Access pdf version - Asian Indigenous and Tribal Peoples Network

THE QUARTERLY JOURNAL OF ASIAN INDIGENOUS & TRIBAL PEOPLES NETWORK 

Choles Ritchil: An indigenous defender 

tortured to death 

India fails UN caste test 

Bio-dollars destroy Indonesia's biodiversity 

Vol. 2 • January-March 2007 • www.aitpn.org/irq.htm 

Peru: Summoned by CERD, ordered by 

IAHRC 

DeFeNDeRS 

WITHouT pRoTeCTIoN 

Permanent Forum 

and Special 

Rapporteur shy 

away from 

indigenous 

defenders

CONTENTS 

Editorial Collective: 

Asian Indigenous and Tribal Peoples 

Network is presently in the process of 

constituting an International Advisory 

Editorial Board of Indigenous Rights 

Quarterly. 

Submit articles/letters/news: 

Indigenous Rights Quarterly welcomes 

articles ranging from 1200 to 2000 

words. Any article submitted to the 

Indigenous Rights Quarterly must be 

exclusive - the article must not have been 

published or submitted to other 

publications. 

If you have news on indigenous issues, 

please send them to us for reporting 

under "Indigenous World" section of IRQ. 

You can also send comments,clarifications 

or letters to the articles published. 

IRQ reserves the right to edit with the 

final approval of the writers/authors. 

Subscriptions: 

Single copy: US$ 5 + postage 

Yearly: US$ 20 + postage 

Contacts: 

Articles for submission, letters to the 

editor or any query should be sent to the 

editor by email at: irq@aitpn.org 

EDITORIAL 

1 Defenders without Protection 

ASIA 

2 Choles Ritchil: An indigenous defender 

tortured to death 

4 Emergency in Bangladesh: Mayhem in 

the Chittagong Hill Tracts 

DOCUMENT 

7 Déjà Vu: 1 year after the Kalinganagar 

Massacre 

UNITED NATIONS 

10 India fails UN caste test 

10 CERD Committee's Recommendations 

INTERVIEW 

11 Interview with Mr. Subimal Bikash 

Chakma, President of CCRCAP 

POLICY 

14 A Critique of India's Draft National 

Rehabilitation Policy, 2006 

ENVIRONMENT 

16 Bio-dollars destroy Indonesia's biodiversity 

AFRICA 

18 Special Rapporteur on a Kenyan Safari 

LATIN AMERICA 

20 Ecuador: Key concerns of the Special 

Rapporteur 

INDIGENOUS WORLD 

22 Laos-Thailand: Hmongs escape abortive 

deportation 

22 Malaysia: Certifying extinction of 

indigenous peoples 

23 Brazil: Warned again! 

23 Nepal: Teach us federalism 

23 Peru: Summoned by CERD, ordered by 

IAHRC 

© Asian Indigenous and 

Tribal Peoples Network. All rights 

reserved. Reproduction is prohibited 

without the prior permission of AITPN. 

Asian Indigenous & Tribal Peoples Network 

P.O. Box 9627, Janakpuri, New Delhi - 58, India 

E-Mail: aitpn@aitpn.org Website: www.aitpn.org

Indigenous Rights Quarterly EDIT0RIAL 

Vol. 2 • Issue 1 • January-March 2007 1 

DEFENDERS WITHOUT PROTECTION 

Permanent Forum and Special Rapporteur shy away from indigenous defenders 

The torture to death of Mr Choles Ritchil, a prominent 

indigenous Garo leader in Modhupur of Bangladesh 

on 18 March 2007 brought to the fore the risks the 

indigenous rights defenders continue to face across the 

world. His only fault was opposing the establishment of an 

Eco-Park over 3,000 acres of land in Modhupur forest which 

will destroy identity and existence of 25,000 indigenous 

Garo people. Taking advantage of the state of emergency 

and atmosphere of fear, Choles was done away with forever. 

Across the border, Habel Koloi, 

Chairman of Borok Peoples Human 

Rights Organisation of Tripura State of 

India was released as we go to the print 

after incarceration in jail following his 

arrest on 26 October 2006. Koloi was, 

among others, charged with antiterrorism 

act, Unlawful Activities 

(Prevention) Act and waging war against 

the State. After having been granted bail 

by the court in all these charges, the 

authorities slapped him with detention 

notice under the National Security Act. 

Earlier, Umakanta Meiti of the 

Threatened Indigenous Peoples’ Society 

of Manipur of India who was arrested on 

23 August 2006 under the anti-terror law 

had to be released unconditionally 

because of the lack of evidence. 

Those who are alive are virtually the 

lucky ones. In Philippines, President 

Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo adopted 

execution of political opponents and 

human rights defenders as a State policy. 

Indigenous rights activists have been specifically targeted for 

opposing the policies and practices of the State to promote 

mining and other extractive industries in indigenous peoples’ 

territories. 

Asia is not alone. On 9 March 2007, Chairman of the 

United Nations Committee on the Elimination of All Forms 

of Racial Discrimination, expressed concerns about the 

allegations that the indigenous community leaders and persons 

who were supporting the action of Comision Juridica Para 

el Autodesarrollo de los Pueblos Originarios Andinos 

(CAPAJ), which had filed a complaint against Peru with the 

CERD Committee under its early warning system during 69th 

Permanent Forum on 

Indigenous Issues faces the 

crisis of “operationalising its 

mandate”. To paraphrase it 

more appropriately, PFII does 

not know what kind of UN 

creature it is. The Special 

Rapporteur’s intervention 

mostly remained confidential. 

The only news one can see at 

the OHCHR’s website relate 

to the country visits. The 

Special Rapporteur’s 

interventions therefore 

remained outdated, opaque, 

and generally useless. 

session, have been subjected to threats and intimidation. Peru 

has been asked to report by 1 July 2007. 

The reports of the United Nations Secretary General’s 

Special Representative on Human Rights Defenders 

highlight many of the risks faced by indigenous defenders. 

The pertinent question is what has been the role of the 

United Nations mechanisms dealing with the indigenous 

issues 

AITPN studied the report of the Special Rapporteur on 

human rights and fundamental freedoms 

of indigenous people on his “Mission to 

Ecuador” (A/HRC/4/32/Add.2 of 28 

December 2006). It is an excellent 

report. But the Special Rapporteur did 

not raise the issue of the lack of 

developments pertaining to the attempt 

of assassination of Leonidas Iza, 

President of Confederation of 

Indigenous Nationalities of Ecuador 

(CONAIE). On 1 February 2006, when 

Leonidas Iza had just arrived at the 

airport in Quito from Cuba, where he 

had taken part in a meeting against the 

Free Trade Area of the Americas, and 

when he and his family were getting out 

of a taxi outside the CONAIE office, 

two assassins shot at them. Iza escaped 

unharmed, but four of his relatives were 

injured. His 23 year-old son, Javier was 

seriously hurt and his wife, Josefina 

Anguisaca was hit on the face with a gun 

by one of the attackers. Inability to raise 

such issues is irksome to say the least! 

Almost in a similar fashion, General Secretary of Nepal 

Federation of Indigenous Nationalities (NEFIN), Ram 

Bahadur Thapa Magar was severely beaten up by hooligans 

while he was leading a group of indigenous activists to 

enforce the general strike called by NEFIN on 15 February 

2007 demanding federalism and proportionate 

representation in the Constituent Assembly. He was beaten 

up in front of the police, admitted to a hospital with head 

injuries but no arrest was made. As it was with Leonidas Iza, 

no one will ask any further question with regard to Ram 

Bahadur Thapa Magar. 

Contd. on pg 9

2 Indigenous Rights Quarterly ASIA 

Vol. 2 • Issue 1 • January-March 2007 

Choles Ritchil: 

An indigenous defender tortured to death 

The Telegraph, India 

4 April 2007 

On 18 March 2007, Mr Choles 

Ritchil, an indigenous Garo 

leader from Beribaid village was 

tortured to death in the custody of the 

joint forces of Bangladesh stationed at 

Khakraid under Modhupur Police 

Station, Tangail District. Asian Centre for 

Human Rights based in New Delhi drew 

international attention through its appeal 

to heads of the delegations (members and 

observers) participating in the 14th 

Summit of the South Asian Association 

for Regional Cooperation (SAARC) in 

New Delhi on 3-4 April 2007. 

Though deceased Ritchil’s wife, 

Sandha Rani Simsang, had filed a 

complaint with the Modhupur Police 

Station on 20 March 2007, no First 

Information Report (FIR) has been 

registered. Many NGOs in Bangladesh 

such as Ain o Salis Kendro, Bangladesh 

Environmental Lawyers Association 

(BELA), Bangladesh Legal Aid and 

Services Trust (BLAST), Association for 

Land Reform and Development 

(ALRD), Odhikar, Forum of 

Environmental Journalists of 

Bangladesh (FEJB), Centre for 

Sustainable Development (CFSD), 

Action Aid and Nijerakori demanded 

registration of the FIR. But, because of 

fear of reprisals from the joint forces, no 

further action has so far taken to 

approach the judiciary against the police 

for their failure to register the FIR. 

The caretaker government of 

Bangladesh has failed to take appropriate 

actions against the culprits. 

I. Repression against indigenous 

Garos and Choles Ritchil 

Mr Choles Ritchil hails from 

Beribaid village under Modhupur 

Upozila of Tangail District. Beribaid 

village is one of the oldest villages in the 

area established over 300 years ago. It 

presently has 82 Garo families with a 

population of 520 persons. Mr Ritchil 

was one of the prominent leaders of the 

Garo indigenous people in the area. 

In 2003, the government of 

Bangladesh announced a plan to create 

Choles Ritchil, an indigenous defender tortured to death by security forces 

A Bangladesh-based Garo 

tribal leader, Chalesh Ritchil, 

the Medha Patkar of the 

Modhupur reserve forest — 

was allegedly killed by “joint 

forces” comprising the army, 

Bangladesh Rifles and police 

two weeks back. 

Today, the Asian Centre 

for Human Rights, which 

has made the claim, appealed 

to the Meghalaya government 

to take up the incident with 

the Union Ministry of 

External Affairs 

an Eco-Park in Modhupur forest and 

started erecting a wall around 3,000 

acres of Modhupur forest without 

seeking the consent of the Garo people 

living in the area. About 25,000 

indigenous Garo people faced eviction 

because of the Eco-Park. On 3 January 

2004, thousands of Garo people staged a 

peaceful protest against the Eco-Park. At 

Jalabada village, the police and the forest 

guards resorted to indiscriminate firing, 

killing one Garo, Piren Snal on the spot 

and injuring 25 others including women 

and children. 

After the incident of 3 January 

2004, the Forest Department postponed 

implementation of the Eco-Park. But the 

officials subsequently filed more than 20 

false against the indigenous Garos.

Indigenous Rights Quarterly ASIA 


Mr Choles Ritchil, who was one of 

prominent indigenous leaders to oppose 

the Eco-Park, was also implicated in all 

these false cases. 

After the declaration of the state of 

emergency on 11 January 2007, the Forest 

Department officials restarted the 

construction of the controversial boundary 

wall for the Eco-Park. Indigenous Garos 

under the leadership of Mr Choles Ritchil 

again protested. The Forest Department 

had to suspend the construction of the wall 

but this had further enraged the Forest 

Department officials. 

On 10 February 2007, the Joint 

Forces personnel including Warrant 

Officer Jamal, 2nd Lt. Minhaj, Sergeant 

Shahadat raided Beribaid village in search 

of Mr Choles Ritchil. Not finding Mr 

Ritchil, the Joint Forces personnel 

detained Mr Protab Jamble, Mr Biswajit 

Simsang, 10th grade student (son of Mr 

Ritchil), Mr. Prem Kumar Sangma, 10th 

grade student, Mr Nosil Ritchil, a 

relative of Mr Ritchil and Nokul Chandra 

Burman working at Choles Ritchil’s 

house. All of them were beaten 

mercilessly and had to be given medical 

treatment at Health Complex, Modhupur 

from 11 to 13 February 2007. 

II. Arrest of Mr Choles Ritchil on 

18 March 2007 

At about 1:30 pm on 18 March 

2007, Mr Choles Ritchil was arrested by 

a group of 6 plainclothes personnel 

belonging to the Joint Forces at Kalibari 

under Muktagacha Upozila. Mr Ritchil 

was coming from Mymensingh town in 

a microbus accompanied by 3 

indigenous persons namely Mr Piren 

Simsang, Mr Tuhin Hadima and Mr 

Protab Jamble. 

Following their arrest, the Joint 

Forces personnel made telephone calls 

and about 40 law enforcement personnel 

in two lorries arrived. The security forces 

took them to nearby Khakraid army 

camp at about 2:00pm. 

In the army camp, while Mr Choles 

Ritchil and Mr Protab Jamble were in 

kept one room, Mr Piren Simsang and 

Mr Tuhin Hadima were taken to 

another room. 

III. Torture to death of Mr Choles 

Ritchil 

According to the eye-witnesses 

(names withheld for security reasons), 

Mr Choles Ritchil was tied to the grill of 

a window and mercilessly beaten by nine 

law enforcement personnel. 

At one stage Major Toufic Elahi 

entered the room and ordered the junior 

officers “to size up Choles”. Torture 

became more brutal. 

The Joint Forces personnel used 

pliers to press the testicles of Mr Choles 

Ritchil and put needle on his fingers. 

They poured hot water into his nostrils. 

He was then was hanged upside down 

and brutally tortured. He vomited blood 

again and again and fainted many times. 

At one point of time, one physician in 

uniform accompanied by Mojor Toufic 

Elahi came into the room. Mr Choles 

Ritchil was taken out of the army camp. 

Some of those who tortured Mr 

Chales Ritchil were identified as Warrant 

Officer Jamal, 2nd Lt. Minhaj, Sergeant 

Shahadat and Major Toufiq Elahi. 

The New Age, Bangladesh, 

5 April 2007 

Thousands of tribal people in 

India’s northeastern state of 

Meghalaya staged demonstrations 

to protest against the ‘killing’ of 

Choles Ritchil....Ritchil’s death was 

made public in India by a Delhibased 

rights group, Asian Centre for 

Human Rights. 

All other detainees i.e. Mr Protab 

Jamble, Mr Piren Simsang and Mr Tuhin 

Hadima too were tortured. While Mr 

Piren Simsang and Mr Tuhin Hadima 

were released at about 5 pm on 18 

March 2007, Mr Protab Jamble was 

released from Khakraid army camp at 

about 10 pm on the same day, as he was 

given medical treatment because of 

severe torture. 

