Assam’s Land Rights Crisis: Inequalities in Distrubition

Assam’s ambitious land reform programme, Mission Basundhara, was launched with the promise of simplifying land administration, ending bureaucratic delays and securing ownership rights for landless families. But as the state prepares for its fourth phase, serious questions have emerged over whether the scheme is delivering justice or creating new barriers for some of its most vulnerable citizens.

At the centre of the controversy is a proposed requirement that families establish their connection to land through records dating back to 1951. For thousands of people living on Assam’s shifting river islands, where floods and erosion routinely destroy homes, farmland and entire villages, producing such documents can be nearly impossible.

The problem is compounded by the government's own inability to produce complete historical records. Large portions of Assam's 1951 National Register of Citizens (NRC) are missing, damaged or unavailable, according to information presented in the state Legislative Assembly.

The question, therefore, is straightforward: How can the government demand documents from citizens when its own archives cannot produce them?

The Assam government introduced Mission Basundhara as a technology-driven initiative to modernise revenue administration and land management.

The online system was designed to simplify land mutation, inheritance registration, reclassification of land, partition of jointly owned property and settlement of government land. It also sought to eliminate intermediaries and reduce the need for citizens to make repeated visits to revenue offices.

Alongside these reforms, the SVAMITVA programme introduced drone-based mapping of previously unsurveyed villages.

The government presented these measures as a major administrative breakthrough that would benefit lakhs of residents struggling with outdated land records.

However, the experience of the first three phases raises serious concerns about the gap between the programme's stated objectives and its implementation.

Official dashboard figures cited for Mission Basundhara show that while the first phase disposed of a substantial proportion of applications, the second phase witnessed an exceptionally high rejection rate.

Under Mission Basundhara 1.0, authorities registered 813,981 applications, of which 582,688 were completed and 231,293 rejected.

The situation deteriorated sharply during Mission Basundhara 2.0.

Of 1,855,254 applications, only 328,712 were recorded as completed, while 1,420,979 were rejected. Another 105,534 remained pending.

This represents a rejection rate of approximately 76.5 percent.

Mission Basundhara 3.0 recorded 273,928 applications, with 114,736 shown as disposed of and 159,192 remaining in the process category.

These figures raise a fundamental question about the effectiveness of the programme. If a land reform initiative rejects more than three-quarters of applications in one of its major phases, policymakers must examine whether its eligibility conditions are excessively restrictive.

Not every rejection necessarily represents discrimination or an unjust decision. Nevertheless, rejection rates of this magnitude demand transparent explanations, district-wise scrutiny and an accessible appeals mechanism.

Who Qualifies as Indigenous?

One of the most contentious features of Mission Basundhara 2.0 and 3.0 has been the restriction of certain land settlement benefits to people classified as indigenous.

In Assam, the term Khilonjiya, meaning indigenous or original inhabitant, carries considerable political and historical significance.

Yet there is no universally accepted definition of the term that resolves the state's competing claims of identity, migration and historical belonging.

Assamese literary organisations, student groups, political parties and other stakeholders have debated the question for decades without arriving at a common position.

The ambiguity has serious consequences when an individual's eligibility for land ownership depends on whether the government recognises that person as indigenous.

Even Muslim communities such as the Goria, Moria and Deshi, whose distinct cultural identities have received official recognition, have faced difficulties in obtaining land settlements under the programme.

The larger issue concerns Muslims of East Bengal origin, many of whose families have lived in Assam for generations.

Chief Minister Himanta Biswa Sarma has publicly maintained that Muslims of East Bengal origin do not qualify under the state's indigenous criteria for certain government land settlements.

This position has particularly serious implications for landless Muslim families in Dhubri, Bongaigaon, Barpeta, Goalpara, Morigaon and Nagaon.

Many of these families have repeatedly lost their homes and agricultural land to floods and riverbank erosion.

Their exclusion from land settlement programmes raises questions about whether indigeneity is being used as an administrative classification or as an instrument of political and social exclusion.

The legal debate also has a broader historical dimension.

