Repression of indigenous peoples by - Asian Indigenous and Tribal ...

Indigenous Rights Quarterly ARTICLEVol. II : No. 4 • Oct-Dec 2007 3talks with the MBDPF, the last roundof discussion being held on 21November 2007, but no resultemerged. In order to prevent theBrus and the AITPN from filing awrit petition before the SupremeCourt of India for its intervention forearly repatriation of the Brus toMizoram, the Home Secretary,Government of Mizoram, who wasthe Chairman of the meeting warnedthe Bru leaders against going to theSupreme Court. The HomeSecretary, Government of Mizoramwarned the Bru representatives “notto file petition in the Supreme Courtas it can create serious repercussionamong the general public whichmay lead to further delay in theprocess of repatriation… ”ii. Miserable camp conditionsPresently, a total of 29,545 Brus areliving in six relief camps in Tripura.Their camp-wise population is asfollows: Kashirampur – 15,499 persons;Longtraikami - 5,137 persons;Hazachara - 2,593 persons; KashauA & B - 3,305 persons; Khakchang -1,243 persons and Hamsapara - 1,768persons.They have been living in miserableconditions. Since 2001, the new-bornbabies have been included only inthe census but not in the relief cardsto make them eligible for food items.Those who have become adult in thelast six years continue to be givenrations as minor. The ration quota isso inadequate that the Brus do noteven report death as it means furtherreduction of the rations being provided.Presently, a Bru adult gets cash doleof Rs 2.90 per day and a minor getsRs 1.45 per day. 450 grams of rice isbeing provided to per adult Bru perday while 225 gram rice is being providedto per minor per day. Thisration is highly inadequate. Yet, on15 October 2007, the Food, CivilSupplies and Consumer AffairsDepartment, Government of Tripurareduced the monthly rice allocationbeing provided to the relief campsunder the Public DistributionSystem (PDS), inter alia, on theground that there is no separate allocationof rice from the Governmentof India for them.Medical facilities are almost nonexistent.Only when the death of theBrus takes epidemic proportion, thedoctors visit the camps. The conditionsof children and pregnantwomen are the worst. As there areno primary health care centers, pregnantwomen are forced to delivertheir babies at the relief camps.Maternal mortality is quite high andas are also the common diseases.Most tube wells are out of order. TheBrus are forced to drink water fromthe streams and ponds, therebycausing water-born diseases.Sanitation facilities are non-existent.The Tripura government has made amockery of the right to education, asit has failed to provide educationalfacilities to the children in thecamps. Only primary educationunder the Sarva Siksha Abhiyan(Education for All) programme hasbeen extended to the Bru reliefcamps in limited proportion. Thereis no scope for higher education fortheir children. Effectively, over 5,000minors have been denied the right toeducation and an entire generationof the Brus has been kept illiterate inthe last ten years.The MBDPF in its letters dated26.06.07 and 20.07.07 addressed tothe Ministry of Human ResourceDevelopment, Government of Indiaand Sub-Divisional Magistrate,Kanchanpur, Tripura (N) respectivelypointed out the lack of basicamenities etc. at the relief camps. Butas of now no adequate relief hasbeen provided.The Mizoram governmentquestions the genuineness ofthe Brus. A survey by theMizoram Bru Displaced PeoplesForum in October-November 2007of 5,328families residing in the sixrelief camps at Kanchanpursub-division of Tripura showsthat an estimated 94.22% ofthe Reangs/Brus in the reliefcamps have at least one documenteach, issued by the Stateof Mizoram and its agencies.In addition, there is no security forthe camp inmates. It has come tolight that about 35 Bru children(aged between five and 15 years)went missing from the refugeecamps during the last five years. Thestate government of Tripura hasordered an inquiry into the incidentand to take all possible steps to tracethe children. 4iii. Step children: Discriminationagainst the BrusThe government of India does nothave any policy to deal with theproblems of displacement due toethnic conflicts or insurgency.Hence, ad hoc policies are appliedwhile dealing with the IDPs andthose who enjoy proximity withNew Delhi enjoy more benefitswhile providing relief. This is howevernot to say or suggest that theconditions of any IDP communityanywhere in India is up to the levelof satisfaction.But that the discrimination againstthe displaced Bru indigenous peoplesis glaring. This comes to lightwhen the facilities provided to theBrus are compared with that of the