IV. Evidence of torture 

Mr Ritchil’s dead body was handed 

over by the Superintendent of Police 

(officiating) of Tangail District and the 

Assistant Superintendent of Police of 

Gopalpur Circle of Tangail District to 

Ms. Jita Ritchil (aunt of Mr Ritchil), and 

Kholes Ritchil (elder brother of Mr 

Choles Ritchil) along with Rev. Father 

S. Tolentino and other indigenous 

leaders at about 2:00 pm at the Jalchatra 

Corpus Christi Church compound on 19 

March 2007. 

Mr Ritchil’s burial took place at 

Beribaid village at about 1 pm on 20 

March 2007. 

As per religious customs, Choles 

Ritchil’s dead body was given a bath 

before the burial. Those who performed 

the religious bath (name withheld for 

safety reasons) reported the following 

torture marks: 

“Choles’s two eyes plucked, testicles 

removed, anus mutilated, two hand 

palms smashed , nails of 3 fingers of the 

right hand removed, left hand thump 

finger nail removed, two palms had 

holes, upper right hand had severe 

would, several blood stains on the back 

part of the body, in both thighs middle 

part there had been two holes, back part 

of the body had several black marks, 

several deep marks of wounds on both 

lower legs, there had been black marks 

on feet, no nail on thump of right foot, 

all fingers of two hands were broken.” 

Mr Choles Ritchil is survived by his 

wife Sandha Rani Simsang (28), son 

Biswajit Simsang (15) and three 

daughters: Priyanka Simsang (13), 

Konka Simsang (10) and Tiromoni 

Simsang (6). On 20 March 2007, Choles 

Ritchil’s wife Sandha Simsang had filed a 

complaint at the Modhupur Police 

Station but till date, Modhupur Police 

station has not registered any case. •



Emergency in Bangladesh: 

Mayhem in the Chittagong Hill Tracts 

On 11 January 2007, state of 

emergency was declared in 

Bangladesh. 1 Initially, there had 

been euphoria among the masses as the 

Caretaker government began to crack its 

whip on corrupt politicians and curb 

crimes. But the army-backed Caretaker 

Government went too far and has 

become the law unto itself. It has taken 

over the powers and functions of the 

legislature, the executive and the judiciary. 

According to a human rights group, 

Odhikar, 50 persons were killed by the 

security forces and 95,825 persons were 

arrested under the Bangladesh 

Emergency Power Rules of 2007 

between 12 January and 12 March 2007. 2 

The indigenous Jumma people of 

the Chittagong Hill Tracts (CHTs), who 

have already been victims of the 

government’s “ethnic cleansing policy”, 

are the worst victims of the state of 

emergency. The emergency has been 

used as an excuse to increase military 

operations and oppressions against the 

indigenous of Jumma peoples. The 

security forces have let loose a reign of 

terror. 

i. Political repression 

On 9 March 2007, Home Ministry 

of the Caretaker government banned 

“indoor politics”. In effect, this means 

that holding discussion on legal aid to 

the arrested persons in the bedrooms 

may tantamount to “indoor politics”. In 

CHTs, the joint forces 3 have been 

conducting massive military operations 

on a war footing, arresting, torturing 

and intimidating indigenous political 

activists, especially under Section 54 of 

Bangladesh Criminal Procedure Code 

which gives unrestricted power to the 

police to arrest any one without a 

warrant. Several indigenous political 

activists have been arbitrarily arrested, 

tortured, and sent to jails on false 

charges. The Parbatya Chattagram Jana 

Samhati Samiti (PCJSS), a political 

organization of the indigenous peoples, 

in its website has stated that it has not 

been able to update its website “due to 

state of emergency”. The stamp of 

emergency on enjoyment of political 

rights by the indigenous peoples is 

evident! 

The activists of both the Parbatya 

Chattagram Jana Samhati Samiti 

(PCJSS) and United People’s 

Democratic Front (UPDF) - two 

indigenous Jumma political 

organisations - have been targeted. 

The security forces arbitrarily arrested 

the following activists of PCJSS:- 

1. Bikram Marma, President of Kaptai 

upazila branch of PCJSS arrested 

from his house at Chandraghona 

Christian Missionary Hospital area 

under Rangunia upazila in 

Chittagong district at the midnight 

of 4 February 2007; 

2. Sai Mong Marma, Organising 

Secretary of Kaptai upazila branch 

of PCJSS arrested from his house at 

Raikhali under Kaptai upazila in 

Rangamati district at the midnight 

of 11 February 2007; 

3. Balabhadra Chakma alias Pranjal, 

Vice President of Dighinala upazila 

branch of PCJSS arrested at 

Mahajan Para in Khagrachari on 5 

March 2007; 

4. Manubha Ranjan Chakma, 

President of Baghaichari upazila 

branch of PCJSS arrested by the 

Bangladesh Rifles in Baghaichari 

upazila in Rangamati district on 5 

March 2007; 

5. Satyabir Dewan arrested under 

Kotowali police station of 

Rangamati District on 18 February 

2007; 

6. Bimal Kanti Chakma arrested under 



2007; 

7. Ranjit Kumar Dewan arrested 

under Kotowali police station of 


2007; 

8. Udayjoy Chakma arrested under 



2007; and 

9. Mayachan Chakma arrested under 



2007. 

The following activists of United 

People’s Democratic Front (UPDF) 

were arrested by the army and sent to 

jail on false charges: - 

1. Dotang Chakma alias Dogong of 

village Uttor Bongol Toli under 

Baghaichari of Rangamati district 

was arrested from Machalong 

Bazaar on 9 February 2007 and sentenced 

to two years rigorous imprisonment 

and imposed a fine of Taka 

1,000 by a local court; 

2. Bipulaksh Chakma was arrested 

from Padachari village in Rangamati 

district on 10 February 2007; 

3. Kalo Priya Chakma was arrested 

from Gurgujjyachari village in 

Khagrachari district on the night of 

10 March 2006; 

4. Milon Kanti Chakma, son of Biddut 

Kanti Chakma of Borpara village 

under Panchari Thana in 

Khagrachari district arrested from 

Gurgujjyachari village under

Indigenous Rights Quarterly ASIA 



the night of 10 March 2007 and was 

sent to Khagrachari district jail 

under the Arms Act; 

5. Arpan Chakma was arrested in 

Naniachar under Rangamati district 

on 21 March 2007 and sent to 

Rangamati district jail under Arms 

Act 

6. Dixton Chakma was arrested in 




Act 

7. Shokta Chakma was arrested in 




Act; 

8. Biddut Chakma was arrested from 

Bermachari under Lakshmichari 

Upazilla (sub-district) in 

Khagrachari district on 28 March 


9. Bipin Bihari Chakma was arrested 

from his house at Korollyachari village 

under Massyochara in 


31 March 2007 and was sent to 

Khagrachari jail on false charges. 

ii. Killings, torture and destruction 

of properties of Jummas 

The poor and helpless Jumma 

villagers have been easy prey of the 

Bangladesh army personnel. 

a. Killings and torture 

At least two Jumma villagers have 

been arrested and subsequently killed by 

the army personnel from Ghilachari 

camp under Naniachar zone in 

Rangamati district. The victims were: - 

1. Suresh Chakma, aged 45 years, S/o 

Phedera Chakma, arrested from his 

house at Choichari village in 

Rangamati district on 28 February 

2007 and died due to torture on 29 

February 2007; and 

2. Suresh Mohan Chakma, S/o 

Phedera Chakma of Choichari village, 

arrested illegally on 3 March 

2007 and died due to torture on 7 

March 2007 

When the Bangladesh army 

personnel failed to evict 

indigenous peoples from 

more than 62 villages under 

Sualok and Tangkabati 

Unions in Bandarban Hill 

District, they picked up their 

leader, Mr Ranglai Mro, who 

was brutally tortured. 

The following innocent Jumma peoples 

were tortured during military 

operations: - 

1. Jatna Chakma, aged 25 years, S/o 

Kalingkor Chakma at Moantola village, 

Rangamati on 2 February 

2007; 

2. Jibolal Chakma, aged 26 years, S/o 

Nanda Mohan Chakma at Moantola 

village on 2 February 2007; 

3. Prassanna Kumar Chakma, aged 20 

years, S/o Kalachula Chakma at 

Moantola village on 2 February 

2007; 

4. Chikkannya Chakma, aged 45 years 

at Moantola village on 2 February 

2007; 

5. Rabinoy Chakma, aged 20 yearrs, 

S/o Chikkannya Chakma at 


2007; 

6. Sobinoy Chakma, aged 17 years, 

S/o Chikkannya Chakma at 


2007 

7. Banshi Mohan Chakma, aged 45 

years, S/o Brigu Lal Chakma at 

Moantala village on 2 February 

2007 

8. Ms Milabo Chakma, aged 35 years, 

W/o Kana Mohan Chakma at 

Choichari village in Rangamati district 

on 2 February 2007; 

9. Battya Moni Chakma, aged 45 

years, S/o Mon Kumar Chakma at 

Ghilachari Moddyo Para village in 


2007; 

10. Badhi Dhan Chakma, aged 45 

years, S/o Egannya Chakma of 

Ghilachari village who was tortured 

in custody on 8 February 2007; 

11. Bhugulukkya Chakma, aged 11 

years, S/o Sumati Kumar Chakma at 

Ghilachari Upor Para village in 


2007; 

12. Abullya Chakma, aged 25 years, S/o 

Banshi Mohan Chakma at Baamay 

village, Rangamati district on 23 

February 2007; 

13. Toronesh Chakma, aged 27 years, 

S/o Jotish Chakma at Baamay 

Bogachari village in Rangamati district 

on 23 February 2007; 

14. Gulakana Chakma, aged 18 years, 

S/o Gopal Chakma of Larma Para 

village in Naniachar on 27 February 


15. Kedera Chakma, aged 25 years, S/o 

Gopal Chakma of Larma Para village 

in Naniachar on 27 February 

2007; 

b. Destruction of properties 

Properties of many Jummas were 

destroyed but no compensation has been 

paid to the victims. During a military 

operation at Ghilachari para village in 

Rangamati district on 2 February 2007, 

army personnel from Ghilachari camp 

under Naniachar zone in Rangamati 

district burnt down seven Jhum huts 

belonging to the following Jummas: - 

1. Shoilendu Chakma, aged 27 years, 

S/o Gyana Bikash Chakma, 

2. Mongol Buddha Chakma, 28 years, 

S/o Karuna Mohan Chakma, 

3. Hulu Chakma, 26 years, S/o 

Lakshmi Dhar Chakma, 

4. Moni Chakma, 23 years, S/o 

Lakshmi Dhar Chakma;



5. Medela Chakma, 38 years, S/o Soyo 

Mohan Chakma, 

6. Joy Dhan Chakma, 68, S/o late 

Basanta Chakma; 

7. Lakshmi Dhar Chakma, 45 years, 

S/o Kiron Dhan Chakma 

c. Imprisonment on false charges 

A large number of innocent Jumma 

civilians have been sent to jails on false 

charges. The victims included: - 

1. Balaram Chakma, aged 60 years, 

S/o Bokkya Chakma, arrested from 

his house at Hazachari village 

Khagrachari district on 21 February 

2007 and sent to Khagrachari jail 

2. Bijoy Mohan Chakma, aged 25 

years, S/o Kina Ram Chakma, 

arrested from his house at 

Hazachari village Khagrachari district 

on 21 February 2007 and sent 

to Khagrachari jail 

3. Bimal Chakma, aged 25 years, S/o 

Kala Dhan Chakma, arrested from 

his house at Hazachari village 

Khagrachari district on 21 February 

2007 and sent to Khagrachari jail; 

4. Ono Bikash Chakma, aged 28 years, 

S/o Karuna Mohan Chakma, arrested 

from his house at Ghilachari Para 

village in Rangamati district on 23 

February 2007 and sent to 

Rangamati jail; 

5. Panchanon Chakma, aged 52 years, 

chairman of Naniachar Union 

Parishad, who was arrested on 3 

March 2007 and sent to Rangamati 

jail; 

6. Bimal Kanti Chakma, aged 35 

years, member of No. 7 Ward of 

Dullytoli Union Parishad, arrested 


Khagrachari jail. 

7. Roti Mohan Chakma, aged 36 

years, member of No.6 Ward of 

Dullyatoli Union Parishad, arrested 


Khagrachari jail. 

8. Ram Krishna Chakma, 34 years, 

resident of Kajamachara village, 

arrested on 22 March 2007 and sent 

to Khagrachari jail. 

9. Anil Karbari, S/o Dhamajjya 

Chakma of Kajamachara village in 

Dullyatoli, arrested on 22 March 

2007 and sent to Khagrachari jail. 

iii. Repression against indigenous 

peoples’ NGOs 

Even the indigenous people’s civil 

society organizations have not been 

spared. On 27 February 2007, District 

Social Welfare Department of 

Khagrachari district issued a notice to 

Trinamul Unnayan Sangstha (TUS), a 

non-governmental organisation run by 

indigenous peoples to stop all its 

activities on the charges that it is 

involved in “anti-state and anti-people’s 

interest activities”. The notice was issued 

under sub-section 2 (Ma) of the 

Emergency Power Rules 2007. Subsection 

2 (Ma) says that it may be 

applicable for “political party, trade 

union, club or samity (society)”. The 

authorities did not specify what “antistate 

and anti-people’s interest activities” 

have been committed by the TUS. Nor 

has the TUS representatives were called 

for any explanation before the notice 

was issued. 

iv. Continued forcible evictions 

Forcible evictions of the indigenous 

Jumma peoples continue unabated. In a 

latest case of forcible eviction of 

indigenous peoples from their land, the 

Bangladesh army has asked the villagers 

of more than 62 villages under Sualok 

and Tangkabati Unions in Bandarban 

Hill District, predominantly inhabited 

by Mro indigenous communities, to 

vacate the villages. The Bangladesh army 

had earlier filed an eviction suit in the 

court of Deputy Commissioner of 

Bandarban for eviction of the villagers of 

these 62 villages on 16 November 2006 

but the Deputy Commissioner’s Court is 

yet to pass any eviction order. Before the 

Deputy Commissioner could decide on 

the issue, in order to force the Mros, Mr 

Ranglai Mro, a prominent leader of the 

Mros, was arrested from his residence in 

Bandarban on 23 February 2007 on the 

false charges of possessing illegal arms 

and grabbing of land. He had to be 

admitted in the Chittagong Medical 

College hospital with injuries. No one 

was given access to Mr Ranglai Mro and 

the NGOs are being denied access to the 

villages which were facing imminent 

threat of forcible eviction. 

v. No religious freedom 

Religious freedom is severely 

restricted in the CHTs. On 10 January 

2007 at around 10 pm, a group of army 

personnel from Lakshimichari zone in 

Khagrachari district reportedly harassed 

a Buddhist monk, Rev. Sharadhatissyo 

Bhikkhu, the chief priest of Aryo Mitra 

Bouddha Vihara in Lakshmirchari. The 

soldiers surrounded the temple and 

interrogated the monk about another 

Buddhist monk, Rev. Nanda Bhikku, 

who had earlier in the day delivered a 

sermon during a religious ceremony 

conducted at the temple. 4 

Sadly, international community has 

so far remained a mute witness to the 

deteriorating human rights situation in 

Bangladesh. This only strengthens 

military interventions in South Asia or 

elsewhere. If international community 

fails to make strong interventions, the 

situation will further deteriorate • 

Endnotes : 

1. Emergency declared; Iajuddin quits as chief 

adviser, The Daily Star, Bangladesh, 12 

January 2007 

2. ‘50 killed by law enforcers during emergency’, 

The Daily Star, 14 March 2007, 

http://www.thedailystar.net/2007/03/14/d703 

140629103.htm 

3. Joint forces consist of Bangladesh army, 

police and other para-military forces 

4. Army harass Buddhist monk in 

Lakshmichari, CHT NEWS NO. 12/2007, 

Human Rights Monitoring Cell of United 

Peoples’ Democratic Front, 18 January 

2007

Indigenous Rights Quarterly DOCUMENT 


Déjà Vu: 1 year after the Kalinganagar Massacre 

On 2 January 2006, 14 Adivasis, 

indigenous peoples, were shot 

dead in the indiscriminate use 

of fire-arms by the Orissa Police at 

Kalinga Nagar in Jajpur district of 

Orissa, India. The victims were 

protesting against the establishment of a 

plant by the Tata Iron and Steel Co Ltd 

on their lands. 

