Do Assam’s Demolitions Hold Up to Legal, Procedural and Ethical Scrutiny?
Over 1,400 Muslim Homes Razed for Power Project in Dhubri District
July 9, 2025
On July 8, the Assam government began a demolition drive to clear land for a proposed thermal power plant in Dhubri district, targeting over 2,000 households of Bengali-origin Muslim families. The timing, method and impact of this operation raise serious questions about legal compliance, procedural fairness and ethical reasoning.
The demolition in Bilashipara area began four days after a public announcement was made. The residents were given no more than a few days to vacate their homes, many of which had stood for decades, The Wire reported.
These areas had housed thousands of people, some of whom had moved there after losing land to river erosion elsewhere in Assam, according to Scroll.in, which said the homes of at least 1,400 families had already been razed, as of July 8. Those families described their history as one of repeated displacement, first by nature and then by the state.
Officials described the land as government-owned, implying that the occupants were encroachers. Residents, however, told the media that they had been living there for at least three to four decades, in some cases longer, with settled neighbourhoods and small community institutions already in place.
The administration offered a one-time relocation grant of 50,000 rupees per family and allocated land in Baizar Alga village for their rehabilitation. However, many reported that they had not received the money, and the new site was located in a riverine zone that frequently floods during the monsoon. It also lacked roads and other infrastructure.
The 3,400 megawatt power project had originally been planned in a tribal-majority area in Kokrajhar district. After protests by residents in that location, the government shifted the project to Bilashipara in Dhubri, an area largely inhabited by the Muslim community.
The development presents problems.
First, the process apparently did not follow the standards required under any framework that claims to be lawful or humane. Based on constitutional principles and Supreme Court rulings, the due process includes sufficient notice, a clear legal mechanism to contest the eviction and a meaningful opportunity to resettle. When notices are posted with a three-day gap before bulldozers arrive, families are left scrambling to protect their belongings, often without any clarity on whether they can seek legal remedy.
Second, the claim that the land is government-owned does not automatically erase the lived reality of residents. Many families had lived there for decades, building homes, raising children and setting down roots. In such cases, possession and settlement matter just as much as paperwork. Indian courts have recognised that long-term occupation can generate legitimate claims to residence and protection from arbitrary eviction. The principle behind this is the recognition that shelter is a basic need. A state cannot simply turn up one day and treat people’s homes as obstacles to development.
Third, the so-called rehabilitation effort falls far short of what any reasonable measure would demand. A lump sum of 50,000 rupees cannot cover the cost of transporting entire households, rebuilding homes, securing food, ensuring schooling for children or resuming livelihoods. In any case, even that limited sum was unevenly distributed.
Further, the relocation site was described as uninhabitable by residents. Sending people to a flood-prone, disconnected area without basic services does not constitute rehabilitation. If the state wishes to relocate families in the name of public interest, it must ensure that the new site is viable, safe and equipped to support a full life.
Fourth, the shift of the project from Kokrajhar to Dhubri hints at selective decision-making based on political calculation. In Kokrajhar, the tribal population resisted the project and managed to push it out. In Dhubri, the displaced families belong to a group that has long been viewed with suspicion in Assam’s political climate. Bengali-origin Muslims have often been labelled as outsiders or encroachers, despite generations of settlement in the state. Choosing this area for the project relocation suggests that the state found it easier to displace this group than confront organised opposition elsewhere.
Fifth, the demolition cannot be seen in isolation from existing patterns of exclusion. Assam has a long history of identity-based politics centred around land and citizenship. From the National Register of Citizens (NRC) to previous eviction drives, many actions of the state have disproportionately affected Bengali-origin Muslim communities. The law permits land acquisition and development projects, but when those projects consistently affect the same group, the exercise of legal powers begins to resemble discrimination.
Finally, the need for a power plant cannot justify the forced removal of communities without fair compensation, consultation or resettlement. The state cannot treat people as disposable, especially those already pushed to the margins. When a development plan begins by removing the homes of thousands with inadequate notice and questionable alternatives, it reveals a deep indifference to the value of ordinary lives.
You have just read a News Briefing by Newsreel Asia, written to cut through the noise and present a single story for the day that matters to you. Certain briefings, based on media reports, seek to keep readers informed about events across India, others offer a perspective rooted in humanitarian concerns and some provide our own exclusive reporting. We encourage you to read the News Briefing each day. Our objective is to help you become not just an informed citizen, but an engaged and responsible one.
