Guwahati: Assam Chief Minister Himanta Biswa Sarma on Monday strongly defended his administration's decision to approach the central government for designating a one-kilometer eco-sensitive zone around the Kaziranga National Park, asserting that the proposal strictly aligns with directives issued by the Supreme Court.
Criticism and Opposition Concerns
The policy has sparked immediate pushback from opposition factions and various public segments who contend that keeping the protective perimeter restricted to just one kilometer could severely damage the fragile ecology of the UNESCO World Heritage Site. During a media briefing, Sarma firmly dismissed calls for expanding the boundary to ten kilometers, explaining that such an extensive restriction would impose crippling limitations on communities residing in the immediate vicinity of the park.
Livelihoods and Economic Impact
Elaborating on the practical challenges, the Chief Minister questioned how residents could sustain themselves if the perimeter extended all the way to Bokakhat or Kaliabor. He pointed out that local inhabitants themselves have active legal challenges pending before the Supreme Court against any wider notification. Sarma specifically mentioned that members of the indigenous Mising community alongside MLA Akhil Gogoi have raised objections against expanding the protected zone.
According to the administration, local populations rely entirely on commercial ventures and daily economic activities to make a living. Sarma warned that a ten-kilometer buffer zone would have extreme repercussions, noting that even institutions like the Numaligarh Refinery would face closure if such expansive restrictions were enforced.
Legal Basis and Policy Rationale
Sarma cited a specific Supreme Court judgment that he noted provides for an eco-sensitive zone ranging between one and three kilometers, serving as the foundational legal basis for the state government's current stance. The administration formally petitioned the Centre days prior to seek the one-kilometer limit, arguing that the measure would successfully permit construction and developmental projects in areas situated just outside the designated protected boundary, as highlighted in a report. This ongoing discourse continues to highlight the complex policy challenge of balancing wildlife conservation with the socio-economic requirements of fringe communities.