On the fateful day, the Tata Iron and 

Steel Co Ltd (TISCO or TATAs) with 

the help of the district administration 

undertook the levelling of the land 

where its plant was to come up at 

Kalinga Nagar under Jajpur district of 

Orissa. According to a report by factfinding 

team of Peoples Union for Civil 

Liberties, about 300-400 Adivasis, 

indigenous peoples, from Chandia, 

Gobarghati, Ambagadia, Baragadia and 

Namduburi villages assembled to 

protest. The demonstrators included 

women and children and some of them 

were carrying bows and arrows - a 

customary practice of the Adivasis. 

The State government reportedly 

deployed about 10 platoons comprising 

around 300 policemen. 

When the leveling work started, the 

Adivasi protestors wanted to enter the 

rope cordon. The police tried to stop 

them and used ‘stun shells’ along with 

tear gas shells and rubber bullets. Later, 

in the melee, one of the policemen 

identified as Gopabandhu Mohanty 

slipped and fell into the hands of the 

fleeing tribals and was killed by the 

angry crowd. 

Following the killing of Mr 

Mohanty, other policemen ran amok in 

order to avenge the killing. They fired 

indiscriminately and killed 14 Adivasis. 

The senior officials present did nothing 

to stop them. The firing occurred in the 

presence of District Collector, Saswat 

Mishra and Superintendent of Police, 

Binoytosh Mishra. 

While six Adivasis were killed on 

the spot on 2 Janaury 2006, six others 

succumbed to their injuries while 

undergoing treatment on 3 January 

2006. Shyam Gagrai succumbed to 

bullet injuries on 11 March 2006 at All 

India Institute of Medical Sciences in 

New Delhi and Sanjoy Soy succumbed 

later. 

Two of the 14 tribals killed in the 

clash were reportedly shot in the back, 

apparently while trying to flee. Two 

others were shot in the forehead from 

point-blank range. At least one was 

killed by iron object, not bullet. 

a. Acts of barbarism: Chopping 

off the palms and mutilation of 

the genitals 

In an act of barbarism, five bodies 

handed over to the relatives after post 

mortem had their palms chopped off 

from their wrists. The doctors at Jajpur 

hospital sought to justify chopping off 

the hands on the ground that they had 

cut off the palms to take fingerprints as 

the faces had been completely disfigured 

by bullets. The consent of the relatives of 

the deceased was not taken. 

The Superintendent of Police of 

Jajpur, Mr Binaytosh Mishra described 

the chopping off the palms as a 

“standard procedure”. “The hands had 

become stiff and were thus unsuitable 

for taking fingerprints. The doctors 

chopped the wrist and put them in a 

saline solution to bring them to a proper 

shape for taking the fingerprints. In the 

case of unidentified bodies, doctors do 

this” - stated Mr Mishra. 

In addition, relatives of the six 

victims taken for post mortem alleged 

before the Organisation for the 

Protection of Democratic Rights that 

the genital organs of all six, including a 

woman, had been chopped off or 

mutilated during post mortem. 

The State government ordered 

suspension of three senior doctors, Head 

of the Department of Anaesthesia, Dr 

Bibekananda Swain; Head of the 

Department of Surgery, Dr Shantanu 

Kumar Sahu; and Head of the 

Department of Orthopaedics, Dr Anup 

Kumar Nathsharma, who had 

performed the post mortem. But no 

action was taken against any police 

officials. On 15 January 2006, the state 

government reportedly urged the Orissa 

Human Rights Commission to probe 

the alleged mutilation of private parts of 

the dead tribals. 

On 6 January 2006, the state 

government transferred the Jajpur 

district collector Saswat Mishra and 

Superintendent of Police Binaytosh 

Mishra. 

Many of the victims were brutally 

killed. On 24 June 2006, the judicial 

commission headed by Mr Justice AS 

Naidu of Orissa High Court probing the 

2 January police firing sent a piece of 

iron object which was retrieved from the 

neck of one of the victims for forensic 

test. The iron object was retrieved from

8 Indigenous Rights Quarterly DOCUMENT 


The list of the victims is given below: 

S N. Name Age Gender Village Place of Death Date of Death 

1 Bhagaban Soy 25 M Gobarghati Police Custody 3rd Jan’ 06 

2 Govinda Laguri 12 M Bamiagotha Police Firing 2nd Jan 06 

(7th Class Student) 

at Champa Koila 

3 Mukta Bankira 30 F Chandia Police Custody 3rd Jan 06 

4 Ramachandra Jamuda 36 M Bamiagotha SCB Medical, Cuttack 2nd Jan 06 

5 Landu Jarika 29 M Bamiagotha Police Custody 3rd Jan 06 

6 Deogi Tiria 28 F Champa Koila Police Firing 2nd Jan 06 

7 Bana Badara 35 M Gadpur Police Custody 3rd Jan 06 

8 Ati Jamuda 32 M Chandia Police Custody 3rd Jan 06 

9 Rama Gagarai 35 M Gadpur Police Custody 3rd Jan 06 

10 Sudam Barla 50 M Belahuri Police Firing 2nd Jan 06 

11 Janga Jarika 27 F Bamiagotha Police Firing 2nd Jan 06 

12 Rangalal Munduya 40 M Baligotha SCB Medical, Cuttack 2nd Jan 06 

13 Shyam Gagrai 35 M AIIMS, New Delhi 11th Mar 06 

14 Sanjoy Soy Unknown 

the victim’s neck during the postmortem 

examination at the community 

health centre at Danagadi in Jajpur 

district. The post mortem report 

certified that the object was not a bullet. 

b. The issue of justice: Judicial 

Commission of Inquiry 

On 3 January 2006, the Orissa 

government declared a judicial probe 

into the police firing on the Adivasis. 

The official notification appointing 

Justice A S Naidu of Orissa High Court 

as the head of the Judicial Commission 

of Inquiry was issued on 23 February 

2006. 

Two more tribals - Shyam Gagrai 

and Sanjoy Soy - injured in the police 

firing had died after the issuance of the 

notification of the judicial commission 

of inquiry. On 6 May 2006, Justice AS 

Naidu Commission had to adjourn 

hearing till 9 June 2006 because of the 

failure of the Orissa State government to 

issue a notification to bring the death of 

these two tribals under the purview of 

the inquiry commission. 

On 13 June 2006, the Inquiry 

Commission visited the district hospital 

at Jajpur where the post mortems of the 

slain tribals were conducted and 

summoned the three suspended doctors 

and the Chief District Medical Officer. 

On 14 June 2006, the Inquiry 

Commission met the tribal 

representatives at Kalinga Nagar. 

In August 2006, the Justice Naidu 

Commission sought extension of its 

tenure. It could not complete the 

inquiry because of the apathy of the 

State government. 

Earlier, on 15 October 2006, while 

deposing before the Justice AS Naidu 

Commission of Inquiry, Superintendent 

of Police, Mr Binoytosh Mishra 

defended the police action. He claimed 

that the agitators had ‘fiercely’ attacked 

the policemen with axes, bows and 

arrows. However, a fact finding team of 

Peoples’ Union for Civil Liberties 

(PUCL) in its report stated that all the 

four injured policemen - Shri R.R. 

Naupani, Shri B.S. Gerung, Shri 

Asbahadur Gum and Shri H.B. Newarundergoing 

treatment at Medical 

College Hospital, Cuttack “suffered 

injuries caused by lathis. There was no 

sign of injuries caused by arrow”. 

The Commission of Inquiry is yet 

to submit the report. 

c. Controversial compensation 

Following the massacre, on 3 

January 2006 the State Chief Minister 

Naveen Patnaik announced a meagre exgratia 

of Rs 1 lakh to immediate kin of 

each of the deceased and free medical 

expenses to those injured in the police 

firing. The compensation package 

further added insult to the injuries. 

Later, Chief Minister announced to 

further increase the ex-gratia to 5 lakh to 

family members of each firing victims, 

while an ex-gratia of Rs 50,000 to each 

injured person besides bearing all the 

expenses of their treatment. Moreover, 

Chief Minister Patnaik promised a job in 

the government offices or public 

enterprises to an adult member from 

each bereaved family. 

However, the kin of all the 13 

police firing victims, under the banner of 

Vistapan Virodhi Janamanch, had 

rejected the government’s offer of exgratia. 

Only Ms Sukumari Gagarai, a 

relative of one of the victims, Mr Rama 

Gagarai of Gadpur village was given Rs 

5 lakh on 6 July 2006. She was also 

given the job of attendant at the primary 

health centre at Rabana in the Kalinga 

Nagar Industrial complex area and the 

government reportedly agreed to bear 

the educational expenses of the two 

illiterate sons of the slain Rama Gagarai. 

However, the Vistapan Virodhi 

Janamanch alleged that Ms Sukumari 

was kidnapped by the members of the 

Sukinda Surakshya Samity, formed at the 

behest of the local legislator and Finance 

Minister, Mr Prafulla Chandra Ghadai 

and was forced to receive the ex-gratia

Indigenous Rights Quarterly DOCUMENT 


compensation from the district 

administration. 

d. Lessons Not Learnt: Kalinga 

Nagar Industrial Area Vs Orissa 

Resettlement and Rehabilitation 

Policy 2006 

The state government of Orissa has 

reportedly been preparing a master plan 

for Kalinga Nagar with the help of 

South Africa-based Lea Associates, 

School of Planning and Architecture, 

New Delhi and the Centre for 

Environment and Planning. As per the 

draft plan released in 2006, the Kalinga 

Nagar Industrial Area (KNIA) will be 

extended to 134 villages. About 10-lakh 

hectare land will be acquired by the 

government in a phased manner for the 

development of the area. According to 

the draft plan, 68 square kilometers out 

of the total area will be reserved for town 

planning. About 89 square kilometers 

will be earmarked for industrial units 

while 20 square kilomters will be 

reserved for development of different 

infrastructure including bus stand, 

hotels, schools and hospital. The State 

Government decided to shift the District 

Industries Centre (DIC) from Jajpur to 

Kalinga Nagar and establish Kalinga 

Nagar Development Authority. 

In May 2006, the State government 

adopted the Orissa Rehabilitation and 

Resettlement Policy 2006 to address the 

historical injustices against the displaced 

persons, mainly the Adivasis. The Policy 

has identified displacement by six types 

of projects: Industrial Projects; Mining 

Projects; Irrigation Projects, National 

Parks and Sanctuaries; Urban and Linear 

Projects; and any other projects. 

Employment is guaranteed to an eligible 

member from each displaced family in 

cases of displacement by Industrial and 

Mining projects. For Industrial Projects 

and Mining Projects, one time cash 

assistance can be up to maximum of Rs 

5 lakhs for displaced families who have 

The kin of all the 13 police 

firing victims under the 

banner of Vistapan Virodhi 

Janamanch rejected the 

government’s offer of exgratia. 

Only Ms Sukumari 

Gagarai, a relative of one of 

the victims, accepted Rs 5 

lakh on 6 July 2006, allegedly 

under duress. 

lost all land including homestead land. 

Provision for granting of free homestead 

land of 1/10th acre in the resettlement 

habitat to each displaced family is 

“subject to availability” of land. In lieu 

of the homestead land, Rs 50,000 shall 

be given. The Policy also provides for 

house building assistance of Rs 1.5 lakh 

for each displaced family. Furthermore, a 

monthly maintenance allowance of Rs 

2,000 is to be provided to each displaced 

family for one year. The Policy gives 

special benefits to displaced tribal and 

indigenous families, including 

preferential allotment of land. 

Following the adoption of the 

Orissa Rehabilitation and Resettlement 

Policy 2006, the Tata Steel reportedly 

started implementing the same and 

provided jobs to 29 displaced from 

Kalinga Nagar, who were trained in 

welding technology by the steel 

company. As on 22 November 2006, 

more than 300 affected families were 

relocated from Kalinga Nagar industrial 

area. According to a release issued by 

Tata Steel, displaced families would be 

allotted 1/10th acre of land. Each family 

will get Rs 1.5 lakh for building houses 

and a maintenance allowance of Rs 

2,000 per month for one year. 

The Orissa Rehabilitation and 

Resettlement Policy 2006 cannot address 

the root causes of the dispossession of the 

Adivasis in the state. 

• 

Editorial... Contd. from pg 1 

Permanent Forum on Indigenous 

Issues faces a crisis of “operationalising its 

mandate”. Its members cannot decide 

whether they should act as part of the UN 

Secretariat to coordinate the activities of 

the UN agencies on indigenous issues, of 

course, without requisite secretariat 

assistance and funds or like the UN 

independent expert bodies to intervene in 

some urgent cases of violations. 

During its fifth session, PFII failed 

to censure Bangladesh for threatening 

indigenous leaders for their oral 

interventions at the 4th session 

demanding implementation of the 

Chittagong Hill Tracts Peace Accord. 

The fact that H.E. Ambassador Dr. 

Iftekhar Ahmed Chowdhury, who was 

serving as the Permanent Representative 

of Bangladesh during the 4th session of 

PFII has been appointed as de facto and 

de jure Foreign Minister of the military 

backed caretaker government of 

Bangladesh and that a warning has been 

sent by torturing Choles Ritchil to death, 

indigenous activists from Bangladesh 

better watch out at the 6th session! 

