Assam Evictions Demand Relief, Not Interstate Surveillance of the Displaced

Manipur, Meghalaya and Nagaland Track Suspected Migrants at Borders

July 24, 2025

The Assam government has launched extensive eviction drives across Dhubri and Goalpara districts, targeting those it labels as “encroachers” and “illegal migrants,” prompting alerts from neighbouring states concerned about possible cross-border movement. The development is being portrayed by the state as a routine law and order measure, but it raises serious questions about whether the evictions are legally justified, whether due process has been followed and whether the government is fulfilling its duty to prevent avoidable harm to people.

The government of Assam began eviction operations in June, aimed at clearing state-owned land allegedly encroached upon by individuals the government identifies as illegal migrants. These operations have displaced around 50,000 people, reportedly comprising mostly Bengali-speaking Muslims, according to The Hindu.

Chief Minister Himanta Biswa Sarma claims that the state has reclaimed 129,000 bighas of government land since 2021 and has vowed to continue the drive.

In response to this, three neighbouring states, Manipur, Meghalaya and Nagaland, have issued advisories directing their administrative officers to maintain heightened surveillance along interstate, international and interdistrict borders, according to NDTV. The directives instruct officials to collect biometric and biographic data of suspected individuals and to form district-level monitoring committees to conduct regular inspections and updates. The states claim the measures are preventive, aimed at stopping any movement of evicted individuals into their jurisdictions.

The advisories also state that any persons found to be in violation of immigration norms are to be deported after following “due procedures.” Further, the border pass systems are to be more tightly monitored, and cases of overstaying or unauthorised movement are to be traced and handled by the police. The thrust is on preventing what is seen as a potential spillover from Assam’s eviction efforts.

The core concern here lies in the legality of the evictions and their alignment with constitutional guarantees. Eviction without rehabilitation or due legal recourse contradicts the principle of procedural fairness, a central tenet of the rule of law. The right to housing, while not explicitly mentioned in the Indian Constitution, has been read into the right to life under Article 21 by multiple Supreme Court judgements.

Displacing 50,000 people without a clear rehabilitation plan or judicial oversight risks violating this constitutional safeguard.

The state’s repeated labelling of entire groups as “illegal migrants” without checking individual cases turns suspicion into certainty. The principle of natural justice demands that individuals be given an opportunity to be heard, and the burden of proof in matters of citizenship cannot be shifted wholesale onto a community. By casting Bengali-speaking Muslims as presumptively illegal, the state risks engaging in collective punishment and ethnic profiling, which are both politically dangerous and legally questionable.

Further, the neighbouring states’ move to collect biometric and biographic data from people they merely suspect of crossing the border brings the state into the realm of preemptive criminalisation, where individuals are treated as potential offenders before any wrongdoing has occurred. Such anticipatory governance, especially when the target population lacks access to legal recourse or documentation, puts entire communities under surveillance without evidence of wrongdoing, creating a climate of fear and exclusion that undermines democratic citizenship.

This kind of surveillance and enforcement architecture, especially when coordinated across multiple states, reflects a securitisation of migration that gives enforcement more importance than welfare. It assumes that displaced persons are a threat to territorial integrity rather than vulnerable individuals requiring protection. It runs contrary to both the Indian state’s constitutional promise of equal protection and international legal standards concerning displacement, which mandate humane treatment and safeguards for the displaced.

Moreover, by describing state-owned land as something that must be “reclaimed,” the government is turning the situation into a technical issue about land ownership, hiding the fact that people being evicted are facing serious humanitarian problems, such as losing their homes, safety and access to basic needs. It makes the eviction seem like a routine administrative act rather than a crisis affecting people’s lives.

By focusing more on reclaiming land than on protecting the lives of those being displaced, the state is following a model of governance that values territory above people. This reflects a territorial bias often seen in illiberal democracies, where the defence of land and borders is treated as more important than democratic values like inclusion, fairness and the protection of vulnerable communities.

Finally, the coordination among states to monitor movement reflects a border-control mindset within the domestic space of the Indian Union. While two of the three states involved already operate the Inner Line Permit system, expanding surveillance and treating displaced people as threats goes beyond administrative control. In a federal democracy, even states with special regulations are part of a shared constitutional framework, and viewing fellow citizens as outsiders weakens the principles of unity and equal belonging.

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.