Aizawl: In July 2023, Lalduhoma, now the Chief Minister of Mizoram but then an opposition leader, released a strongly worded press statement opposing the Forest Conservation (Amendment) Bill 2023. He described it as a “dangerous bill” for the five Northeast states and urged the people of Mizoram and MPs to join him in resisting the BJP-led government’s move.
The following month, in August 2023, the Mizoram Legislative Assembly unanimously resolved to oppose the Forest (Conservation) Amendment Act, 2023, stating that the decision was taken “in order to protect the rights and interests of the people of Mizoram.”
Two years later, however, the ZPM-led government under Lalduhoma’s leadership has adopted the bill in the recent assembly session held in August 2025.
In 2023, Lalduhoma in his statement had issued a warning that the amendment would be a dangerous tool for forced assimilation. “As the central government will no longer need forest clearance, they will easily destroy our lands,” he said. He also pointed out that the bill, introduced by EFCC Minister Bhupender Yadav on March 29, 2023, had received 1,309 memoranda along with comments from state governments, departments, and ministries.
However, on August 27, 2025, the Mizoram Legislative Assembly adopted a resolution to implement the Forest (Conservation) Amendment Act 2023, with the motion introduced by Environment, Forests and Climate Change Minister Lalthansanga. During the session, Chief Minister Lalduhoma defended the decision, noting that while Article 371(G) of the Constitution allows Mizoram to reject certain Central laws, the Forest Conservation Act of 1980 had already been applied before the state attained statehood and could not be overturned.
The Chief Minister acknowledged that the Assembly had initially resisted the amendment in 2023, a stand he himself had supported. He said, at the time, legislators were unaware of the accompanying explanations and guidelines, which only came to light through notifications issued in November and December later that year. According to him, once the full context was understood, it became clear that the amendment was “adoptable.”
He stressed that the law is not perfect but workable, especially in the light of the Godavarman judgment that forbids the use of forest land, whether owned by the state or individuals, without clearance. The amendment, he claimed, simplifies the process and strengthens the authority of states and union territories. Lalduhoma also insisted that the amendment protects the Forest Rights Act (FRA), describing it as crucial for communities in Mizoram that have lived in forests for generations. He said his government has already begun using the law to push through development projects, and pointed to his appeal to the Prime Minister, Home Minister and Defence Minister, which resulted in seven key roads, including the Silsuri highway being exempted from forest clearance. He added that the state is asking for more highways to be given the same designation.
Framing the amendment as a tool of necessity rather than choice, the Chief Minister said Mizoram should continue to use it as long as it serves the state’s interests, with the option of withdrawing support if it later proves harmful.
This is not the first time Mizoram Chief Minister Lalduhoma has shifted his stance after taking office. On March 10, he surprised many by indirectly supporting the Union government’s move to end the Free Movement Regime (FMR), which allowed communities along the 1,643 km India-Myanmar border limited travel without documents. Previously, Lalduhoma had strongly opposed scrapping the FMR, warning it would divide Zo communities across the border.
The Forest Conservation Amendment Act has faced widespread criticism across the country. The National Alliance of People’s Movements, an alliance of alter-globalisation activist groups in India, pointed out that after the Joint Parliamentary Committee cleared the controversial Forest (Conservation) Amendment Bill, 2023, citizens along with forest and climate action groups held peaceful demonstrations in Delhi and across more than 16 states.
On July 24, 2023 a nationwide online protest saw the hashtags #SaveIndianForests and #ScrapForestConservationAmendmentBill2023 trend at number four on India-wide Twitter, generating over 11,000 posts.
The campaign brought together a wide range of citizen movements, including Climate Front India, Let India Breathe, Aravalli Bachao Citizens Movement, Save Mollem, United Conservation Movement, Save Aarey, Youth for Himalaya, Jagrit Adivasi Dalit Sangathan, Van Gujjar Tribal Yuva Sangathan, Yugma Collective, Area Sabha Association of Pune, Hasdeo Aranya Bachao Sangharsh Samiti, Fridays For Future India, Chhattisgarh Bachao Andolan, Warrior Moms, Friends of Earth (India), and many others. Conservationists, ecologists, and both rural and urban citizens also joined the effort.
While Mizoram has moved forward with adopting the amendment, its neighboring state of Nagaland had deliberated on the issue and flagged specific objections regarding its potential impact on tribal land and forest rights.” On September 14, 2023, the Nagaland Legislative Assembly passed a resolution on the FCAA 2023, objecting to Section 1(A)(2) of the Act, which exempts forest land within 100 km of international borders for strategic projects. The provision, the House noted, covers most of Nagaland, where forests are owned by tribal communities under Article 371(A). Tribal organisations had previously expressed strong opposition, warning that this clause could undermine traditional ownership and rights
The Assembly resolved that the Act would apply in Nagaland only subject to Article 371(A), urged the Centre to ensure Section 1(A)(2) is not enforced against the state’s interests, and agreed to explore creating its own law to safeguard community forest rights.
Conservation groups have raised alarms over the Forest Conservation Amendment Act, which they say is especially dangerous for Northeast states. Mizoram’s decision to adopt the law has also drawn concern from environmentalists across the country.