In its January 5, 2011, judgment in Kailas and Others v. State of Maharashtra, the Supreme Court discussed the historical position of Adivasis and Scheduled Tribes as original inhabitants of India.

The observations, made by Justices Markandey Katju and Gyan Sudha Mishra, highlight the complexity of determining indigenous identity in a country shaped by successive waves of migration.

Although those observations do not themselves establish eligibility rules for Assam's land settlement schemes, they underscore the need for a clear and legally defensible definition when such classifications determine access to public resources.

Minority Question

The most serious criticism of Mission Basundhara concerns its impact on religious and linguistic minorities.

Opposition parties, civil rights organisations and minority groups have argued that the programme's eligibility requirements disproportionately disadvantage Muslims, particularly Bengali-origin communities.

The government maintains that certain land settlement benefits are intended for indigenous residents.

However, the distinction between protecting indigenous land rights and excluding other legally recognised citizens requires careful constitutional scrutiny.

Article 14 of the Indian Constitution guarantees equality before the law and equal protection of the laws.

Article 15 prohibits specified forms of discrimination, including discrimination on religious grounds.

These constitutional protections raise important questions when access to government land is determined through classifications that may disproportionately exclude particular communities.

The issue is not whether Assam can frame policies to protect vulnerable indigenous populations. It is whether such policies can be implemented without denying other eligible citizens fair consideration.

A transparent system must distinguish between legitimate land protection measures and arbitrary exclusion.

For families living in Assam's riverine areas, land ownership is much more than a question of legal title.

It determines access to agricultural credit, government assistance, financial security and economic independence.

Without a formal land patta, or ownership deed, farmers often struggle to obtain institutional loans, including credit under the Kisan Credit Card scheme.

Many are consequently pushed towards private moneylenders charging high interest rates.

The absence of recognised land records can also complicate access to agricultural welfare programmes, crop insurance and compensation for losses caused by floods.

Schemes such as the Pradhan Mantri Kisan Samman Nidhi require verification of eligibility through landholding records, subject to applicable rules and exceptions.

For a family repeatedly displaced by erosion, the lack of formal documentation can therefore create a cycle of deprivation.

Without land records, obtaining credit becomes difficult. Without credit, investment in agriculture declines. Without secure ownership, families remain vulnerable to displacement and exploitation.

A programme intended to resolve these problems should not make them more difficult.

1951 Documentation Trap

Mission Basundhara 4.0 is expected to address long-standing land problems in the char areas of the Brahmaputra and Barak valleys.

Chars are shifting river islands and sandbars formed through sediment deposits. Their geography changes constantly as rivers erode existing land and create new formations.

Thousands of families live and cultivate land in these areas despite the permanent threat of flooding and displacement.

The proposed requirement to establish residence or landholding through records dating to 1951 presents a formidable challenge for these communities.

Families may have occupied one river island for decades before erosion forced them to relocate to another.

Their ancestral homes may no longer exist. Agricultural plots may have disappeared beneath the Brahmaputra. Entire settlements may have shifted repeatedly over generations.

In such circumstances, documentary continuity becomes exceptionally difficult to establish.

A family that has lived in Assam for generations may have no surviving record connecting it to a particular plot in 1951.

The concern is that a rigid documentation requirement could exclude large numbers of otherwise eligible applicants.

Some estimates suggest that as many as 90 percent of poor char residents could struggle to satisfy such conditions. However, that estimate requires independent verification.

The broader problem remains undeniable: a land settlement policy cannot ignore the physical realities of the territory it seeks to regulate.

Missing Government Records

The proposed reliance on 1951 records becomes more problematic when examined against the condition of Assam's historical archives.

The 1951 NRC was prepared in the aftermath of Partition, when administrative capacity, transport networks and communications were severely limited in many parts of the state.

Remote riverine settlements were particularly difficult to enumerate.

E. H. Pakyntein, Assam's Superintendent of Census Operations in 1961, discussed shortcomings associated with the preparation of the earlier population records.

The historical concerns included incomplete enumeration and administrative difficulties affecting remote and mobile populations.

These limitations are especially relevant to char communities, whose settlements have never been geographically stable.