There is a general tendency among 

the UN mechanisms dealing with 

indigenous issues to reduce “indigenous 

issues” to economic and social rights, in 

particular land, natural resources and 

extractive industries, or to anthropological 

and environmental issues. These 

are fundamental for survival of indigenous 

peoples. But, often enjoyment of civil and 

political rights – which are taken as 

guaranteed in Europe, North America or 

Australasia - is crucial to demand 

implementation of these ESCR rights in 

Latin America, Asia and Africa. Without 

the right to life and the right to freedom of 

association and assembly, indigenous 

leaders or defenders cannot raise the issues 

central to their survival. States will remain 

States but Indigenous Rights Quarterly 

expects the UN expert and expert bodies 

to understand specificities and intervene. •

10 Indigenous Rights Quarterly UNITED NATIONS 


India fails UN caste test 

By - Suhas Chakma, Director, Asian Centre for Human Rights 

(The article was first published in 

The Asian Age, New Delhi, 22 March 

2007) 

On 23 and 26 February this year, 

after examination of India's 

16th to 19th periodic reports 

on the implementation of the United 

Nations Convention on the Elimination 

of All Forms of Racial Discrimination, 

the United Nations Experts Committee 

on the said Convention (known as 

CERD Committee) reaffirmed that 

"discrimination based on 'descent' 

includes discrimination against members 

of communities based on forms of social 

stratification such as caste and analogous 

systems of inherited status which nullify 

or impair their equal enjoyment of 

human rights". The UN CERD 

Committee therefore held that 

"discrimination based on the ground of 

caste" falls within its mandate. 

Having ratified the International 

Convention on the Elimination of All 

Forms of Racial Discrimination in 

December 1968, among others, to 

combat discrimination at national level, 

India has held unjustifiable position that 

the Convention is not applicable to 

India. So during the examination of the 

periodic reports in February 2007, the 

representatives of the government of 

India tried in vain to keep discrimination 

against the Scheduled Castes and 

Scheduled Tribes out of the purview of 

the CERD Committee. They failed to 

do so but ended up making the CERD 

Committee issue one of the longest 

recommendations ever made. 

Aggression and arrogance are not 

necessarily the best tools to deal with 

UN independent experts. 

In its report, India stated that it was 

providing the report "as a matter of 

courtesy" and not because discrimination 

against the Scheduled Castes and 

Scheduled Tribes falls under the purview 

of the UN CERD Committee. When 

Professor Dipankar Gupta, a member of 

the Indian delegation, called Mr. José 

Augusto Lindgren Alves, one of the UN 

experts, a "rubble rouser" at the 

concluding session on 26 February 2007, 

the acrimony could no longer be hidden 

despite excellent presentation made by 

Sundeep Khanna, Additional Secretary of 

Ministry of Social Justice and 

Empowerment. Mr Khanna convincingly 

explained administrative policies, 

including the framework for defining 

Scheduled Tribes, Parliamentary and 

Legislative Committees and the 

objectives of new schemes to combat 

discrimination against the Scheduled 

Castes and the Scheduled Tribes. 

India started its presentation to 

explain how caste discrimination is not 

synonymous with racial discrimination. 

There was no disagreement from the 

experts that "caste" is not equivalent of 

"race", but certainly any form of 

discrimination on the grounds of "race, 

colour, descent, or national or ethnic 

origin" as provided under Article 1 of 

the Convention falls within the 

mandate of the Committee. India's 

explanations on caste and descent were 

far from convincing. On a specific 

question to which caste a child belongs 

in case of an inter-caste marriage, 

Professor Gupta replied, "a child of "X" 

caste who married someone of "Y" 

caste, was a member of no caste". "My 

child is an example" - he added. 

If children of inter-caste marriages 

belong to "no caste", how does the 

government of India implement its 

affirmative action programmes The 

Contd. on pg 13 

CERD COMMITTEE’S 

RECOMMENDATIONS 

1. The Committee notes with concern that the 

State party does not recognize its tribal peoples as 

distinct groups entitled to special protection under 

the Convention. 

The Committee recommends that the State party 

formally recognize its tribal peoples as distinct 

groups entitled to special protection under national 

and international law, including the Convention, and 

provide information on the criteria used for 

determining the membership of scheduled and 

other tribes, as well as on the National Tribal Policy. 

In this regard, the Committee refers the State party 

to its General Recommendation No. 23. 

2. The Committee is concerned that the so-called 

denotified and nomadic tribes, which were listed 

for their alleged "criminal tendencies" under the 

former Criminal Tribes Act (1871), continue to be 

stigmatized under the Habitual Offenders Act 

(1952). The Committee recommends that the State 

party repeal the Habitual Offenders Act and 

effectively rehabilitate the denotified and nomadic 

tribes concerned. 

3. The Committee notes with concern that the 

State party has not implemented the 

recommendations of the Committee to Review the 

Armed Forces (Special Powers) Act (1958) to 

repeal the Act, under which members of the armed 

forces may not be prosecuted unless such 

prosecution is authorized by the Central 

Government and have wide powers to search and 

arrest suspects without a warrant or to use force 

against persons or property in Manipur and other 

north-eastern States which are inhabited by tribal 

peoples. 

The Committee urges the State party to repeal the 

Armed Forces (Special Powers) Act and to replace 

it "by a more humane Act," in accordance with the 

recommendations contained in the 2005 report of 

the above Review Committee set up by the 

Ministry of Home Affairs. It also requests the State 

party to release the report. 

4. The Committee is concerned about reports of 

arbitrary arrest, torture and extrajudicial killings of 

members of scheduled castes and scheduled tribes 

by the police, and about the frequent failure to 

protect these groups against acts of communal 

violence. 

The Committee urges the State party to provide 

effective protection to members of scheduled 

castes and scheduled and other tribes against acts 

of discrimination and violence, introduce 

mandatory training on the application of the 

Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes 

(Prevention of Atrocities) Act (1989) for police, 

judges and prosecutors and take disciplinary or 

criminal law measures against police and other law 

enforcement officers who violate their duty of 

protection and/or investigation in relation to crimes

Indigenous Rights Quarterly INTERVIEW 


Interview with Mr. Subimal Bikash Chakma, 

President of the Committee for Citizenship Rights of the 

Chakmas of Arunachal Pradesh 

Introduction: 

Between 1964 and 1969 about 

30,000 Chakma and Hajong 

tribals were migrated from East 

Pakistan and settled in the then North 

Eastern Frontier Agency (NEFA), the 

present day Arunachal Pradesh of India. 

Until 1980, the Chakmas and Hajongs 

enjoyed all the facilities including 

employment as accorded to the fellow 

local tribals. Therefore, citizenship was 

not an issue. However, as anti-foreigner 

movement swept the North East, the 

Arunachal Pradesh government 

withdrew these facilities from the 

Chakmas and Hajongs. 

In 1991, the Committee for 

Citizenship Rights of the Chakmas of 

Arunachal Pradesh was formed under the 

leadership of Mr Subimal Bikash Chakma 

to demand citizenship and other 

constitutional rights. The demand for 

citizenship created tensions but 

fortunately it did not turn as violent as the 

ones witnessed across the North East. 

On 9 January 1996, the Supreme 

Court of India in its historic judgement 

in the case of National Human Rights 

Commission Vs State of Arunachal Pradesh 

and Anr (Civil Writ Petition 720 of 

1995) directed the State government of 

Arunachal Pradesh to process the 

citizenship applications of those who 

migrated between 1964 and 1969. As 

those Chakmas and Hajongs who were 

born in India are citizens by birth, 

pursuant to the direction of the Election 

Commission of India, about 1,497 

Chakmas and Hajongs were enrolled in 

electoral rolls and exercised their right to 

franchise in the State Assembly elections 

in 2004. 

On 1 February 2007, the Election 

Commission of India issued direction 

Mr. Subimal Bikash Chakma 

President of the CCRC 

of Arunachal Pradesh 

for Special Summary Revision of the 

Chakmas and Hajongs which has been 

pending since November 2005 because 

of the unwillingness of the State 

government to implement the directions 

of the Election Commission of India. 

The State government of Arunachal 

Pradesh sought postponement of the 

latest order for special revision citing law 

and order problem. 

Mr Subimal Bikash Chakma, 

President of the CCRCAP in an 

interview to Indigenous Rights Quarterly 

states that it is the excellent relationship 

shared by the Chakmas and Hajongs 

with the local tribal communities which 

prevented any major untoward incident. 

This also shows the extent of 

assimilation of the Chakmas and 

Hajongs with the local communities. 

IRQ: Mr Chakma, the Special 

Summary Revision of electoral rolls 

of 4 Assembly constituencies of 

Arunachal Pradesh inhabited by the 

Chakmas and Hajongs has been postponed 

again. Do you think it as a 

major set back 

Subimal Bikash Chakma (SBC): We 

have been learnt that State government 

sought postponement of the Special 

Revision of electoral rolls on the grounds 

of law and order problem. At the same 

time, on the Arunachal Pradesh Statehood 

Day celebration on 20 February 2007, 

Chief Minister Gegong Apang demanded 

a "peace bonus" for Arunachal Pradesh for 

maintaining its status of "Island of Peace" 

since its inception as a state in 1987. The 

obvious contradiction - where the State 

government cites "law and order problem" 

and at the same time demands "peace 

bonus" - is a reflection of the insincerity of 

the State government - which we do not 

consider as the sentiment of the people of 

Arunachal Pradesh. 

IRQ: What is your next step 

The Election Commission of India 

is a constitutional and autonomous body 

and the final authority regarding election 

related issues. The State government 

might delay the special summary 

revision process on frivolous grounds 

but since the Election Commission of 

India is seized of the matter, it has to 

come to a logical conclusion based on 

the rule of law. We are only asking the 

Election Commission of India to uphold 

the rule of law and enforcement of its 

own rules/guidelines which are applied 

across India. We have full faith in the 

Election Commission of India. 

IRQ: What about the implementation 

of the Supreme Court judgement 

of January 1996 which ordered the 

Centre and the State government to 

process the citizenship applications of 

the Chakmas and Hajongs 

SBC: The Central government in 

their various statements before the 

parliament unequivocally stated that the

12 Indigenous Rights Quarterly INTERVIEW 


government will implement the 

Supreme Court judgement of 9 January 

1996. The Supreme Court having 

rejected the review petition of the State 

government of Arunachal Pradesh as 

well the petitions challenging the 

constitutionality or correctness of the 

judgement, the Centre or the State 

government cannot have any other 

position but to affirm their commitment 

to implement the judgement. But, in 

reality, not a single application out of 

4,677 applications submitted since 1997 

has been processed until today. Many of 

the applicants have already died. What 

could be more unfortunate! 

IRQ: Are you considering any measure 

for implementation of the 

Supreme Court judgement 

SBC: The CCRCAP has filed 

applications with the Ministry of Home 

Affairs and the State government of 

Arunachal Pradesh under the Right to 

Information Act on the implementation 

of the Supreme Court judgement. We 

have received some replies and are 

presently studying the same to see as to 

what steps can be taken. 

IRQ: How is the present situation of 

the Chakmas and Hajongs 

SBC: You can describe the situation 

in one word, pathetic. Since 1980s all 

rights enjoyed by the Chakmas and 

Hajongs have been withdrawn. During 

1994-95, the State Government 

withdrew whatever services left to the 

Chakmas and Hajongs. It withdrew the 

Government Middle School at Bijoypur 

I under Bordumsa Circle; the only 

Government Primary School for seven 

villages at Bodhisatta village under Miao 

Circle; Government Primary School at 

M-Pen under Miao Circle; and all 49 

Anganwadi nutrition centres from the 

Chakma and Hajong villages in 

Changlang district. Apart from the 

Government Primary Schools in a few of 

their villages, admissions were banned to 

the Chakma and Hajong students in all 

Government schools in the state. 

While recently a new Primary 

School has been opened at at M-pen 

village, neither the Middle School at 

Bijoypur nor the 49 Anganwadi 

nutrition centres have been re-opened 

despite repeated request to the 

authorities. The Chakma and Hajong 

students continue to be denied 

admissions in the Government Higher 

Secondary School and two Government 

Primary Schools at Miao; Higher 

Secondary School in Bordumsa; and 

Higher Secondary schools in Namsai. 

The only assistance that the 

Chakmas and Hajongs at present get 

from the Government is one or two 

teachers in each Government Primary 

Schools in 6 Chakma villages under 

Diyun Circle, 2 Government Primary 

Schools in Miao Circle in Changlang 

district and 1 Government Primary 

School in Chowkham Circle in Lohit 

district. The school buildings and 

teacher's residences are built by the 

parents’ committees in each village. 

There is no public development 

work in the Chakma and Hajong 

villages. Not an inch of metal road is 

found inside the Chakma and Hajong 

villages. Neither there is provision of 

safe drinking water nor electricity. Even 

We appeal to the All 

Aruanchal Pradesh Students 

Union, other student 

organisations in Arunachal 

Pradesh and North East like 

the North East Students 

Organisation (NESO) as well 

as other civil society groups 

of the region to put pressure 

on the State government of 

Arunachal Pradesh and the 

Central government of India 

to grant our rights. 

kerosene oil which they use to light 

lamps is not supplied to the Chakma and 

Hajong areas. 

IRQ: - If the situation is so pathetic, 

how do the Chakmas and Hajongs 

sustain themselves 

SBC: The primary occupation of the 

Chakmas and Hajongs is agriculture. 

Majority of them have been surviving as 

daily wage labourers in tea gardens, oil 

extraction units of different comp., State 

Public Work Department; Rural Work 

Department; construction works etc. 

IRQ: Do the CCRCAP activists face 

any challenges 

SBC: The CCRCAP is a peaceful 

and democratic movement. Our entire 

movement has been conducted through 

submission of appeals to the 

governmental authorities or filing 

petitions before the courts. For the last 

eight years, the CCRCAP even did not 

hold a demonstration. Yet, there are 

many false cases pending against the 

CCRCAP activists. 

IRQ: - How is the relationship of the 

Chakmas and Hajongs with other 

tribal people of Arunachal Pradesh 

Are they also hostile like the State 

government 

SBC: No, the native people of 

Arunachal Pradesh are very simple, 

friendly and tolerant like the Chakmas 

and Hajongs. All of us are tribals and we 

have so many similarities but not any 

difference. Ethnically, we belong to the 

same stock- Tibeto Mongoloid and you 

cannot differentiate a Chakma from a 

Singpho. As landlords, our 

neighbouring communities usually 

depend upon the Chakmas and Hajongs 

vice-versa. Religiously, Chakmas are also 

Buddhists like the Khamptis and 

Singphos and they regularly participate 

in the same religious festivals and 

celebrations. Over the years, the 

Chakmas and Hajongs have also 

established strong matrimonial bonds 

with many of the native tribes. 