Indigenous Rights Quarterly ARTICLEVol. II : No. 4 • Oct-Dec 2007 5India:No democracy for those living on the margins[Contribution of IWGIA and AITPN under the Universal Periodic Review of the Human Rights Council]I. Situation of indigenous andtribal peoples on the groundHuman rights situation of theindigenous and tribal peoples inIndia remain grim, its future bleak.Since independence indigenous peopleswere rightly seen as victims ofdevelopment and encroachments bynon-tribals. The pauperisation of thetribals continued unabated andunchecked. The affirmative actionprogrammes could not simply keepthe pace with the marginalization ofthe indigenous and tribal peoples.Presently, the situation of the tribalsfits into a classical left wing extremism.According to the figures of theMinistry of Home Affairs 21 out of 28States are afflicted by armed conflictand majority of these States areafflicted by the Naxalite conflicts, theextreme left wing armed oppositiongroups. The Naxals (Maoists) areactive mainly in the tribal belts inmainland India. Neither the Naxalmovement is led by the tribals, nor dothe demands of the Naxalites relate tothe tribals. The tribal simply fit intotheir class-war of the Naxalites. Theyare victims as well as perpetrators,and the pawns of the conflict.The government continues with itsknee-jerk reactions. The Forest RightsAct, 2006 was adopted in December2006 but it is yet to be implemented.The Relief and Rehabilitation Policyhas been revised twice since 2003, thelatest one was made public inNovember 2007. A National TribalPolicy has been in the pipeline since2004. Now, the government has proposedto set up a Land Commission.All the measures are up in the air. Asthe conflict intensifies, the tribalswill get further brutalized.a. Land alienationThe constitutional safeguards asprovided in the 5th Schedule and 6thSchedule to the Constitution of Indiaand various other State level lawswhich among others prohibit transferof the lands of the tribal peoplehave failed to prevent widespreadland alienation of the tribals. Theroot cause of the land alienation hasbeen the Land Acquisition Act of1894 under which the governmentcan exercise its sovereign power totake away any land in the name of“public purposes”.The non-tribals have also illegallyoccupied hundreds of thousands ofacres of land belonging to tribals byforce, allurement and acquiring triballands in the name of tribal wivesafter marrying them. According tothe 2004-2005 Annual Report ofMinistry of Rural Development ofthe government of India, 3,75,164cases of tribal land alienation havebeen registered covering 85,52,82acres of land in 10 States. Out ofthese, only 1,62,650 cases had beendisposed in favour of tribals coveringa total area of 4,47,314 acreswhile 1,54,993 cases covering an areaof 3,63,493 acres of land had beendecided against the tribals by theCourts on various grounds. 1b. Development and victimizationof the tribalsIndigenous/tribal peoples who constituted8% of the total population ofIndia as per 1991 census also constituted55.1% of the total developmentproject-induced displaced personsup to 1990 on account of mega developmentalprojects like dams, mining,industries and conservation ofnature etc. 2 And they were seldomrehabilitated. As India’s boomingeconomy requires more resources,indigenous/tribal peoples face moredisplacement.In the last three years, the NationalPolicy on Resettlement andRehabilitation for Project AffectedFamilies of 2004 has to be amendedtwice – in 2006 and 2007. But theNational Policy on Resettlement andRehabilitation of 2007 also