More recently, information presented in the Assam Legislative Assembly has revealed extensive gaps in the availability of the 1951 NRC.

According to the district-wise figures cited in the Assembly, the records are entirely unavailable in Cachar, Karbi Anglong, Dima Hasao, Sivasagar, Baksa and Chirang.

In Tinsukia, records for 626 villages are reportedly unavailable.

In Lakhimpur, records for 523 villages have been destroyed, while those for another 229 villages are missing.

Nalbari has 251 villages with missing records and another 481 villages whose records are partially damaged.

Barpeta reportedly lacks records for approximately 258 villages, while Jorhat has missing records for 10 villages.

The situation is also troubling in Bongaigaon and Morigaon, where the records are described as partially available or substantially damaged.

In Dhubri, Goalpara and Nagaon, surviving legacy records do not necessarily cover every settlement, particularly villages lost to river erosion.

The figures cited in the Assembly suggest that historical NRC records covering approximately 35 percent of Assam's villages may be missing, destroyed or otherwise unavailable.

That estimate requires reconciliation with the complete official district-wise inventory. Nevertheless, the documented gaps demonstrate why historical records cannot be treated as uniformly accessible.

It would be administratively unreasonable to reject an applicant solely for failing to produce a document that the government itself cannot locate.

The burden of incomplete public archives should not fall entirely upon poor citizens.

Why 1971 Matters

Assam already has a historically established framework for determining citizenship in the context of migration.

The Assam Accord of 1985 adopted March 24, 1971, as the principal cut-off date for identifying foreigners who entered the state from Bangladesh.

That framework subsequently informed the citizenship provisions applicable to Assam, including Section 6A of the Citizenship Act.

The 1971 cut-off, however, concerns citizenship determination and does not automatically establish eligibility for government land allotment.

Citizenship and land settlement are legally distinct matters.

Nevertheless, the existence of an established citizenship framework raises an important policy question.

If a person is legally recognised as an Indian citizen, why should a separate and substantially earlier historical threshold become an insurmountable obstacle to consideration for land settlement?

The government must explain the legal and administrative justification for any such requirement.

Another possible avenue lies in examining the legal treatment of long-standing possession of land.

The Limitation Act, 1963, provides a 30-year limitation period under Article 112 for certain suits brought by or on behalf of the government.

The doctrine of adverse possession may become relevant where occupation meets the necessary legal conditions.

However, 30 years of residence on government land does not automatically confer ownership. Adverse possession requires specific legal elements, and claims involving public land are subject to judicial scrutiny.

The government could nevertheless examine whether long-term, peaceful occupation should be recognised through a specially designed regularisation policy, consistent with applicable land laws and protections for public and community land.

Such a framework could offer relief to families that have cultivated land for generations but lack formal titles.

It would also reduce dependence on historical documents that may no longer exist.

Reform v/s  Justice

Mission Basundhara has the potential to become an important instrument of land reform in Assam.

Digital records, simplified procedures and transparent administration can reduce corruption and improve access to public services.

But technology alone cannot deliver justice.

A digital system built around exclusionary eligibility conditions will simply make exclusion more efficient.

The next phase of Mission Basundhara must therefore address the weaknesses revealed by its earlier implementation.

The government should publish detailed reasons for application rejections, provide accessible appeals procedures and establish clear eligibility rules.

It should also introduce alternative methods of verifying residence and possession in flood-prone areas where conventional land records have been destroyed.

Evidence from village institutions, revenue surveys, historical settlement patterns and other legally admissible sources could help establish legitimate claims.

Most importantly, the programme must ensure that religious or linguistic identity does not become a substitute for fair and lawful assessment.

Assam's riverine communities have endured generations of displacement caused by floods and erosion. Their insecurity should not be compounded by administrative requirements that disregard their circumstances.

The purpose of land reform is to provide stability to those who lack it.

If Mission Basundhara 4.0 is to fulfil its promise of good governance and inclusive development, it must protect vulnerable citizens rather than leave them struggling to prove their connection to a land that has repeatedly disappeared beneath their feet.