The University of Science and Technology Meghalaya (USTM), one of the North-East’s most respected private universities, is now in the crosshairs of what increasingly looks like a politically engineered witch-hunt. The Supreme Court-appointed Central Empowered Committee (CEC) has recommended a mind-boggling ₹150.35 crore penalty against the university, accusing it of encroaching upon forest land. But strip away the official jargon and one finds a familiar script at play — where legal instruments are weaponized, central agencies co-opted, and environmental laws selectively applied, all in service of a political vendetta.
Himanta Biswa Sarma’s Obsession
At the heart of this saga lies Assam Chief Minister Himanta Biswa Sarma, a man who has built his brand on majoritarian swagger and hostility toward Muslim-led initiatives. Sarma has for years displayed an almost obsessive hatred for USTM. Though the university lies in Meghalaya and serves a broad, largely non-Muslim student body, he has repeatedly targeted it. He went so far as to announce that USTM graduates would not be eligible for employment in Assam. He has openly wished for the institution to be shut down.
The fact that the CEC is chaired by Chandra Prakash Goyal — a bureaucrat known to be close to Sarma — makes the committee’s move look less like neutral environmental oversight and more like a political hit job dressed up as forest protection. When the referee is seen dining with one team before the match, how can the game ever be fair?
The Playbook of Political Targeting
This is not an isolated incident. India has in recent years seen the rise of a cynical playbook: file a Public Interest Litigation, set up a committee, invoke environmental or land laws, and then unleash penalties designed not to regulate but to destroy. Minority-run institutions or opposition-linked entities often find themselves in the dock, while others with far worse violations escape scrutiny.
In USTM’s case, the CEC has gone beyond levying a fine. It has called for restoring the land to “normal forest” within a year and using the penalty to demolish what it calls “illegal structures.” This is not environmental regulation; this is institutional strangulation. It is an attempt to financially and physically erase an educational institution that dares to exist outside the ideological comfort zone of the ruling establishment.
USTM’s Real Crime: Being Muslim-Owned and Successful
USTM’s actual track record makes the attack all the more sinister. Founded in 2008, it is one of the few universities in the North-East accredited with an “A” grade by the National Assessment and Accreditation Council (NAAC). Far from being a sectarian project, nearly 80 percent of its students and faculty are non-Muslims, many from tribal and marginalized communities. For the people of Meghalaya, USTM has been a beacon of inclusive education, serving those historically denied access to quality institutions.
Its real “crime,” then, is not environmental violation but the audacity of being Muslim-founded, thriving, and inclusive in a political climate that sees Muslim-led success stories as threats rather than achievements.
Meghalaya’s Objections Brushed Aside
Adding to the farce, the Meghalaya government itself has challenged the CEC’s claims. The state pointed out that the land in question was classified by the Khasi Hills Autonomous District Council in 2007 as privately owned, not reserved forest. USTM insists it secured all necessary No Objection Certificates from state authorities before beginning construction. Yet, the CEC chose to rely almost entirely on Assam’s submissions — the very state led by USTM’s loudest critic.
This selective hearing of evidence reeks of bias. If the CEC were genuinely interested in facts, it would have given equal weight to Meghalaya’s clarifications. Instead, it seems to have taken Sarma’s hostility as gospel and delivered a penalty tailored to his political agenda.
Anger on the Ground
For students and faculty, the penalty is not just a legal matter — it is existential. A tribal student put it bluntly: “Since Sarma cannot send bulldozers here — because most of us are non-Muslims and the university is outside Assam — he is now using central agencies to choke us financially.”
The comment captures the mood on the ground. For many, this is not about compliance but about survival. If enforced, the fine could cripple USTM, jeopardizing the education of thousands and dismantling one of the region’s rare success stories in higher education.
Selective Enforcement and the Hypocrisy of Power
The CEC report also flagged rampant illegal mining and quarrying in Ri-Bhoi. But instead of focusing on those extractive industries — whose ecological footprint is far more damaging — it has trained its guns on an educational institution with state clearances and a proven record of service. Why? Because unlike anonymous miners, USTM is a visible, symbolic target.
This is selective enforcement at its most cynical. If destroying forests were truly the concern, quarries and mines would be the first to go. But the ruling establishment is less interested in saving trees than in uprooting institutions it sees as ideologically inconvenient.
The Larger Battle: Politics vs. Inclusivity
What is unfolding in Meghalaya is not just a dispute over land use. It is a test case for the survival of minority-led institutions in an increasingly majoritarian political environment. The targeting of USTM shows how easily environmental laws can be converted into weapons of political vendetta. It highlights a broader project of shrinking the space for inclusivity, diversity, and Muslim-led contributions to nation-building.
Whether the Supreme Court ultimately upholds or rejects the CEC’s recommendation is almost secondary. The damage is already done. The case has cast a long shadow over USTM’s reputation, demoralized its students and faculty, and sent a chilling message to other minority-founded institutions across India: No matter how inclusive or successful you are, you can be destroyed if you don’t fit the ruling party’s narrative.
From “Flood Jihad” to Institutional Strangulation
What began with Himanta Biswa Sarma’s reckless allegations of “flood Jihad” has now escalated into an institutional assault. This is not just about one university; it is about whether excellence and inclusivity can survive in an era of political vendetta.
If USTM falls, it will not be because of trees or laws, but because India’s ruling establishment could not stomach the idea of a Muslim-led university thriving in the North-East. That should alarm not just the university’s students but anyone who still believes education should be about knowledge, not politics of hate.