failed toaddress the problems arising out ofthe State exercising its sovereignpower to forcibly acquire lands ofanybody under the LandAcquisition Act of 1894.c. Failure to ensure forest rightsThe National Forest Policy of 1988recognises symbiotic relationshipbetween forest and tribal people.Yet, the tribals have been systematicallyvictimized under the Forest Actof 1927. When the ForestConservation Act of 1980 came intoforce, hundreds of thousands of tribalpeople became encroachersovernight on the lands they hadbeen living for generations. On 23November 2001, the Supreme Courtaltogether stayed the regularisationof tribal villages in forest areas in thecase of Godavarman Thirumalpadvs Union of India in InterlocutoryApplication No.703 in Writ PetitionNo. 202/95.In 2006, the government of Indiabrought the Scheduled Tribes andOther Traditional Forest Dwellers(Recognition of Forest Rights) Act.The government of India till todayhas failed to notify the Rules ofProcedures of the Forest Rights Actof 2006. In the meanwhile, tribals

Indigenous Rights Quarterly ARTICLEVol. II : No. 4 • Oct-Dec 2007 9Special Autonomy Law was passedin 2001. 9d. Stop the proposed KalimantanBorder Oil Palm Mega-project:The proposed Kalimantan BorderOil Palm Mega-project beingimplemented by the IndonesianState Plantation Corporation (PTPerkenunan Nusantara) requires 18million hectares of land at the heartof Borneo. It will destroy theidentity of all indigenous Dayakpeople in Kalimantan throughdisplacement and will eventuallyreduce them to plantationlabourers. While Indonesiangovernment has put the projecttemporarily on hold, AITPN hasreceived credible reports that landsfrom indigenous peoples are beingacquired by force, fraudulentmeans and inducements for variousprivate companies. In effect, theproject is still on!e. Persecution of religiousminorities:Religious freedom remains a criticalissue of Indonesia not only becauseof the increased fundamentalismbut also because of the preferentialtreatment given to the six officiallyrecognized religions - Islam,Protestantism, Catholicism,Hinduism, Buddhism andConfucianism. “Other non-recognisedreligions” face discriminationand restrictions. In October 2005,the regional office of the Ministry ofReligious Affairs in West NusaTenggara formally banned 13 religioussects, including Ahmadiya,Jehovah’s Witness, Hari Krishna,and nine forms of traditional beliefsof indigenous peoples. 10 On theother hand, Civil Registration Actadopted by the Indonesian Houseof Representatives on 8 December2006 requires citizens to state theirfaith on legal documents like identitycards and birth certificates etc. 11f. Persecution of human rightsdefenders:Human rights activism remains dangerous,not only because Indonesiangovernment failed to ensureaccountability for the murder ofMunir but also because the State hasa systematic policy to persecute thehuman rights defenders, especiallyin Papua. On 1 April 2007,Franciskus Madhu (30), a RomanCatholic priest was shot dead in hischurch by three unidentified gunmenin Lubuagan in northernKalinga province. 12The Indonesian Army, the TNI iscontemptuous of Ms Hina Jilani, UNSecretary General’s SpecialRepresentative on human rightsdefenders. Ms Jilini visitedIndonesia from 5-12 June 2007 andMr Frederika Korain and PriestPerinus Kogoya of Peace and JusticeCommission for the Diocese ofJayapura; Mr Yan ChristianWarinussy, Executive Director of theInstitute of Research, Analysis andDevelopment for Legal Aid,Manokwari; and Mr AlbertRumbekwan, the head of theNational Human RightsCommission (Komnas Ham), PapuaProvince called on her in Jakarta. Onreturn, they were threatened by officialsfrom the intelligence andIndonesian Armed Forces whodared to gave their names and telephonenumbers. The Komnas Hamwas requested to investigate but itfailed to investigate these allegations.II. State’s human rights obligationsand commitmentsIndonesia has failed to fulfill its obligationsand commitment at nationaland international level.a. No recognition of ulayat, customary,rightsThe Constitution of Indonesia of1945 under Article 18 and Article 28recognizes the “traditional