Contd. on pg 24

Indigenous Rights Quarterly UNITED NATIONS 


India fails... Contd. from pg 10 

Supreme Court has given numerous 

judgements affirming that in case of 

inter-caste marriages, children will get 

benefit of reservations only if the father 

belongs to the Scheduled Tribes and 

Scheduled Castes. Indian delegation was 

not even willing to accept patriarchy as 

the determinant factor for identifying 

caste or tribe! 

Caste and untouchability may not 

be acute in the metropolis. But as the 

UN CERD Committee noted in its 

Concluding Observations, "despite the 

formal abolition of "untouchability" by 

Article 17 of the Indian Constitution, de 

facto segregation of Dalits persists, in 

particular in rural areas, in access to 

places of worship, housing, hospitals, 

education, water sources, markets and 

other public places". 

Indian delegation even refused to 

recognise the Scheduled Tribes as "distinct 

groups". India's description of 

"genealogical demonstrable characteristics" 

to define descent is debatable but to 

suggest that tribals not "distinct groups" 

goes against common sense. For this one 

does not need to know the Puranas, the 

Upanishads or the Bhagawat Gita as 

quoted by Mario Jorge Yutzis, a CERD 

Committee expert and renowned Prof of 

Philosophical Anthropology from 

Argentina, to dismiss India's rigid explanations, 

but elementary knowledge on 

how the colonial British brought the 

tribes of the North East India under its 

control will give an indication pf the 

distinctiveness of the tribal groups. Not 

surprisingly the UN CERD Committee 

recommended that India "formally recognize 

its tribal peoples as distinct groups 

entitled to special protection national and 

international law, including the Convention 

and provide information on the 

criteria used for determining the membership 

of scheduled and other tribes." 

The International Convention on 

the Elimination of All Forms of Racial 

Discrimination is essentially a legal 

document. The CERD Committee 

required explanations as to how any 

violation of the two cardinal principles 

of international human rights law i.e. 

equality and non-discrimination on the 

grounds of "race, colour, descent, or 

national or ethnic origin" are combated, 

and not a lecture of sociology. 

In its report, India highlighted that it 

tries to eliminate "barriers between races, 

and to discourage anything which tends 

to strengthen racial division". Then how 

does one explain the naming of various 

regiments of Indian Army such as Rajput 

Regiment, Jat Regiment, Sikh Regiment, 

Dogra Regiment, Naga Regiment, 

Gorkha Rifles etc, which certainly 

contribute to "race, ethnic, caste and 

regional consciousness" In fact, in May 

2004 the present Minister of Chemical, 

Fertilizers and Steel, Mr Ram Vilas 

Paswan demanded that forming a "Dalit 

Regiment on the pattern of Sikh 

Regiment, Jat Regiment or Mahar 

Regiment" should be included in the 

Common Minimum Programme of the 

United Progressive Alliance government. 

The UN CERD Committee made a 

number of recommendations (excerpts 

on tribals are given in the box). In fact 

CERD Committee did not make any 

recommendation which has not already 

been made by various National 

Commissions and the Parliamentary 

Committees on the Welfare of the 

Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes or 

the Parliamentary Standing Committee 

on Social Justice and Empowerment. 

As the South African expert, Ms. 

Patricia Nozipho January-Bardill stated, 

she "failed to understand why, if India 

was truly committed to social cohesion 

and eliminating bigotry and prejudice, it 

regarded the Convention as a threat 

rather than an opportunity to challenge 

the caste system". But the Indian 

delegation was not ready to consider the 

Convention as an opportunity to tackle 

the caste issue. 

• 

against scheduled castes and scheduled and other 

tribes. 

5. The Committee notes that the State party does 

not fully implement the right of ownership, 

collective or individual, of the members of tribal 

communities over the lands traditionally occupied 

by them in its practice concerning tribal peoples. It 

is also concerned that large scale projects such as 

the construction of several dams in Manipur and 

other northeastern States on territories primarily 

inhabited by tribal communities, or of the Andaman 

Trunk Road, are carried out without seeking their 

prior informed consent. These projects result in the 

forced resettlement or endanger the traditional 

lifestyles of the communities concerned. 

The Committee urges the State party to fully 

respect and implement the right of ownership, 

collective or individual, of the members of tribal 

communities over the lands traditionally occupied 

by them in its practice concerning tribal peoples, in 

accordance with ILO Convention 107 on 

Indigenous and Tribal Populations (1957). The 

State party should seek the prior informed consent 

of communities affected by the construction of 

dams in the Northeast or similar projects on their 

traditional lands in any decision-making processes 

related to such projects and provide adequate 

compensation and alternative land and housing to 

those communities. Furthermore, it should protect 

tribes such as the Jarawa against encroachments 

on their lands and resources by settlers, poachers, 

private companies or other third parties and 

implement the 2002 order of the Indian Supreme 

Court to close the sections of the Andaman Trunk 

Road that run through the Jarawa reserve. 

6. The Committee is concerned about reports that 

Dalits are often denied access to and evicted from 

land by dominant castes, especially if it borders 

land belonging to such castes, and that tribal 

communities have been evicted from their land 

under the 1980 Forest Act or in order to allow 

private mining activities. 

The Committee recommends that the State party 

ensure that Dalits, including Dalit women, have 

access to adequate and affordable land and that 

acts of violence against Dalits due to land disputes 

are punished under the Scheduled Castes and 

Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act 

(1989). The State party should also ensure that 

tribal communities are not evicted from their lands 

without seeking their prior informed consent and 

provision of adequate alternative land and 

compensation that bans on leasing tribal lands to 

third persons or companies are effectively 

enforced, and that adequate safeguards against 

the acquisition of tribal lands are included in the 

Recognition of Forest Rights Act (2006) and other 

relevant legislation. 

7. The Committee recommends that the State 

party consider ratifying ILO Convention No. 169 

concerning Indigenous and Tribal Peoples in 

Independent Countries.

14 Indigenous Rights Quarterly POLICY 


A Critique of India’s Draft 

National Rehabilitation Policy, 2006 

The Draft National Rehabilitation 

Policy 2006 (NPR) in its 

preamble recognizes "traumatic, 

psychological and socio-cultural 

consequences on the displaced 

populations which calls for affirmative 

State action for protecting their rights", 

the need for "the active participation of 

affected persons", "Social Impact 

Assessment", Environmental Impact 

Assessment", "the desirability and 

justifiability of each project", "Tribal 

Development Plan" etc. The preamble 

of NRP-2006 promises all happiness a 

displaced person could desire for. But 

the "Preamble" is necessarily not the 

actual part of the Policy and hence does 

not constitute safeguard. 

The Preamble has sought to build a 

castle in the air. But the provisions of the 

NRP-2006 do not have much to offer in 

tangible terms. 

I. Exclusion of the victims 

The call for "the active participation 

of affected persons" (clause 1.2) in the 

process of resettlement and 

rehabilitation is not reflected in the 

processes of development of the project. 

First, the affected persons do not 

have the right to be consulted prior to 

finalization of their lands as the project 

site. Under Clause 6.1, in cases where 

displacement is 400 or more families 

en masse in plain areas, or 200 or 

more families en masse in tribal or 

hilly areas, DDP blocks or areas 

mentioned in Schedule V and 

Schedule VI of the Constitution of 

India, the Appropriate Government 

shall declare, by notification in the 

Official Gazette, area of villages or 

localities as "an affected zone of the 

project". 

The affected persons have no say in 

the process of determination of a project 

site even if it is on their lands. 

Second, the Policy calls for 

preparation of Social Impact Assessment 

(SIA) report and Environmental Impact 

Assessment (EIA) report by the 

Requiring Body for all projects (except 

linear projects) involving physical 

displacement of 400 or more families 

en masse in plain areas, or 200 or 

more families en masse in tribal or 

hilly areas, DDP blocks and areas 

mentioned in Schedule V and 


India. But there is no provision for 

inclusion of affected persons or their 

representatives while conducting EIA 

and SIA. 

The Policy also provides for 

constitution of a "multi-disciplinary 

expert group" to examine the SIA and 

EIA reports. Members are nominated by 

Central and State governments. There is 

no accountability, independence and 

transparency in the process of 

examination of the SIA and EIA reports. 

There is no provision for 

consultation with the affected families 

during the final preparation of the SIA 

and EIA reports prior to their 

submission to the expert group for 

examination. 

II. Beyond the purview of law 

Clause 4.6 of the NRP-2006 gives 

sweeping powers to the Ministry of 

Defence to acquire land in connection 

with national security and the Ministry is 

exempted from conducting any Social 

Impact Assessment or Environmental 

Impact Assessment. Therefore if a 

nuclear plant is set up for national 

interest, no one can oppose it. 

The Policy also lays stress on the 

State's power to "compulsorily acquire 

any land under the Land Acquisition 

Act, 1894" by application of the 

emergency clause of the Act. Clause 6.23 

of the Policy provides that "Emergency 

provisions under section 17 of the 

Land Acquisition Act, 1894 should 

be used rarely". The application of the 

Land Acquisition Act since 1894 shows 

that invocation of the Section 17 of the 

Act is the rule and its non-application is 

a rarity. 

III. Lowering the grades of 

Administrator 

Wherever there is large-scale 

displacement, the Policy provides that 

the State government shall appoint the 

Administrator for Resettlement and 

Rehabilitation, who is an officer not 

below the rank of District Collector, to 

oversee the resettlement and 

rehabilitation plan. But the 


Rehabilitation may delegate his/her 

powers and duties to any officer not 

below the rank of Tehsildar or 

equivalent. 

This will seriously affect the rights 

of the affected persons as an officer of 

the rank of Tehsildar or equivalent 

usually does not have the knowledge to 

understand the magnitude of the 

problems to oversee the resettlement and 

rehabilitation plan. 

IV. Government Commissioner 

The Commissioner and the 


Rehabilitation are not independent of the 

State control. They have been 

empowered to "take all measures for the 

resettlement and rehabilitation of the 

affected families" but are "subject to the 

superintendence, directions and control 

of the Appropriate Government". 

The Administrator for Resettlement 

and Rehabilitation performs all his/her 

powers and functions "subject to any 

general or special order of the 

Appropriate Government".

Indigenous Rights Quarterly POLICY 


V. More displacement in the name 

of rehabilitation 

One of the principal objectives of 

the Policy is to "minimize displacement". 

But one of the notorious provisions of 

the Policy is that it allows further 

displacement of non-project affected 

persons from their land in the process of 

resettling the project affected families in 

a particular resettlement zone. Subclause 

(b) of Clause 6.11 states, "If 

sufficient Government land is not 

available there, then land may be 

purchased or acquired under the Land 

Acquisition Act, 1894 for the 

purposes of resettlement and 

rehabilitation scheme/plan". 

This implies that the State has the 

power to evict any body from his/her 

land in order to resettle the project 

affected persons. The Policy also states 

that the State can use its emergency 

powers under Land Acquisition Act to 

evict such people. On the other hand, 

the Policy is silent on the rehabilitation 

of these displaced persons from the 

resettlement zones. This will create an 

endless cycle of displacement, rather 

than solving the problem. 

One of the functions of the 


Rehabilitation is to "acquire adequate 

land for the project" (sub-clause (vi) of 

Clause 5.5). This is in conflict with one 

of the main objectives of the Policy 

which states, "To minimize 

displacement and to promote, as far 

as possible, non-displacing or leastdisplacing 

alternatives" (sub-clause (a) 

of Claus 2.1). It is clear that the more 

land is acquired for the project, the more 

will be the number of the displaced 

persons. 

VI. Inadequate safeguards to 

displaced persons 

The Policy fails to provide adequate 

safeguards to the displaced persons. 

Under sub-clause (iv) of Clause 6.4, 

only those project affected families who 

are/were having possession of forest 

lands prior to the 25th October, 1980 

will be included in the survey of the 


Rehabilitation. In effect, only the 

affected families who are/were having 

possession of forest lands prior to the 

25th October, 1980 will be entitled to 

the benefits of the NRP-2006. This is 

not in consonance with the Scheduled 

Tribes and Other Forest Dwellers 

(Recognition of Forest Rights) Act of 

2006, whose cut off date for ownership 

of land rights is 13 December 2005. 

The Policy does not guarantee land 

for land or adequate lands to the affected 

families (AFs). Clause 7.4 states that each 

AF owning agricultural land in the 

affected zone and who entire land has 

been acquired "may be allotted" 

agricultural land or cultivable wasteland 

to the extent of actual land lost subject to 

a maximum of one hectare of irrigated 

land or two hectares of unirrigated 

land/cultivable wasteland, "if government 

land is available". The phrases like "may 

be allotted" and "if government land is 

available" give enormous discretionary 

powers to the governments. 

The compensation package is also 

unsatisfactory. Clause 7.7 provides that in 

case of allotment of wasteland/ degraded 

land in lieu of acquired land, each AF 

shall get a one-time financial assistance of 

only Rs 10,000 per hectare for land 

development. In effect, an AF can get 

maximum of Rs 20,000 compensation. 

Also, in case of allotment of agricultural 

land, one-time financial assistance of only 

Rs 5,000 per AF is provided. 

There is little guarantee for 

employment for the oustees. According 

to Clause 7.11, employment will be 

provided by the Requiring Body only to 

those affected families who have lost 

their employment due to the project. 

Also, such employment will be "subject 

to availability of vacancies and 

suitability of the affected person for 

the employment". Clause 7.12.1 states 

that Affected Families who have not 

been granted employment or 

agricultural land shall be entitled to a 

rehabilitation grant equivalent to 750 

days minimum agricultural wages. 

There is absolutely no rehabilitation 

for PAFs displaced by linear acquisitions. 

According to Clause 7.15, the victims of 

linear acquisitions in projects relating to 

Railway lines, highways, transmission 

lines, laying pipelines etc, will not be 

entitled to any resettlement or 

rehabilitation package. They will be 

offered an ex-gratia amount of 

Rs.10,000 only. 

The Draft National 

Rehabilitation Policy, 2006 is 

supposed to be an 

improvement of National 

Policy on Relief and 

Rehabilitation of 2003. A 

cursory examination makes a 

clear case of changing its title 

to “Draft National 

Displacement Policy”. If 

this socalled National 

Rehabilitation Policy is 

about outlining “affirmative 

State action for protecting” 

the rights of the displaced 

given the "traumatic, 

psychological and sociocultural 

consequences” 

displacement, the drafters of 

the Policy need a crash course 

on “affirmative action”. 