Ravi Chellam, a wildlife biologist and conservation scientist, shared his concerns with EastMojo. He said that before the amendment became law, there was extensive debate and discussion. Maps of Northeast India were circulated showing the 100 km zone from India’s international boundaries. This, he explained, revealed that much of the region would fall within the zone where forest land could be diverted to non-forest use in the name of defence, making the process much easier and quicker. “As you know, forests are in the concurrent list, but with the amendment, the role of state governments gets diminished. Many conservationists were glad that Mizoram had not accepted the amendment, but unfortunately, they have done it now. In the Northeast, most of the land is community-owned rather than government-owned. Mizoram’s acceptance also weakens the ability to hold on to community land,” he said.
Chellam added that invoking national security makes the issue problematic. “Only a few experts know what constitutes national security, even chief ministers may not. Instead of decentralised, federal governance, this amendment increases the centralisation of power. The Northeast is a biodiversity-rich area and we need to protect habitats and the people who depend on them. What is national security if people are dying of droughts and floods? Why is a 100 km zone required? This is largely community land, and in almost any argument, national security will trump every other reason. I am very surprised that this belt has been extended to 100 km from the international boundary,” he said.
There is another, third angle for the Northeast, which is important in the context of these being community forests. By doing away with the need for forest clearance, what the Amendment also does is to do away with the need for Gram Sabha consent, that is, the community of forest dwellers, and not just the Headman.
He cautioned that people are likely to protest, file cases, write to MLAs and MPs, and organise themselves to resist the amendment.
In an article for The Hindu in July 2023, Chellam had highlighted that the FCAA 2023 made no reference to important forest laws, including the Scheduled Tribes and Other Traditional Forest-dwellers (Recognition of Forest Rights) Act, 2006. He warned that the amendment’s ease of forest diversion could sideline community institutions, depriving forest people of consultation and participation. Citing Nepal, where handing over forests to local communities increased forest cover from 26% to 45% in three decades, he argued that involving forest communities would have been a more effective and equitable way for India to meet its net-zero and forest expansion targets.
Echoing similar concerns, Rituraj Phukan, an environmental activist from Assam, stressed that weakening forest protections in the Northeast would have far-reaching consequences, saying, “Any changes to forest laws or dilution of conservation mechanisms in the Northeast will be disastrous, exacerbating the climate crisis, food security concerns, and the well-being of future generations. The consequences of rampant destruction are already visible across the Himalayas, and opening up the remaining forests, mountains, and wetlands of Northeast India for development will push the entire region to the precipice.”
He pointed out that India is a signatory to the Convention on Biological Diversity, with the 30×30 goal requiring protection of at least 30% of land and sea areas by 2030 to prevent catastrophic biodiversity loss. India’s Paris Agreement commitments also include creating a carbon sink of 2.5 to 3 billion tonnes of carbon dioxide by 2030, alongside the target of bringing 33% of land under green cover, up from the current 24.5%. Similarly, the National Forest Policy 2018 aspires to one-third of total land under forest and tree cover to secure ecological stability.
“These commitments demand the creation and regeneration of new protected areas, especially in biodiversity-rich landscapes like the Northeast,” Phukan said. “Unlike the narrative we often hear, there are no ‘wastelands’ in nature, certainly not in this region. Further fragmentation of habitats here could have disastrous impacts on endemic and endangered species, many of which are integral to our cultural and regional identities.”
It is not only environmentalists across the country who are concerned. In Mizoram, local environmental bodies and independent organisations have urged the government to call for a special assembly to review the Forest Conservation (Amendment) Act, 2023 (FCAA).
On Wednesday, the Zo Reunification Organisation (ZoRO), which advocates for the unity of the Zo people, and the Joint Civil Society Mizoram (JCM), a coalition of NGOs, issued strong statements opposing the Act. Both groups appealed to the state government to reconsider its adoption.
They cautioned that the FCAA could create serious challenges for indigenous communities, eroding protections guaranteed under Article 371G of the Constitution, Article 244 relating to Autonomous District Councils, Union Territories, and states under the Fifth and Sixth Schedules. They also argued that it infringes on fundamental rights such as freedom of residence, settlement, occupation, and trade under Article 19, as well as several provisions of the UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples.
While acknowledging the importance of development, the organisations cautioned that it must not come at the expense of land and the environment. They stressed that Mizoram’s growth can continue within the framework of existing laws, without adopting the FCAA 2023.
One of the most vocal critics of the FCAA has been Vanramchhuangi, popularly known as Ruatfela Nu, a renowned social activist from Mizoram. She had welcomed the MNF government’s decision to reject the Act but expressed deep disappointment when the ZPM government chose to adopt it. Alongside other environmentalists, she staged a protest in front of the Assembly House, holding placards reading “Revoke FCAA” and “We do not want FCAA.”
“The FCA 1980 was designed to protect forests, but the FCAA 2023 is short-lived, driven by profit and designed to misuse forest land. It prioritises economic growth over sustainable development,” she said.
It is not only organisations but also concerned citizens who are raising their voices against the FCAA 2023. “The first setback of this amendment is its alignment with India’s Act East Policy. Its earliest consequence will be development corridors overriding indigenous rights, causing the loss of ancestral lands, displacement, and ecological damage, not just in Mizoram but across the Northeast. And here is its first step: Narendra Modi is already making his move,” said one citizen, referring to the Prime Minister’s agreement to boost trade, rare earth mining, and security ties with Myanmar’s Sr. Gen. Min Aung Hlaing.
Anthony Mawia, a research scholar at the University of Hyderabad, also linked the introduction of railways in Mizoram to the adoption of the FCAA. “With trains now entering Mizoram, it seems the government is aligning the amendment with a push for large-scale capital extraction under its new governance model,” he said.
Also Read | Mizoram: Civil societies reject FCAA 2023, demand special assembly