communities”and their cultural identitiesand traditional rights and the samewere affirmed by the Act No. 39 of1999 on Human Rights. Yet a numberof Acts such as the Forestry Acts(Act No. 5 of 1967 and Act No. 41 of1999), Law No. 11 of 1967 on thePrinciples of Mining, Act No. 5 of1990 concerning the Conservation ofBiological Resources and theEcosystem and PresidentialRegulation No. 36 of 2005 on LandProcurement for Development forPublic Purposes failed to recognizethe ulayat, customary rights, ofindigenous peoples recognizedunder Article 3 and Article 5 of theBasic Agrarian Law No. 5 of 1960.Further, Presidential Instruction No.26 of 1998 banned the use of theterms “indigenous” and “nonindigenous”in all official documents.b. Failure to amend the CriminalCodeThe Indonesian government alsofailed to amend the draconianCriminal Code introduced duringthe Dutch colonial period which hasbeen widely used by the governmentto intimidate critics. On 17 July2007, Constitutional Court declaredArticle 154 and Article 155 ofIndonesian Criminal Code thatbanned expression of “feelings ofhostility, hatred or contempt” asunconstitutional. 13 These are piecemeal solutions while the CriminalCode requires complete repeal tobring conformity with its treaty obligationsas required under Articles 7of the Act No. 39 of 1999 on HumanRights.c. Failure to strengthen the NHRCThe Komisi Nasional Hak AsasiManusia (KOMNAS HAM), theNational Human RightsCommission and Human Rights

12 Indigenous Rights Quarterly ARTICLEVol. II : No. 4 • Oct-Dec 2007has not been any accountability forthese killings.The adoption of the Mining Act of1995 and the Supreme Court’s decisionto uphold its constitutionalvalidity removed all legal obstaclesfor mining operations in the country.9 The Cordillera Peoples Alliancestated that 1.2 million hectares of theCordillera’s total land area of 1.8-million hectare were already coveredby foreign corporations’ miningapplications. 10 According toFederation of Indigenous Peoples ofthe Philippines (KAMP) more than16,000 indigenous small scale minersand more than 100,000 indigenouspeasant families will lose their livelihoodsources if the governmentapproves the mining applications.Two projects, the Teresa GoldProject in Mangkayan and PadcalSto. Tomas Copper ExpansionProject in Tuba, were already underoperation. 11Indigenous peoples have also beendisplaced as a result of the conflicts.According to Internal DisplacementMonitoring Centre, an estimated100,000 peoples were displaced fromtheir homes due to armed conflictand human rights abuses in 2006. 12c. Violations of the rights of womenWomen face serious human rightsviolations, including sexual violence.According to Senate PresidentManuel Villar, an average of 20 casesof violence against women is reportedeveryday in the country. 13 ThePhilippines National Police recorded253 rapes in January and February2007. 14 The provisions in the Code ofMuslim Personal Laws which permitthe marriage of girls under 18 yearsand polygamy; and the policy ofsome schools dismissing an unmarriedfemale student (but not hermale partner) if she got pregnant 15are highly discriminatory against thegirls.The women do not have proportionaterepresentation in the Parliament.Presently, there are only fourwomen out of 24 members in theSenate and 56 women out of the 236members in the House ofRepresentatives. 16d. Violations of the rights of thechildThe implementation of the laws onjuveniles is extremely poor.According to the Department ofSocial Welfare and Development,there were 4,039 children in conflictwith the law in the country as of July2007. Of these, more than 300 weredetained at the New Bilibid Prisons,590 were locked up in city jails, 406in police detention cells, among others,in violation to the Republic ActNo. 9344 also called the JuvenileJustice Welfare Act of 2006. Morethan 1,000 children in conflict withlaw were languishing in sub humanconditions in jails together withadult criminals. 17According to the Salinlahi Alliancefor Children’s Concerns, 60 childrenor seven percent of the victims ofextrajudicial killings recorded by thehuman rights group from 2001 to2007 in the Autonomous Region ofMuslim Mindanao (ARMM) werechildren. 