Affirmative action is not 

about “exclusion” of the 

victims from development of 

a project to its final 

implementation. Contd. on pg 24

16 Indigenous Rights Quarterly ENVIRONMENT 


Bio-dollars destroy Indonesia’s 

bio-diversity 

The global warming requires 

reduction of greenhouse gas, an 

undesirable consequence of 

industrialization. Bio-diesel is being 

touted and promoted as the next “inthing” 

to reduce greenhouse gas effects. 

But it comes at a terrible price as being 

witnessed in Indonesia which aspires to 

become the world’s number one 

producer of bio-diesel and crude palm 

oil, it targets the indigenous territories. 

Already, a total of 6,059,441 

hectares of land in 17 provinces, viz. 

Nanggroe Aceh Darussalam, Sumatera 

Utara, Sumatera Barat, Riau, Jambi, 

Sumatera Selatan, Bangka Belitung, 

Bengkulu, Lampung Jawa Barat and 

Banten, Kalimantan Barat, Kalimantan 

Tengah, Kalimantan Selatan, 

Kalimantan Timur, Kalimanthan, 

Sulawesi Tengah, Sulawesi Selatan, and 

Sulawesi Tenggara, Papua have been 

covered under oil palm plantations. 

Palm oil brings much needed 

dollars to the country. It is presently 

grown in at least 17 Indonesian 

provinces. In 2004, the total planted oil 

palm area amounted to 5.3 million 

hectares, yielding 11.4 million tons of 

Crude Palm Oil (CPO), a record export 

value of US$ 4.43 billion, and US$ 42.3 

million in government revenue. 

The Kalimantan Border Oil Palm 

Mega-project launched in July 2005 by 

the Indonesian State Plantation 

Corporation (PT Perkenunan Nusantara 

or PTPN) apart from eventually 

employing nearly 400,000 people, 

would also generate an annual inflow of 

US$45 million in tax revenue to the 

State. 

The policy papers of the Indonesian 

State Plantation Corporation on the 

Kalimantan Border Oil Palm Megaproject 

states that the project would 

counter poverty; border conflicts; 

inaccessibility to the areas; 

environmental degradation, illegal 

logging and trade; smuggling of clothes, 

sugar and oil palm seeds; illegal worker 

migration etc. The government 

promised “bringing prosperity, security 

and environmental protection to the 

Kalimantan border area”. 

Of course, it comes at a terrible 

price. The proposed Kalimantan 

Border Oil Palm Mega-project will 

require 1.8 million hectares at the heart 

of Borneo and among others will 

destroy three national parks of Betung 

Kerihun (800,000 hectares), Kayan 

Mentarang (1,360,000 hectares), and 

Danau Sentarum (132,000) as well as 

surrounding “protection forest”. 

Kalimantan Border Oil Palm Mega- 

Project will destroy primary forests in 

these areas but will further robe the 

indigenous Dayak communities of their 

lands and territories. 

I. Sovereign power over 

indigenous peoples’ land 

Indigenous peoples of Indonesia 

have little legal recognition for 

protection of their land rights. Article 28 

of the 1945 Constitution of the 

Republic of Indonesia (as amended in 

2002) provided some rights of 

ownership to indigenous peoples. 

Clause 4 of Article 28H states, “Every 

person has the right to own property 

and this property can not be taken… 

from them by anybody”. Article 28I 

further provides that “The cultural 

identity and the rights of traditional 

societies shall be respected in accordance 

with this age of progress and human 

civilization”. 

However, these constitutional 

rights were undermined by Article 33 of 

the Constitution which establishes 

sovereign power of the State. Article 33 

states that, 

“1. Economic matters are managed as 

common efforts based on family 

principles. 

2. Productive activities related to natural 

resources, which have importance 

to the State and significance 

for the livelihood of the Indonesian 

people, will be managed exclusively 

by the State. 

3. The earth, water and natural 

resources are under the control of 

the State and should be utilized for 

the maximum welfare of the 

Indonesian people. 

4. The national economic system 

should be conducted in accordance 

with the following principles: 

togetherness, equitable efficiency, 

sustainability, environmental friendliness, 

independence, and balancing 

progress and national economic 

unity. 

5. The implementation of this article 

will be regulated by further laws.” 

The national interest therefore 

remains supreme and gives the State the 

authority to determine whether the rights 

of the indigenous peoples still exist or not 

and to take over natural resources from 

indigenous peoples by extinguishing their 

traditional, ulayat, rights. 

Moreover, procedures for the titling 

of individual land holdings, apart from 

being defective, also lag far behind the 

rate at which new land holdings are being 

created. A five-year-old National 

Assembly Decree (TAP MPR IX/2001), 

requiring reforms of forestry and agrarian 

laws, is yet to be put into effect. The 

imposition of a uniform administrative 

structure throughout Indonesia down to 

the village level during the New Order 

(Orde Baru) rule consciously ignored the 

traditional rights of the indigenous 

peoples. The traditional rights of the

Indigenous Rights Quarterly ENVIRONMENT 


indigenous peoples were also ignored in 

the Basic Forestry Law (BFL) and Basic 

Mining Law and their implementing 

regulations. 

II. Eminent domain prevails 

Even if one’s individual land 

holding is registered albeit under a 

deceptive system, he/she has little rights 

vis-à-vis the government. Indonesian 

state exercises sovereign power under 

the controversial principle of the 

‘controlling right of State’ (Hak 

Menguasai Negara) to regulate and 

manage the country’s natural resources, 

grants the State the authority to 

regulate, operate, classify, utilize, reserve 

and preserve natural resources for the 

benefit of the people, including deciding 

on and regulating the legal relations 

between people and natural resources. 

On 3 May 2005, President Susilo 

Bambang Yudhoyono signed 

Presidential Regulation No. 36 of 2005 

on Land Procurement for Development 

for Public Purposes to further 

strengthen the sovereign power of the 

state on land acquisition. The new 

Regulation vaguely defines “public 

interest” and violates landowners’ rights 

as set out in the 1962 Property Law. 

In June 2006, the Indonesian 

government made cosmetic 

amendments to the Regulation by 

dropping some of the development 

projects like public assets, schools, health 

clinics, government buildings and 

telecommunication facilities specified 

under “public interest” but the basic 

draconian thrust of the Regulation 

remained intact. The decree still 

empowers the government to take over 

any land for public interest and strip 

private land owners of their property 

rights if they do not agree to State offers 

of compensation. 

III. Spelling doom 

The palm oil project will spell doom 

for natural and human bio-diversity. 

First, the destruction of biodiversity 

through conversion of natural 

forest can never be replaced. According 

to estimates of the World Rainforest 

Movement, the area of convertible 

forestland has increased from 8 million 

ha in 2000 to 14 million ha in 2002. As 

per the Indonesian Oil Palm Research 

Institute (IOPRI), 3% of all oil palm 

plantations are established in primary 

forests while 63% of these plantations 

are in secondary forest and bush and 

therefore 66% of all existing productive 

oil palm plantations involved forest 

conversion. 

Second, the sheer volume of lands 

required will destroy human biodiversity. 

Research carried out by 

Indonesian Bio-diesel Forum (FBI) 

states that 15-20 tonnes of fresh fruit 

bunch of oil palm per hectare produce 

0.2 - 0.22 m3 of raw oil, with 0.95 

litres of bio-diesel produced from one 

litre of CPO. This means 0.3ha of oil 

palm plantation would be needed to 

generate 1,000 litres (1 kl) of biodiesel. 

Going by this standard, it 

projected that in 2009, bio-diesel from 

oil palm will reach 2% of diesel 

consumption or 0.7 million kl, 

The bio-dollars comes comes 

at a terrible price. The 

proposed Kalimantan 

Border Oil Palm Megaproject 

will require 1.8 

million hectares at the heart 

of Borneo and destroy among 

others three national parks of 

Betung Kerihun, Kayan 

Mentarang, and Danau 

Sentarum. It will destroy bidiversity 

and cultural 

identities of the indigenous 

Dayak people. 

requiring over 200,000 ha of oil palm 

plantations. By 2025, demand for biodiesel 

is projected to reach 5% of 

petroleum diesel consumption, 

equivalent to 4.7 million kl. This will 

need 1.41 million hectares of land for 

oil palm plantations. 

Where would 1.41 million hectares 

of land come from Obviously, from the 

indigenous peoples. Apart from 

destroying socio-cultural values, oil palm 

plantation projects have already 

increased gambling and prostitution. 

The palm oil plantations have also 

increased the living expenses as 

cultivation in oil palm does not permit 

traditional intercropping (tumpang sari) 

methods. 

In order to reduce green house gas 

emissions, Indonesia’s indigenous 

peoples are all set to pay a heavy price. • 

Further readings: 

1 . Promised Land: Palm Oil and Land 

Acquisition in Indonesia - Implications for 

Local Communities and Indigenous 

Peoples, A study by Forest Peoples 

Programme, Perkumpulan Sawit Watch, 

HuMA and the World Agroforestry Centre. 

2 . The Kalimantan Border Oil Palm Mega-project, 

Commissioned by Milieudefensie – 

Friends of the Earth Netherlands and the 

Swedish Society for Nature Conservation 

(SSNC), April 2006 

3. Why is palm oil replacing tropical rainforests 

Why are biofuels fueling deforestation 

By Rhett A. Butler available at: 

(http://www.mongabay.com/about.htm) 

4 . The Kalimantan Border Oil Palm Mega-project, 

Commissioned by Milieudefensie – 

Friends of the Earth Netherlands and the 

Swedish Society for Nature Conservation 

(SSNC), April 2006 

5. Govt makes minor changes to controversial 

land decree, The Jakarta Post, 6 June 2006 

9. http://www.wrm.org.uy/bulletin/85/ 

Indonesia.html 

10. Biodiesel and the expansion of oil palm 

plantations, Down to Earth No. 69, May 

2006.

18 Indigenous Rights Quarterly AFRICA 


SPECIAL RAPPORTEUR ON A KENYAN SAFARI 

The Special Rapporteur on the 

situation of human rights and 

fundamental freedoms of 

indigenous people visited Kenya from 4 

to 14 December 2006 at the invitation 

of the Government of Kenya. The 

Special Rapporteur's report 

(A/HRC/4/32/Add.3) submitted to the 

4th session of the Human Rights 

Council in March 2007 brings to the 

fore several disturbing issues about the 

conditions of the indigenous peoples of 

Kenya. 

Some of the key findings of the 

Special Rapporteur are summarized 

below: 

I. Lack of legal recognition 

There are 42 tribes who are 

recognized as indigenous peoples in 

Kenya. They are either the pastoralist 

communities such as Endorois, Borana, 

Gabra, Maasai, Pokot, Samburu, 

Turkana, and Somali or the huntergatherer 

communities such as Awer 

(Boni), Ogiek, Sengwer and Yaaku. But 

the 1989 national census had not 

recognized many smaller pastoralist and 

hunter-gatherer communities such as El 

Molo, Watta, Munyayaya, Yakuu, and 

other small groups such as Sabaot and 

Terik as separate tribes. 

Lack of legal recognition resulted in 

further social, political and economic 

marginalization of the excluded huntergatherer 

and pastoralist communities. 

They do not figure in the national 

scheme of things. 

The indigenous peoples do not have 

proportionate political representation at 

the national or provincial levels or 

participation in local decision-making 

processes. 

II. Rights to land and resources 

The present policy of sanctity of the 

title provides that first registration of 

land title cannot be challenged in court 

regardless of fraud or mistake committed 

AITPN’s CONCERNS 

Special Rapporteur's report 

refers only to the past human 

rights violations by the 

security forces, including 

torture, rape, arbitrary arrest 

and killings. It failed to 

mention or document human 

rights violations that took 

place in 2006 despite that the 

visit took place in December 

2006. It appears that Kenya 

was a haven for indigenous 

peoples in 2006! 

AITPN has studied various 

field visit reports of the 

Special Rapporteur. The 

pattern remains disturbing. 

Is it a reflection of inadequacies 

of the background dossiers 

prepared before undertaking a 

country visit 

at the time of taking over the land from 

the first owner. This has led to 

widespread displacement of indigenous 

peoples from their lands in the Rift 

Valley and Kajiado district. The 

pastoralists in the north and northeastern 

regions are also facing potential 

threats of displacement. 

Although the Kenya Government 

terms the indigenous and minority 

groups as "minorities", "marginalized" or 

"vulnerable communities", historical 

injustices committed against them have 

not been rectified in independent Kenya. 

The Maasai indigenous peoples lost one 

third of their territory through coercive 

treaties in 1904 and 1911 imposed by 

the colonial regime. But these lands have 

not been restored to the Maasais. As of 

today, 75 per cent of the occupied land 

still remains in hands of the European 

owners in Laikipia District. 

III. Displacement due to wildlife 

conservation policies 

Wildlife conservation and 

preservation of natural parks are high on 

the political agenda of the government 

as wildlife, national parks and game 

reserves have been major tourist 

attractions. The government earns 10 

per cent of the GDP as direct and 

indirect revenues from wildlife tourism. 

Protected areas cover over 3.5 

million hectares or 6 per cent of Kenya's 

total land area. Majority of wildlife parks 

and reserves and protected forests are 

situated in the arid and semi-arid lands 

(ASALs) areas, which are predominantly 

inhabited by the pastoralists and huntergatherers, 

and this has been devastating 

for the livelihood of the indigenous 

peoples. The indigenous communities 

do not participate in the management of 

the parks and reserves. Neither are they 

benefited from the revenue earned from 

eco-tourism. 

Instead, they have been separated 

from the wildlife and forests and evicted 

from their traditional habitats as a result 

of creation of protected areas. 

In unprotected forest areas, 

settlement schemes, illegal logging and 

charcoal production have resulted in the 

loss of the traditional habitat of the 

forest dwelling indigenous peoples and 

the indigenous hunter-gatherers. 

The Ogiek indigenous peoples were 

evicted from their traditional habitat as 

soon as the Mau Forest was gazetted as a 

National Forest in 1974 without their 

prior and informed consent or

Indigenous Rights Quarterly AFRICA 


consultation. They have been denied 

compensation. Since then they have 

been prevented from hunting or 

collecting bee honey from the forest. On 

the other hand, illegal commercial 

logging continued to take place in the 

Mau Forest. 

IV. Continued human rights 

violations by the security forces 

The security forces have been 

responsible for arbitrary detention, 

harassment, torture, rape and 

extrajudicial killings. 

Impunity continued. The security 

forces who were responsible for killing 

of hundreds of Degodia Somali at 

Wagalla in Wajir in 1984 have not been 

identified or brought to justice. 

V. Deplorable socio-economic 

conditions 

The Special Rapporteur mentions 

that the Kenya UNDP Human 

Development Report 2001 indicates 

that the Human Development Index 

declined from 0.531 in 1990 to 0.514 in 

1999. There have been fall in life 

expectancy, per capita income and school 

enrolment and the rise in infant 

mortality and poverty. But as the Special 

Rapporteur has pointed out, "The 

Human Development Report does not 

provide disaggregated data about 

indigenous people." 

