Aizawl: The recent adoption of the Forest (Conservation) Amendment Act, 2023 (FCAA) by the Mizoram Assembly has triggered strong opposition from political parties and civil society groups, who say the move threatens the state’s land rights and indigenous communities.
During the monsoon session on August 27, Environment, Forests and Climate Change Minister Lalthansanga introduced a motion to extend the FCAA to Mizoram, which the Assembly passed.
The decision has since drawn criticism from the Mizo National Front (MNF), Congress, Zo Re-Unification Organisation (ZORO), and the Joint Civil Society Mizoram (CJM).
The MNF, in a petition to Speaker Lalbiakzama, has demanded that a special session be convened to withdraw the resolution.
MNF media cell secretary Lallianmawia Jongte said the party opposed forwarding the Assembly’s decision to the Lok Sabha, claiming the law undermines the interests of the Mizo people by giving the Centre greater control over land.
He recalled that in August 2023, when the MNF was in power, the Assembly had adopted a resolution against the same law after consultations with churches, political parties, and community bodies.
ZORO and CJM have also pressed for the resolution’s withdrawal, warning of possible protests.
ZORO vice president Ramdinliana Renthlei argued that the FCAA could allow the Central government to take over land along a 100-km stretch of international borders for projects deemed strategically important, bypassing forest clearance requirements.
He said this provision risks violating Article 371G of the Constitution, which protects Mizoram from the automatic application of central laws on land ownership and transfer without Assembly approval, as well as Article 244, which safeguards the powers of Autonomous District Councils under the Sixth Schedule.
Chief Minister Lalduhoma, however, defended the Assembly’s decision, stating that since the original Forest Conservation Act, 1980, already applies in the state, the amendment needed to be formally adopted to align with it.
Leaders from the ruling Zoram People’s Movement (ZPM) maintained that the resolution was necessary to enable development projects.
The CJM, while acknowledging the government’s development concerns, insisted that Mizoram’s land and community rights should not be compromised.
It said growth can be pursued within the framework of existing laws without adopting the new amendment.
