03 August 2025
(Mains: Editorials Simplified)

ASSAM’S EVICTION DRIVE AND ITS REGIONAL FALLOUT

The Assam government has intensified eviction drives to reclaim encroached forestlands, wetlands, and satra (Vaishnav monastery) lands, citing legal and environmental justifications. The issue is situated at the intersection of land rights, migration, identity politics, environmental degradation, and federal coordination.

Major Dimensions of the Issue

• Legal and Environmental Justification

  • The eviction drive is rooted in court mandates to remove illegal settlements from notified forests and wetlands.

  • Environmental degradation, especially in fragile zones like Kaziranga National Park and urban wetlands like Silsako Beel, is cited as a major concern.

  • The Union Environment Ministry noted widespread encroachment on over 3,600 sq km of Assam’s forestland as of 2024.

• Identity Politics and Polarisation

  • The drive disproportionately affects Bengali-speaking Muslims, perceived as "illegal immigrants" post the 1971 cut-off laid down in the Assam Accord.

  • Although non-Muslims have also been evicted, the narrative around ‘land jihad’ has communalised the discourse, raising fears of selective targeting.

  • Sub-nationalist claims about protecting Assamese identity – jaati (race), maati (land), and bheti (hearth) – are central to the political messaging.

• Regional Ripple Effect

  • Neighbouring States – Nagaland, Meghalaya, Arunachal Pradesh, Mizoram – have responded with strict border control measures, fearing demographic spillover and illegal migration.

  • There is growing resentment against Assam’s alleged pushback of evictees into neighbouring territories, sometimes seen as attempts to alter demography in disputed border regions.

• Border Disputes and Competing Land Claims

  • Assam shares long-disputed boundaries with most of its neighbouring States, all of which were carved out of its territory post-Independence.

  • Encroachment narratives are used both by Assam and its neighbours to assert territorial claims, especially in forested or revenue land tracts.

  • These overlapping grievances have historically resulted in violent clashes and over 350 deaths across State borders.

• Governance Challenges

  • Absence of proper land records, population pressure, and limited enforcement capacity complicate the eviction process.

  • There is inadequate rehabilitation or settlement planning for displaced persons, especially those whose claims to land are undocumented but longstanding.

  • Distinction between legal forest dwellers (protected under FRA) and ‘illegal encroachers’ remains difficult to implement uniformly.

Way Forward

• Codify and Digitise Land Records: Implement comprehensive land titling systems using GIS and satellite imagery to demarcate legal vs. illegal occupation.

• Fair Implementation of Forest Rights Act: Ensure due process in identifying genuine forest dwellers eligible for land rights; avoid blanket evictions that ignore FRA protections.

• Rehabilitation Framework for Displaced Families: Develop inclusive policies that combine compensation, alternate housing, and livelihood opportunities for displaced communities.

• Interstate Coordination Mechanism: As directed by the Gauhati High Court, institutionalise a multi-State committee to jointly manage border disputes, eviction protocols, and population movements.

• Environmental and Ecological Zoning: Reclassify high-risk ecologically sensitive zones (like wetlands and reserve forests) under stricter conservation mandates to prevent future encroachment.

• De-Politicisation of Identity Issues: Promote inclusive dialogue and awareness campaigns to prevent the communalisation of land and migration issues.

Conclusion

The eviction drives in Assam cannot be viewed in isolation – they embody the deeper structural fault lines of land ownership, ethnic identity, environmental degradation, and federal misalignment. While the legal and environmental imperatives are valid, the need of the hour is a balanced, federal, and rights-based approach that reconciles land governance with human dignity and regional stability.

……………………………………………………………………………………………………………

TRUMP TARIFFS AND INDIA-U.S. TRADE

The recent imposition of a 25% tariff (plus an unspecified penalty) on Indian imports by the United States has reignited long-standing frictions in India-U.S. trade relations. The development must be understood against the backdrop of evolving global geopolitics, protectionist impulses in the U.S., and India’s strategic autonomy.

Key Concepts and Definitions

• Tariffs: Taxes imposed on imported goods, making them more expensive and thereby protecting domestic producers.

• Non-Tariff Barriers (NTBs): Regulatory or procedural restrictions like licensing, standards, or quotas that limit imports without direct taxation.

• Trade Retaliation: Countermeasures adopted by a country in response to trade restrictions imposed by another, often by levying equivalent tariffs.

• Trade Deficit: When a country imports more than it exports. The U.S. aims to reduce its trade deficit by negotiating deals that promote its exports.

• Mini Trade Deal: A limited-scope agreement that addresses specific sectors or products rather than a full Free Trade Agreement.

• Strategic Autonomy: A principle where India aims to make independent decisions in foreign policy and trade without aligning too closely with any single power bloc.

Underlying Concerns and Points of Friction

• Protectionist Trade Policy in the U.S.

  • The US has adopted a transactional and reciprocal approach to trade, leveraging tariffs to extract better terms.

  • India’s high tariff structure and selective market access (especially in agriculture and dairy) have been longstanding concerns for U.S. negotiators.

• Agriculture and Dairy as Red Lines

  • India remains unwilling to open its low-productivity and vulnerable agriculture sector to international competition.

  • This protectionist stance, while domestically necessary, limits the scope of comprehensive trade agreements with developed economies.

• Comparative Disadvantage

  • Competing countries like Vietnam, South Korea, and Indonesia have secured lower tariffs on their exports to the U.S., putting Indian exporters at a relative disadvantage.

• India’s Energy and Defence Ties with Russia

  • India’s purchase of oil and defence equipment from Russia is increasingly being linked with its trade relationship with the U.S.

  • This linkage indicates a growing overlap between trade diplomacy and strategic geopolitics.

Way Ahead

• Balancing Strategic Partnerships

  • India must carefully navigate its strategic ties with Russia while strengthening engagement with the U.S. through clear communication of its non-alignment and national interest approach.

• Targeted Tariff Reform

  • India can consider revisiting specific high-tariff sectors that are globally uncompetitive, thereby signalling willingness to negotiate on mutually beneficial terms.

• Revamping Non-Tariff Measures

  • Streamlining customs procedures, improving regulatory transparency, and enhancing compliance with international standards could improve market access without compromising sovereignty.

• Sectoral Mini-Deals

  • Instead of pursuing a full-blown FTA, India may explore sector-specific agreements (e.g., digital trade, pharma, services) that align with its core strengths and strategic needs.

• Diversifying Export Markets

  • Reducing overdependence on the U.S. market by deepening ties with EU, ASEAN, Africa, and the Middle East can cushion the impact of such unpredictable tariff shocks.

Conclusion

India’s trade friction with the U.S. under the current tariff regime underscores the complexity of modern trade diplomacy, where economic negotiations intersect with political messaging and strategic alignments. While the tariffs pose sectoral challenges, they also present an opportunity for India to push internal reforms, sharpen export competitiveness, and adopt a calibrated trade strategy.

……………………………………………………………………………………………………………