Most indigenous peoples live in the 

arid and semi-arid lands (ASALs) which 

make up more than 80 per cent of the 

total land mass of Kenya. More than 25 

per cent of the country's population lives 

in these ASAL areas. The socioeconomic 

conditions of the indigenous 

peoples are pathetic. Over 60 per cent of 

the population of the ASAL areas, which 

are predominantly inhabited by 

pastoralist sand hunter-gatherers, lives 

below the poverty line against national 

average of 50 per cent. 

The Special Rapporteur has stated 

that causes of poverty among the 

indigenous peoples are "unequal 

distribution of land and the lack of 

access to productive resources; the lack 

of access to and distribution of social 

services; ineffective development 

programmes; and the lack of basic 

infrastructure and marketing 

opportunities". 

The indigenous peoples have been 

disproportionately denied access to 

primary education. An estimated 1.7 

million children are out of school, out of 

which marginalized pastoralist 

communities are the majority. The 

literacy level for Maasai in Kajiado and 

Somali in Mandera is only 3 per cent 

compared with a national average of 

79.3 per cent. 

Majority indigenous peoples also 

do not have access to primary health 

care, due to "distance, lack of transport 

and essential supplies, and high costs". 

Although child labour is high among the 

indigenous communities, this problem 

has not received government attention. 

VI. Violence against indigenous 

women 

Indigenous women face 

discrimination and systematic abuse 

from outside and within own 

communities. Although, female genital 

mutilation (FGM) was banned in 2001, 

this is still practised widely among 

numerous indigenous communities such 

as the Maasai, Samburu, Somali and 

Pokot in the name of culture. 34 per cent 

of women undergo FGM at national 

level but the percentage in North 

Eastern Province is as high as 99 per 

cent. 

Customary laws also discriminate 

against the women. Many indigenous 

women are denied access to property 

rights. 

Indigenous women also face 

violence from the security forces, 

including rape particularly during ethnic 

conflicts. The police do not always 

register complaints of rape. 


The freedom of movement 

for the Muslim citizens of 

Kenya, including the ethnic 

Somalis, is severely restricted 

as they are often required to 

provide additional 

identification of citizenship, 

such as birth certificates of 

parents and even of the 

grandparents, at the 

checkpoints in the name of 

“security checks”. The Special 

Rapporteur fails to record 

virtual racial profiling of the 

Somali indigenous peoples in 

Kenya. Racial profiling is not 

only an American 

phenomenon in the post 

September 11th period. 

Racial profiling can take place 

anywhere in the world. 

VII. Non-ratification of ILO 

convention No. 169 

Kenya has not ratified ILO 

Convention No. 169 on Indigenous and 

Tribal Peoples in Independent 

Countries. This is a huge set back for 

the indigenous communities. 

The Constitution of Kenya has not 

recognized the rights of indigenous 

pastoralist and hunter-gatherer 

communities and the government does 

not have any policy or institution to deal 

directly with indigenous issues. 

Some key drawbacks of the Special 

Rapporteur's report 

The Special Rapporteur has missed 

a few key issues of deep concern on the 

enjoyment of human rights by the 

indigenous peoples. 

•

20 Indigenous Rights Quarterly LATIN AMERICA 


Ecuador: 

Key concerns of the Special Rapporteur 

The Special Rapporteur on the 

situation of human rights and 

fundamental freedoms of 

indigenous people Mr. Rodolfo 

STAVENHAGEN visited Ecuador from 

24 April to 4 May 2006. His report 

(A/HRC/4/32/Add.2) was submitted to 

the 4th session of the Human Rights 

Council from 12 to 30 March 2007. 

AITPN summarises the key concerns of 

the Special Rapporteur. 

1. Failure of the Government to give 

full effect to the constitutional principles 

concerning indigenous rights 

through secondary legislation and 

regulations on various constitutional 

rights remains one of Special 

Rapporteur's concerns. The constitutional 

rights including land ownership 

and territorial rights of 

indigenous peoples have not yet 

been incorporated into adequate 

secondary legislation, which has 

made the management of public 

policies, administration of justice 

and allocation of resources to these 

peoples difficult. 

2. Various governmental authorities 

created by presidential or ministerial 

decree to tackle issues of particular 

concern to indigenous peoples, 

such as Council for the 

Development of Ecuadorian 

Nationalities and Peoples ( 

CODENPE), Department of 

Bilingual Intercultural Education 

(DINEIB), Department of Health 

for Indigenous Peoples (DNSI) 

and National Department for the 

Indigenous Peoples (DINAPIN) 

lack the necessary legislative support 

and budgetary resources to allow 

them adequately to meet the needs 


It is an excellent report. But the 

Special Rapporteur failed to raise 

the issue of the lack of 

developments pertaining to the 

attempt of assassination of 

Leonidas Iza, President of 

Confederation of Indigenous 

Nationalities of Ecuador 

(CONAIE). On 1 February 

2006, when Leonidas Iza had 

just arrived at the airport in 

Quito from Cuba was shot at by 

two assassasins when he and his 

family were getting out of a taxi 

outside the CONAIE office. Iza 

escaped unharmed, but four of his 

relatives were injured. His 23 

year-old son, Javier was seriously 

hurt and his wife, Josefina 

Anguisaca was hit on the face 

with a gun by one of the 

attackers. Inability to raise issues 

such as attack on Iza is irksome to 

say the least. 

of these peoples. 

3. Most indigenous people in Ecuador 

live in extreme poverty, and meet 

fewer indicators of social and 

human development than other sectors 

of the population. In the inter- 

Andean corridors and the Andean 

heartlands, where demographic 

pressure on the limited natural 

resources is greater, indigenous agricultural 

production and living conditions 

are precarious, causing 

growing emigration to the cities and 

abroad, a phenomenon that particularly 

affects indigenous communities. 

Indigenous women and children 

are particularly vulnerable in 

this process. 

4. Oil operations, mining, illegal logging 

and oil palm plantations are 

carried out primarily in indigenous 

territories, with negative effects on 

the environment and the communities' 

living conditions. The use the 

armed forces to secure the interests 

of oil, mining and logging companies 

operating in indigenous territories 

has triggered various abuses and 

complaints, and led to numerous 

conflicts with the indigenous population, 

who oppose the operations 

of these companies. As a result of 

such incursions, the Tagaeri- 

Taromenani people, who are uncontacted, 

semi-nomadic huntergatherers, 

are facing a situation of 

near extinction. Their survival and 

"untouchable" territory are threatened 

by such factors as pressure 

from illicit logging activities and the 

incursion of settlers. 

5. In addition to the above, the plight 

of the indigenous communities on 

the northern border is further complicated 

by the aerial spraying of 

illicit crops, carried out in neighbouring 

Colombia under the auspices 

of Plan Colombia. This has 

serious negative effects on the 

Ecuadorian indigenous border populations. 

6. Another serious concern facing the 

indigenous communities in Equador 

is drug trafficking. The growing of 

drugs like coca is rapidly replacing 

environment friendly crops. 

7. Indigenous people make up the 

majority of workers in farms and 

suffer health problems due to the 

lack of hygiene in the workplace. 

Thousands of working children and

Indigenous Rights Quarterly LATIN AMERICA 


young people are exploited and 

there is no State supervision. In 

Cotopaxi, there are farms where 

conditions are reminiscent of the 

worst periods of slavery, as workers 

are often paid mere two or three 

dollars per day, for 20 hours' work. 

Because of discrimination, indigenous 

women migrant workers are 

particularly vulnerable, becoming 

easy prey for trafficking and slavery 

networks, in addition to other abuses 

at workplace. 

8. A 2004 survey on indigenous health 

shows that the percentage of indigenous 

people with access to piped 

water is three times less than the rest 

of the population, as is the case with 

access to domestic sanitary facilities 

connected to main sewerage. In all, 

23 per cent of indigenous homes 

lack sufficient food and 36 per cent 

find it difficult to meet food costs 

(this figure is higher than among 

mestizos). Indigenous child mortality 

(aged under five) is 50 per cent 

greater than the national average 

(51 per thousand live births compared 

to 35 per thousand). Chronic 

malnutrition among indigenous 

children is more than double that of 

mestizo children (46.7 per cent 

compared to 21.2 per cent). 

9. The Department of Health for 

Indigenous Peoples (DNSPI) states 

that indigenous health has not 

received the attention it deserves 

under the Government's general 

policies. The problem is acknowledged, 

as is the need to take steps to 

resolve it, but the necessary 

resources are not allocated. The Pan 

American Health Organization 

(PAHO) and the World Health 

Organization (WHO) are together 

promoting 93 indigenous health 

initiatives designed to ensure that 

the Government's health model is 

properly intercultural. Only 0.25 

per cent of the total State budget is 

Special Rapporteur’s 

Conclusions 

The gradual destruction of the 

indigenous habitat and the 

impact of extractive activities 

on the environment and the 

rights of indigenous peoples, 

mainly in the areas around the 

Amazon, the northern border 

and the Pacific coast, have raised 

great concern. The situation of 

uncontacted or voluntarily 

isolated populations merits special 

attention, as they are adversely 

affected by the illegal felling of 

trees and other illicit activities in 

their territories. Oil exploration 

activities on indigenous lands 

have likewise triggered resistance 

in some communities, as in the 

case of the Sarayaku people in the 

Amazon region. 

allocated to this area. 

10. During the 2004 local elections 

there was ill-treatment and ethnic 

discrimination within polling stations 

and that these problems 

remain a major factor in the political 

exclusion of indigenous peoples. A 

study carried out by an intercultural 

election observation mission in various 

provinces during the 2004 local 

elections also concluded that the 

Supreme Electoral Court is promoting 

discriminatory practices against 

the country's indigenous citizens, 

given the lack of any specific policy 

to promote the rights of indigenous 

peoples within the electoral process. 

11. Indigenous peoples have also serious 

concerns over the adverse 

impact of the free trade treaty that is 

being negotiated by the Ecuadorian 

Government with USA since 

November 2003 on their lives and 

livelihood. The indigenous peoples 

fear that the effects of the said treaty 

on the indigenous economy, particularly 

small producers, will be disastrous. 

12. There are no legal provisions stipulating 

the scope of the judicial powers 

vested in the indigenous authorities 

under article 191 of the 

Constitution or the manner in 

which these powers are to be exercised. 

No law has been passed to 

harmonize these powers and functions 

of indigenous authorities with 

the national system. The absence of 

specific laws has often led and leads 

to numerous conflicts of jurisdiction 

between indigenous and legal 

authorities, apparent abuses by both 

authorities, instances of their taking 

the law into their own hands and 

even the formation of self-defence 

groups which claim that their 

actions are protected by indigenous 

customary law. 

13. A large section of the indigenous 

children do not have access to 

schooling. A 2003 study in 

Cotopaxi showed that 526 rural 

children did not go to school, as 

their homes were too far away. The 

Department of Bilingual 

Intercultural Education (DINEIB) 

which is legally responsible for education 

programes for indigenous 

peoples and nationalities lacks the 

necessary resources to perform all 

the tasks assigned to it. Bilingual 

intercultural education is provided 

in 2,802 schools in 16 provinces, to 

some 123,400 pupils of 14 nationalities 

under DINEIB. As per a 

study, more than 1.3 million children 

still do not receive breakfast 

and lunch regularly. The meals are 

provided in state schools under the 

programme as an inducement to 

ensure their attendance at school. •

22 Indigenous Rights Quarterly INDIGENOUS WORLD Vol. 2 • Issue 1 • January-March 2007 

INDIGENOUS WORLD 

Laos-Thailand: Hmongs escape 

abortive deportation 

In January 2007, about 153 

Hmong refugees escaped abortive 

deportation bid by the authorities in 

Thailand. On 26 January 2007, 16 

Hmongs were deported pursuant to an 

agreement signed between Thailand and 

Laos in December 2006 while another 

153detained in the north-east Thai town 

of Nong Khai faced deportation on 30 

January 2007. The number of Hmong 

refugees was originally 152 but it rose to 

153 on 29 January 2007 with the birth 

of a baby in detention. 

The Thai Police personnel forced 

about 100 Hmong women and children 

onto the buses while men folk locked 

themselves in their detention cells. 

A defender at work 

To a large extent, desperate Hmong 

refugees who locked themselves in their 

cells to prevent being deported back to 

communist Laos were saved by Thua 

Vang, a Hmong activist, who alerted 

scores of Western journalists as well as 

government and embassy officials in 

Bangkok and Laos that ultimately 

prevented the illegal deportation 

The deportation bid was condemned 

across the spectrum. United Nations 

High Commissioner for Refugees stated 

that the refugees faced serious risk if 

refouled. There are an estimated 7,000 

Hmongs who escaped from Laos and 

have been living in Phetchabun province 

but UNHCR has not been given access. 

Nonetheless, all the 153 Hmongs facing 

deportation had been recognized as 

refugees by UNHCR. 

Following reassurances from the US, 

Australia, Canada and the Netherlands to 

resettle the Hmongs, the Thai authorities 

cancelled the deportation bid. 

Vientiane fumed and wanted the 

Hmongs back. But there were few takers. 

Malaysia: Certifying extinction of 

indigenous peoples 

In 2001, the Malysian Timber 

Certification Council (MTCC) started a 

dubious method of legalizing its illegal 

trade of timber by issuing “certificates” 

in the name of promoting 

environmentally sound logging 

practices. 

The MTCC issues two certificates. - 

Certificate for Forest Management and 

Certificate for Chain-of-Custody. The 

Certificate for Forest Management 

certifies that the Forest Management 

Units (FMU) is sustainably managed 

and that timber was harvested legally. 

The Certificate for Chain-of-Custody 

assures the buyers that timber products 

originated from MTCC-certified FMUs. 

MTTC states that participation and 

consent of local communities, 

particularly forest-dwelling indigenous 

people, is a key criterion for issuing of 

such “certificates”. 

However, since 2001, the Network 

of Indigenous Peoples and Non- 

Governmental Organisations on Forest 

Issues (JOANGOHutan) withdrew 

from talks with the government on 

certification process. The organisation 

held that the scheme is “only concerned 

with the sustainability of timber 

production and not the social-cultural 

sustainability of indigenous livelihoods”. 

Like elsewhere, participation of 

indigenous peoples is tokenism at its 

best. 

Malaysia can no longer even claim 

token participation of indigenous 

peoples. 

In January 2007, an official 

delegation of European Union visited 

Sarawak as part of the negotiations 

between the EU and Malaysia to reach a 

“Voluntary Partnership Agreement” to 

control illegal logging and work towards 

sustainable forest management in 

Malaysia. But the Sarawak authorities 

prevented the indigenous leaders from 

meeting the EU delegation. 

