The Assam Land Controversy in Karbi Anglong has emerged as a major flashpoint in 2025–2026, pitting tribal rights under the Sixth Schedule of the Indian Constitution against allegations of large-scale corporate land transfers facilitated by the state government and the Karbi Anglong Autonomous Council (KAAC).
Understanding Karbi Anglong and Its Protections
Karbi Anglong (including West Karbi Anglong) is a hill district in central Assam, home primarily to the indigenous Karbi people, along with other tribes like Dimasa and Kachari. Governed by the KAAC under the Sixth Schedule, the region enjoys special autonomy to safeguard tribal land, culture, and resources. This constitutional provision restricts land transfers to non-tribals, mandates community consent (often through Gram Sabhas), and protects categories such as Village Grazing Reserves (VGR) and Professional Grazing Reserves (PGR) for communal use. These safeguards aim to prevent alienation of indigenous lands amid demographic pressures and development projects.
The Core Allegations: Corporate Land Transfers
Since 2021, following the BJP-led government’s rise and post-insurgency peace efforts, critics—including opposition parties, tribal organizations, and activists—have accused the Assam government under Chief Minister Himanta Biswa Sarma and the BJP-controlled KAAC (led by Chief Executive Member Tuliram Ronghang) of enabling massive land allotments to private corporations. Alleged projects include solar power plants, pumped storage hydroelectric facilities, palm oil cultivation, and bio-gas initiatives.
Key claims, drawn from protests, memorandums, and reports, include:
- Over 1.5 lakh bighas (approximately 50,000 acres) of tribal land transferred or proposed for allocation in recent years.
- Specific examples: Around 18,000 bighas for a 1,000 MW solar project (allegedly involving private firms under state cover, with potential displacement of 20,000–25,000 people from 24 villages); thousands of bighas for entities linked to Reliance (bio-gas/Napier grass), Adani Group, Patanjali, Godrej, and Greenko (pumped storage).
- Use of state entities like the Assam Power Distribution Company Limited (APDCL) as a proxy to secure forest clearances and bypass direct restrictions on corporate entry in Sixth Schedule areas, described by critics as a “shield” for private interests.
Protesters argue these actions violate Sixth Schedule protections, the Forest Rights Act, and requirements for prior informed consent and social impact assessments. Concerns extend to environmental risks in the Indo-Burma Biodiversity Hotspot, loss of livelihoods, and potential links to undisclosed political financing ahead of the 2026 Assam Assembly elections.
Similar issues have surfaced in neighboring Dima Hasao (another Sixth Schedule area), where the allotment of 3,000 bighas to a cement company prompted Gauhati High Court scrutiny over the “extraordinary” scale.
Escalating Protests and Tensions
Protests gained momentum from mid-2025:
- In August 2025, demonstrations in Diphu targeted Ronghang and accused the government of favoring corporates.
- By early 2026, the movement intensified. On January 8–9, 2026, over 1,000 people rallied in Diphu, organized by more than 30 groups including the Karbi Students’ Association, All Party Hill Leaders Conference (APHLC), Congress, CPI(ML), women’s organizations, and youth bodies.
- A coalition submitted a memorandum to Assam Governor Lakshman Prasad Acharya on January 10, 2026, invoking his Sixth Schedule powers to order an independent inquiry, impose a moratorium on allotments, cancel illegal transfers, restore lands, and investigate corruption.
A parallel but related crisis involved encroachments on VGR/PGR lands by non-tribal settlers (often from Bihar). Karbi groups’ demands for evictions led to hunger strikes in late 2025, escalating into violence in December 2025 (Kheroni area): two deaths, dozens injured, arson (including Ronghang’s residence), internet suspension, Army deployment, and prohibitory orders. The government responded with plans for fencing reserves, canceling old licenses, and court approaches, but tensions persist.
Broader Implications and Current Status
As of January 10, 2026, the controversy underscores deep anxieties in Northeast India over balancing industrialization with tribal autonomy. The state promotes development post-2021 peace accords, but critics view it as prioritizing corporates over indigenous rights, threatening cultural and ecological integrity.
Tribal coalitions continue pressing for gubernatorial intervention as the constitutional guardian of Sixth Schedule areas. The situation remains volatile, with warnings of intensified agitation if demands go unaddressed. This conflict highlights ongoing challenges in protecting vulnerable tribal lands amid rapid economic changes.
About The Author