18e. Violations of the rights of theprisonersPrison conditions remain deplorabledue to overcrowding, sub-standardfacilities and lack of basic facilities.This has reportedly been confirmedby International Committee of RedCross (ICRC) which is allowed tovisit prisons. 19 There were about35,000 inmates who fought for spacein jails maintained by the Bureau ofJail Management and Penology in2001. The number increased to69,500 as of October 2007.Overcrowding resulted in spread ofdiseases such as tuberculosis andsanitation problems. As per governmentestimates, the population ingovernment jails could reach tomore than 114,930 by 2010.However, new facilities are beingmade. 20II. State’s human rights obligationsand commitmentsThere are several provisions in the1987 constitution and several nationallegislations in the Philippineswhich uphold the rights of the citizensincluding the indigenous peoples.Yet, these are not implementedin practice.a. Constitution: Political autonomyThe 1987 Constitution of Philippinesrecognizes the right of Muslims andindigenous peoples of Cordillera toself-determination in the form ofautonomy. But there has not beengenuine autonomy for the Cordillerapeoples. The indigenous peoples ofCordillera rejected two Organic Actsfor Cordillera Regional Autonomyof 1990 and 1998 because of the failureof the Acts to grant self-governanceand control over their landand natural resources. 21 The same isbeing followed with regard to theMoros in Mindanao.b. Draconian anti-terror law:Human Security Act of 2007The Human Security Act (HAS) of2007 is a disingenuous attempt tofool international community. It isactually the latest anti-terror lawand empowers the security forces todetain suspects without warrant orcharges up to three days which canbe extended beyond three days byapproval from a human rights officerunder section 19 of the HSA. Aconviction for terror offences couldresult in a 40-year jail sentencewithout the benefit of parole. 22Article III, Section 3 of the 1987

Indigenous Rights Quarterly ARTICLEVol. II : No. 4 • Oct-Dec 2007 13Constitution provides that any evidenceobtained through wiretappingor voice recording cannot beused in any court proceeding. Butthe new law allows the state to usetape recorded evidence to pin downa suspect, in violation of the 1987Constitution. 23c. Indigenous Peoples Rights Act,1997In 1997, the government of thePhilippines adopted the IndigenousPeoples Rights Act (IPRA). The Actcreated the National Commission onIndigenous Peoples (NCIP) mandatedto formulate and implement policies,plans and programs for therecognition, promotion and protectionof the rights and well-being ofIndigenousCulturalCommunities/Indigenous Peoples(ICC/IPs) with due regard to theirbeliefs, customs, traditions and institutions.d. Land Titling: Long delaysIn the Philippines, there are an estimatedfive million hectares of ancestraldomains exists based on combinedpending claims for direct applicationfor CADT and claims for conversionof Certificate of AncestralDomain Claim (CADC) intoCertificate of Ancestral Domain Title(CADT). The figure could be muchhigher as lack of accurate data on theactual extent and location of ancestraldomains and lands nationwide continueto affect the efficient planning,targeting and implementation ofancestral domain and land titling. 24Lack of funds and boundary disputesdelay the processing of ancestral landtitles. According to NCIP AncestralDomain Bureau director MyrnaCagaoas, NCIP has issued a total of150 Certificates of Ancestral LandTitles and 56 CADTs comprising anarea of 1,114,857.17 hectares as of 4January 2007. The NCIP could notfund all the processes since theagency’s budget for ancestral domainis merely Pesos 31 million a year. 25 Infact, the first CADT comprisingancestral domain of 29,444.34hectares was issued to the Bago tribeof Bakun, Benguet only on 20 July2002 and another covering 11,811.6hectares was issued to the Manobotribe of Lanuza, Surigao Province on30 November 2002 after almost fiveyears of IPRA implementation. 