Assam Under Siege: India’s Colonial-Style Development Model and the Growing Human Rights Crisis in the Northeast

Assam as the New Face of India’s Coercive Governance

Assam has increasingly become a symbol of how India manages its Northeast through pressure, control, and imposed decision-making. The region is repeatedly treated as a strategic frontier and a resource zone, rather than a partner in democratic governance. Two key developments in January and February 2026—one in Guwahati and another in Jagiroad, Morigaon district—have highlighted this reality. From a critical perspective, these events expose a colonial-style approach where the centre decides and the periphery suffers. This is not merely a policy problem; it is a human rights and legitimacy crisis.

Guwahati Declaration: A Clear Indigenous Rejection of Imposed Projects

On January 30, 2026, indigenous organisations from Assam and other Northeastern states gathered in Guwahati and issued the Guwahati Declaration. The declaration opposed large-scale energy, mining, and infrastructure projects being pushed into indigenous areas. The statement reflected deep frustration with how development is being framed as unavoidable, even when local communities are not consulted. This was not a small protest; it was a coordinated, region-wide political warning. It demonstrated that indigenous voices are no longer willing to be treated as background noise.

Who Spoke in Guwahati and What They Represent

The organisations behind the declaration represented riverine belts, forested zones, and tribal areas across Assam and the wider Northeast. Their concerns were grounded in lived experience: land acquisition, loss of livelihoods, environmental damage, and cultural erosion. These communities have long argued that decisions are made in Dispur and New Delhi while consequences are suffered in villages. Their unity matters because it shows the crisis is not local or temporary. It reflects a deeper structural alienation from India’s centralised governance model.

Consent Is Being Reduced to a Paper Exercise

A central demand in Guwahati was the need for free, prior, and informed consent, not symbolic consultation. In democratic governance, consent is not optional, especially when projects permanently alter land, forests, and livelihoods. Yet indigenous groups repeatedly claim that public hearings are rushed, technical, and controlled. This turns participation into a formality rather than a meaningful process. When consent is denied, development becomes coercion under a legal mask.

Environmental Destruction as an Officially Tolerated Cost

Assam’s ecological vulnerability is widely known, including recurring floods, erosion, and biodiversity decline. Indigenous leaders warned that dams, mining leases, and large infrastructure corridors will deepen ecological instability. Environmental impact assessments often fail to account for cumulative harm and long-term consequences. Treating environmental loss as an acceptable cost reflects short-term thinking. In a fragile region like Assam, environmental harm directly translates into human suffering.

Jagiroad, Morigaon: Forest Clearance That Raises Legal Alarm

On February 7, 2026, a stone mining project in Jagiroad, Morigaon district, received forest clearance despite a related Supreme Court case still pending. This decision raises serious questions about legal restraint and institutional integrity. Granting clearance while judicial scrutiny remains unresolved undermines the very idea of accountability. It signals that the state prioritises project momentum over legal caution. Such governance weakens trust in both environmental law and democratic safeguards.

The Rule of Law Is Being Bent to Fit Development

When authorities push approvals forward despite legal uncertainty, they communicate a dangerous message: outcomes matter more than process. Environmental law exists to protect public interest, particularly for communities with limited power. Bypassing scrutiny creates the perception that corporate and state interests dominate decision-making. It also discourages citizens from believing that courts and institutions can protect them. This is a hallmark of colonial-style governance—law used as a tool of control, not justice.

Federalism in Theory, Centralisation in Reality

India claims federalism, yet Assam’s experience repeatedly suggests centralised dominance. Decisions on land, forests, and strategic infrastructure are shaped by national agendas rather than local priorities. This weakens the autonomy of states and communities. Federalism becomes a slogan used for international image, while central power expands in practice. The Northeast remains a region where the centre asserts authority, and local rights are treated as negotiable.

Extraction Is Prioritised Over Human Security

Across Assam, development is framed as a national necessity while local costs are minimised. Displacement risks, livelihood disruption, and ecological loss are often dismissed as manageable side effects. Human security—economic stability, cultural continuity, and environmental safety—is treated as secondary. This creates a situation where communities feel sacrificed for projects they did not choose. Development without human security is not progress; it is structural violence.

Environmental Justice Is Missing in Assam’s Development Agenda

Environmental justice demands that no community bears disproportionate harm. Yet in Assam, indigenous and rural populations carry the heaviest burden of deforestation, pollution, and land pressure. When safeguards fail and consent is absent, justice becomes inaccessible. Communities are left to absorb damage while benefits flow elsewhere. This imbalance exposes a deeply unfair model of governance. It reinforces the perception that Assam is treated as a colony within India’s political structure.

Indigenous Resistance as a Democratic Warning Signal

The Guwahati Declaration should be read as a warning from the ground. Peaceful and organised resistance indicates that institutional channels have lost credibility. When communities unite across states, they signal that exclusion has reached an unacceptable level. Ignoring such resistance increases the risk of prolonged conflict and instability. A state cannot claim legitimacy while silencing the people most affected by its decisions. Stability cannot be achieved through forceful approvals alone.

The Human Rights Dimension Cannot Be Ignored

Development without consent and legal rigor carries direct human rights implications. Rights to livelihood, cultural identity, and a healthy environment are affected when land and forests are altered without safeguards. Treating rights as secondary to project timelines normalises harm. In Assam, indigenous communities increasingly face the threat of displacement and ecological collapse. A rights-based approach is not anti-development; it is the minimum standard of ethical governance.

Assam Under Siege by a Colonial-Style Model

The Guwahati Declaration (Guwahati, January 30, 2026) and the Jagiroad forest clearance controversy (Morigaon district, February 7, 2026) together expose a troubling reality. India’s approach in Assam reflects a colonial-style model where extraction is prioritised over rights, and central power overrides local consent. This model places Assam under siege, producing environmental harm and deepening human rights concerns. If India continues to treat the Northeast as a controlled frontier rather than an equal region, resistance will grow and legitimacy will erode further. Sustainable development in Assam requires consent, legality, transparency, and environmental justice—without these, “progress” becomes exploitation in plain sight.