claims

Bdbusinessdaily.com – Assam Finance Minister Jayanta Malla Baruah has defended recent eviction operations in the state, saying the action was aimed at removing encroachments from protected forest land and was not intended to single out any faith or community.

Baruah, who also oversees the Forest and Climate Change portfolio, responded on 26 October to concerns raised online by Bangladesh Parliament’s Leader of the Opposition, Shafiqur Rahman. Rahman had expressed alarm over reports involving Muslim families and the demolition of mosques during eviction activity in Assam.

In his response on X, Baruah argued that enforcement involving reserve forests should be assessed through legal and environmental obligations rather than religious identity. He said the government recognised the hardship experienced by households asked to leave, while maintaining that notified forest land must be protected.

“We respect every community and understand the human difficulties involved in such proceedings. But forest protection and the rule of law cannot be selectively interpreted through a religious lens.”

Operations in Lutumari Reserve Forest

The eviction exercise took place on 17 and 18 October in the Lutumari Reserve Forest area of Nagaon. Authorities cleared encroachments from 314 hectares of notified forest land, an operation involving 563 families.

Baruah said the scale of the operation should not be interpreted as evidence of discrimination. He described it as an enforcement measure undertaken against occupation of protected land, rather than a campaign directed at a particular population group.

“This was neither an arbitrary action nor one directed against any particular religion or community,” Baruah wrote.

The minister said officials had provided notice before the demolitions and allowed occupants time to leave their homes and take away their belongings. He also said authorities intentionally waited until the rainy and flood periods had passed, citing the additional difficulties that displacement can create for affected families during those seasons.

He said the exercise was completed peacefully, with no reported resistance and no use of force. The description places emphasis on the administrative process surrounding the operation, including advance notice, time to vacate and the timing of the drive.

Minister Points to Supreme Court Proceedings

Baruah said the demolition action followed directions issued by the Supreme Court of India. He referred specifically to an order dated 10 February 2026 and said the affected petitioners had used available legal channels before the eviction drive was carried out.

“The (demolition) proceedings followed the directions of the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India, including its order dated 10 February 2026. The petitioners had pursued their legal remedies and their Special Leave Petitions (Civil) Nos. 28719–28723/2026 were disposed of on 2 September 2026,” he said.

His comments frame the eviction as an action carried out after judicial proceedings, rather than an immediate or unreviewed administrative decision. The minister’s account also highlights the distinction between public concern about the human consequences of demolition and the government’s stated legal basis for reclaiming reserved land.

For families affected by such drives, advance notices and legal remedies can be significant because the loss of a home or settlement affects daily security, belongings and the ability to relocate. Baruah acknowledged those pressures, but said they could not override the state’s responsibility to safeguard land designated as forest.

Forest Restoration and Elephant Habitat

Beyond the legal justification, Baruah presented the operation as part of a broader conservation objective. He said the recovered area would be replanted with indigenous forest species in an effort to restore habitat and support wildlife regeneration.

A particular focus, he said, would be habitat used by elephants. Restoring forest cover in the reclaimed area could help create conditions more suitable for elephant movement and may contribute to efforts to reduce conflict between people and elephants.

The minister described preservation of notified forest areas as both an ecological necessity and a statutory duty. His statement links the removal of encroachments with long-term restoration, rather than treating demolition as the final stage of the process.

The dispute illustrates the difficult balance that can arise when land-protection measures affect settled families. Authorities may point to court directions, designated forest boundaries and conservation priorities, while communities facing eviction focus on the immediate impact of displacement and the loss of structures.

Baruah’s response sought to address both sides of that tension. He said the government did not dismiss the distress involved for residents, but rejected the suggestion that religion had determined the state’s actions. In his view, enforcement in Lutumari Reserve Forest was driven by the protected status of the land and the requirement to uphold forest law.

With 314 hectares cleared and 563 families involved, the Lutumari operation remains a major example of the human and environmental questions surrounding eviction drives in Assam. The government’s next stated step is restoration of the land with native species, with the aim of rebuilding forest habitat and strengthening conservation outcomes in the area.