The socalled certification process by 

the MTCC has been allowing the illegal 

loggers to flout the sustainable forestry 

practices and indigenous peoples’ rights 

over their lands and resources. The 

MTCC has reportedly certified 4.73 

million hectares of Permanent Forest 

Reserves (PFR) that include eight forest 

management units (FMU) in the 

peninsula and the Selaan-Linau FMU in 

Sarawak. The practice is therefore 

proving to be disastrous for the survival 

of the indigenous peoples who are 

largely dependent on forests produce. 

Malaysia’s timber giant Samling has 

been given certification by the MTTC to 

denude the forest in the Long Benali 

under Miri division of Sarawak. 

Indigenous Penan communities inhabit 

these areas. Indigenous peoples have 

been protesting against Samling since 

2004 but the Malaysian police are 

prevailing over. 

In February 2004, Indigenous 

villagers prepared an unmanned road 

blockade to prevent illegal logging. After 

two years in June 2006, the blockade 

was destroyed by the Samling’s workers 

near at settlement of Ba Abang. 

Another unmanned blockade was 

developed by the indigenous peoples. 

However, of late, repression by forest 

officials with the help of the police has 

intensified. On 7 February 2007, the 

police removed the blockade imposed by 

the Penan indigenous peoples. 

As we go the print, on 4 April 

2007, officers of the Sarawak Forestry 

Corporation with support from a 

special police force unit, removed a 

Penan logging road blockade near Long 

Benali. 

Mahatir or not, Malaysia still 

remains a police state.

Indigenous Rights Quarterly INDIGENOUS WORLD Vol. 2 • Issue 1 • January-March 2007 23 

Brazil: Warned again! 

During its 70th session (19 February 

to 9 March 2007), the Committee on the 

Elimination of Racial Discrimination 

further considered the situation of the 

Macuxi, Wapichan, Taurepang, Ingarico 

and Patamona peoples in the indigenous 

area of Raposa Secra do Sol (RSS) of the 

State of Roraima, Brazil. The government 

of Brazil had submitted responses and 

NGOs also submitted additional 

information. 

The CERD Committee was far 

from being convinced by Brazil’s 

response. Despite the deadline of 15 

April 2006 set by the Presidential Decree 

of 15 April 2005, the registration and 

evaluation of the occupations assessment 

have not yet been completed, nor has the 

removal of non-indigenous occupants 

been completed. Some occupants have 

refused the compensation granted to 

them, or have accepted it but have 

subsequently refused to leave. It is also 

reported that rice growers will soon start 

planting their crops, which will make 

their removal more difficult. 

The CERD Committee urged 

Brazil to inform about (a) the current 

situation regarding: the process of 

registration and evaluation of 

occupation; regularization of agrarian 

land; payment of compensation and 

removal of non-indigenous occupants; 

(b) cases of refusal to accept 

compensation, or to leave, by nonindigenous 

occupants; (c) The new 

expected date for the total removal of 

non-indigenous occupants, pursuant to 

Portaria n° 534, of 15 April 2005. 

Brazil has also been asked to report 

about the measures adopted to protect 

indigenous people in the face 

intimidation, hate speech towards them 

and the number of complaints received, 

prosecutions undertake and number of 

conviction taken place for acts of 

violence against indigenous people. 

Moreover, the enactment of two 

municipal laws in Pacaraima (Laws No. 

110/2006 and No. 111/2006) of 

September 2006 that establish nonindigenous 

governance over areas of RSS 

by expanding the borders of the Pacaraima 

Municipality and creating a new district 

directly within the most contentious and 

heavily populated indigenous region of 

RSS. The Government of Brazil was 

asked to provide information regarding 

the objectives of these laws and their 

impact on the indigenous peoples of RSS 

and their lands. 

In fact, the Committee expressed 

concerned that the possible adoption of 

legislation defining the exception of 

“relevant public interest of the Union” 

with regard to “acts with a view to 

occupation, domain and possession” of 

indigenous land, established in 

paragraph 6 of article 231 of the 

Constitution of the Federative Republic 

of Brazil might affect the constitutional 

guarantee provided to indigenous lands. 

Brazil is to reply by no later than 1 

July 2007. 

Nepal: Teach us federalism 

Nepal Federation of Indigenous 

Nationalities (NEFIN) has been 

pressing for federalism in Nepal and 

proportional representation in the 

proposed Constituent Assembly. 

NEFIN states that its demand for 

federalism is different from the Maoists. 

Nepal declared itself as a federal State on 

9 March 2007 through first amendment 

of the Interim Constitution but the 

details are missing. 

On 15 February 2007, NEFIN 

organized a general strike in Kathmandu 

valley to press its demands. But, General 

Secretary of NEFIN, Ram Bahadur 

Thapa Magar was severely beaten by 

hooligans when he was leading a group 

to enforce the bandha in Kalanki area, 

Kathmandu. He had to be admitted to 

Model Hospital with head injury. Police 

failed to arrest the hooligans. The 

proposal to ratify ILO Convention No 

169 is unlikely to address the issues. 

Peru: Summoned by CERD, 

ordered by IAHRC 

Peru claims itself as the champion 

of indigenous rights. After all, it 

sponsored the failed resolution for 

adoption of the Draft United Nations 

Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous 

Peoples at the Third Committee of the 

UN General Assembly in November 

2006. 

Yet, nine years have passed since 29 

October 1998, Peru has failed to submit 

its its 14th to 18th periodic reports to 

the CERD Committee. Peru in the 

meantime boasted of an indigenous 

President Alejandro Toledo. The 

Committee had sent the list of issues on 

31 December 2006. 

On 9 March 2007, Chairman of the 

United Nations Committee on the 

Elimination of All Forms of Racial 

Discrimination further expressed 

concerns about the allegations that 

indigenous community leaders and 

persons who were supporting the action 

of Comision Juridica Para el 

Autodesarrollo de los Pueblos 

Originarios Andinos, which has filed 

complaint with the CERD Committee 

under its early warning system, have 

been subjected to threats and 

intimidation. During the 69th session, 

the CERD Committee had considered 

on a preliminary basis under its early 

warning and urgent action procedures 

the information submitted by the 

Comision juridica para el autodesarrollo 

de los pueblos originarios andinos 

(CAPAJ) on the situation of the Aymara 

people located on the grasslands of the 

Altiplano in Peru. 

Peru has been requested to reply by 

1 July 2007 and send a delegation at the 

71st session of the CERD from 30 July 

to 17 August 2007. 

In the meantime, Inter-American 

Commission on Human Rights asked 

Peru to act swiftly to protect isolated 

Amazonian tribes from illegal loggers. 

Will Peru listen 

•

24 Indigenous Rights Quarterly INDIGENOUS WORLD Vol. 2 • Issue 1 • January-March 2007 

Interview with Subimal... Contd. from pg 12 Draft National... Contd. from pg 15 

It is precisely because of this cordial 

relationship that there were no major 

untoward incident like in the rest of 

North East, and the Chakmas and 

Hajongs were able to sustain themselves 

despite the State Government stopping 

even the basic facilities. In times of need 

and crisis, the Chakmas and Hajongs 

always found their neighbours like the 

Khamptis and Mishmis in Lohit district; 

the Singphos, the Tangshas, and the 

Noctes in Changlang district and the 

Nishyis in Papumpare district standing 

by their side. 

The same supported would have 

extended had the Chakmas and Hajongs 

been settled in other areas of the state. 

Arunachal is indeed a peaceful place, 

there is very good communal harmony 

and we have no disagreement with the 

demand of our Chief Minister or the 

State government for a "Peace Bonus". 

IRQ: Any last word that you would 

like to add 

SBC: Not the last word but the 

most important things the I would like 

to say on behalf of the Committee for 

Citizenship Rights of the Chakmas of 

Arunachal Pradesh. We would like to 

appeal to the All Aruanchal Pradesh 

Students Union, other student 

organizations in Arunachal Pradesh and 

North East like the North East Students 

Organisation (NESO) as well as other 

civil society groups of the region to put 

pressure on the State government of 

Arunachal Pradesh and the Central 

government of India to grant our rights. 

We are tribals like all of them, we have 

been victimized by historical events 

which were beyond our control, and we 

do not pose any threat whatsoever to 

anybody. Rather, we have completely 

assimilated with the local people. We 

need their support to provide us the 

opportunity to contribute to the 

development of our state. 

• 

VII. No adequate safeguards for 

STs/SCs 

According to the definition of 

"affected family" as provided in subclause 

(s) of Clause 3.1 of Chapter III, 

the affected family, among others, must 

have been "residing continuously for a 

period of not less than three years 

preceding the date of declaration of 

the affected zone". Tribals who practice 

traditional mode of agriculture, such as 

shifting cultivation which requires 

temporarily shifting from one place to 

another place every year for cultivation 

of crops, and other nomadic forms of 

life, may not be "residing continuously 

for a period of three years" at a particular 

place and hence may not come under the 

strict definition of "affected family" to 

get the benefits under this Policy. 

The Draft NRP-2006 has dealt 

with displacement of Schedule Caste and 

Scheduled Tribe families separately. But 

the Policy falls short of expectations. 

The Policy does not provide for 

collection of disaggregated data about 

the number of ST and SC amongst those 

affected population in the survey to be 

conducted by the Administrator of 

R&R. 

The Policy provides for setting up a 

Tribal Development Plan for the 

development of the SC/ST families in 

their resettlement zone in cases where 

the displacement is 400 or more 

families en masse in plain areas, or 

200 or more families en masse in 

tribal or hilly areas, DDP blocks or 

areas mentioned in Schedule V and 


India. But no benefits have been 

provided to the displaced SC/ST families 

in projects involving linear acquisitions. 

Although the Policy provides that 

concerned Gram Sabha(s) should be 

consulted in all cases of acquisition in 

the 5th Schedule Areas including 

acquisition under the emergency clause 

of Land Acquisition Act, the Policy does 

not provide such safeguards in cases of 

land acquisition in the 6th Scheduled 

Areas. 

The Policy also does not provide 

guarantees for land for land 

compensation even to the STs and SCs. 

Clause 7.18.3 states that land would be 

allotted to STs and SCs only "if 

available". 

VIII. Grievance Redressal 

Mechanism 

The Resettlement and 

Rehabilitation Committee to monitor 

and review the progress of 

implementation of resettlement and 

rehabilitation schemes is constituted by 

the State Government under the 

chairpersonship of the Administrator of 

R&R. But the Committee is not 

independent of the State government, as 

the State government prescribes the 

rules and procedures of the Committee. 

The Grievance Redressal Cell under 

the chairpersonship of the 

Commissioner for Resettlement and 

Rehabilitation is also not independent. 

It is constituted by the State 

Government and all its rules and 

procedures including composition, 

powers, functions and other matters 

relating to the functioning of the Cell are 

prescribed by the State Government. 

The Grievance Redressal Cell is also 

financially dependent on the Requiring 

Body. Hence, the Cell may not be able to 

ensure proper implementation of the 

R&R plan. 

Also, there is no nomination of civil 

society organizations or of representative 

from the affected persons into the 

National Monitoring Committee which 

is constituted by the Ministry of Rural 

Development of the Central 

Government. •

ASIAN INDIGENOUS 

& TRIBAL PEOPLES 

NETWORK 

Asian Indigenous and Tribal Peoples Network (AITPN) 

is an alliance of indigenous and tribal peoples’ 

organisations and individual activists across the Asian 

region. It seeks to promote and protect the rights of indigenous 

and tribal peoples in Asia: 

 

 

 

 

 

 

by providing accurate and timely information to national 

human rights institutions, the United Nations and its 

specialised mechanisms, as appropriate; 

by conducting research, campaigning and lobbying on 

country situations or individual cases; 

by increasing the capacity of indigenous peoples through 

relevant training programmes for indigenous peoples’ 

rights activists and community leaders; 

by providing legal, political and practical advice to 

indigenous peoples organisations; 

by providing input into international standard-setting 

processes on the rights of indigenous peoples; and 

by securing the economic, social and cultural rights of 

indigenous peoples through rights-based approaches to 

development. 

AITPN has Special Consultative Status with the United 

Nations Economic and Social Council (ECOSOC). 

Asian Indigenous & Tribal Peoples Network 

P.O. Box 9627, Janakpuri, New Delhi-110058, India 

E-Mail: aitpn@aitpn.org Website: www.aitpn.org

Latest Publications from AITPN 

The State of India's Indigenous/Tribal Peoples 

2007 (forthcoming!) 

NO IMAGE Covering the events of 2006, it presents the first ever comprehensive study on 83.4 

million indigenous/tribal peoples of India. It covers wide range of issues including 

information about who are the Scheduled Tribes of India and their geographical 

locations; state of their civil and political rights; violations by the armed opposition 

groups; failure of the constitutional and legal mechanisms; non-implementation of the 

affirmative action programmes; repression under various laws and the state of their right to food, health 

and education etc. It also contains an analysis of National Commission for Scheduled Tribes, the 

Recognition of Forest Rights Act, 2006 and the revised Draft National Tribal Policy of India. 

Report of the National Consultation on draft 

National Tribal Policy, August 2006 

In 2004, the Ministry of Tribal Affairs of the government of India made public the 

first ever draft policy on the scheduled tribes, Draft National Tribal Policy. The 

Ministry of Tribal Affairs organised a series of consultations to elicit views. Indigenous 

and tribal peoples’ organisations also organised their own consultations and submitted 

specific recommendations. The revised draft has recently been released (5 July 2006) 

for submission of comments/recommendations. Asian Indigenous and Tribal Peoples Network held a 

National Consultation on the revised Draft National Tribal Policy on 6-8 August 2006 to provide specific 

comments from indigenous and tribal representatives of the country. 

Then and Now: Repression on indigenous Jumma 

Peoples, May 2006 

Then and Now, presented at the 5th session of the Permanent Forum on Indigenous 

Issues in May 2006, chronociles the repression on the indigenous Jumma peoples in 

the Chittagong Hill Tracts of Bangladesh since the signing of the Peace Accord in 

December 1997. It examines recent attacks on indigenous Jumma peoples at 

Maischari on 3 April 2006, repression against resistance, human rights violations, 

violence against Jumma women and Jumma children, and the failure of the CHTs Peace Accord, in 

particular, the failure to demilitarize the CHTs, continued implantation of illegal plain settlers, failure to 

rehabilitate returnee Jumma refugees and IDPs, failure of the CHTs Land Commission and the failure of 

the administrative mechanisms for implementation of the CHTs Accord. 

ASIAN INDIGENOUS & TRIBAL PEOPLES NETWORK

Access pdf version - Asian Indigenous and Tribal Peoples Network

You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles

Delete template?

Save as template?