26III. Enhancement of State’s capacityMost of the capacity building programmesare focused on Philippines’National Human RightsCommission. The Human RightsCouncil should emphasize for capacitybuilding programmes of theNational Commission on IndigenousPeoples including for titling of thelands of the indigenous peoples.IV. Cooperation with HRC, TreatyBodies and OHCHRThe government of Philippines hasfailed to extend Openinvitation/Standing invitation to theSpecial Procedures. Since 2003, onlySpecial Rapporteur on extrajudicial,summary or arbitrary executions (12to 21 February 2007) has been invitedto visit.The government of Philippines hasratified most instruments but seldomimplements the same at nationallevel. The government ofPhilippines also failed to submitperiodic reports under InternationalConvention on the Elimination ofAll Forms of Racial Discriminationsince 1998; under the ConventionAgainst Torture and Other CruelInhuman or Degrading Treatment orPunishment since 1992; underInternational Convention on theProtection of the Rights of AllMigrant Workers and Members ofTheir Families since July 2004,under Optional Protocol to theConvention on the Rights of theChild on the sale of children childprostitution and child pornographysine June 2004, under theInternational Covenant on Civil andPolitical Rights since November2006, and under Convention on theRights of the Child since September2007.In a nutshell, the government ofPhilippines neither implements theTreaties nor has anything to reportto the Treaty Bodies.Endnotes1. Beltran Wants to Probe Witness ProtectionProgram, Slays and Disappearances, ByAlexander Martin Remollino, Bulatlat, Vol.VII, No. 25, July 29-Aug. 4, 20072. PHILIPPINES: INDIGENOUS DEFENDERSON THE LINE OF FIRE, AITPN, IRQ,II/11/06: 29 December 20063. I-Team report, Judicial reforms seek to endimpunity, Inquirer.Net, 1 November 20074. Arroyo affirms: We have no tolerance for rightsviolations, Inquirer.net, 15 October 20075. PHILIPPINES: INDIGENOUS DEFENDERSON THE LINE OF FIRE, AITPN, IRQ,II/11/06: 29 December 20066. The Pattern of Human Rights Violations ofIndigenous Peoples Continues—UN SpecialRapporteur Rodolfo Stavenhagen,Cordillera Peoples Alliance, available at:http://www.cpaphils.org/campaigns/unsr%20updates_8feb07.htm7. London Anti-Mining Confab Blames GMA,TNCs for Killings, Harassment, By Arthur L.Allad-IW, Vol. VII, No. 38, October 28-November 3, 20078. Five Years Down the Drain for IndigenousPeoples, By Jhong Dela Cruz, The Bulatlat,Vol. VI, No. 24, July 23 - 29, 20069. Open-Pit Mining Destroyed Village inZambales, By Abner Bolos, The Bulatlat,Dec. 31, 2006 - Jan. 6, 200710. London Anti-Mining Confab Blames GMA,TNCs for Killings, Harassment, By Arthur L.Allad-IW, Vol. VII, No. 38, October 28-November 3, 200711. Five Years Down the Drain for IndigenousPeoples, By Jhong Dela Cruz, The Bulatlat,

14 Indigenous Rights Quarterly ARTICLEVol. II : No. 4 • Oct-Dec 2007Vol. VI, No. 24, July 23 - 29, 200612. Children Again are Casualties of War inARMM, By Mae-Fe Ancheta-Templa, Bulatlat,Vol. VII, No. 30, September 2-8, 200713. 20 cases of abuses against women happenin RP daily, records show, Sun.Star Manila,11 March 200714. Available at: http://www.pnp.gov.ph/stat/content/stat/2007/crime%20statistics%20janmay2007.xls15. Test for women legislators, Inquirer.Net, 13November 2007, available at:http://opinion.inquirer.net/inquireropinion/columns/view_article.php?article_id=10052916. Test for women legislators, Inquirer.Net, 13November 2007, available at:http://opinion.inquirer.net/inquireropinion/columns/view_article.php?article_id=10052917. Proper way to arrest youth offenders explainedin primers, Inqurer.Net, 30 Oct. 200718. Children not spared from human rights violations—activists,Inquirer.Net, 18September 200719. ICRC cites deplorable jails conditions, availableat: http://www.bjmp.gov.ph/Press%20Releases/08092007_icrc.html20. Justice as circus, Inquirer.Net, 30 Oct. 200721. Militants Skeptical of New Autonomy Pushfor Cordi, By Arthur L. Allad-IW, Bulatlat,Vol. VII, No. 25, July 29-Aug 4, 200722. Philippines approves terror bill, BBC News,20 February 200723. Republic Act of 9372 or the Human SecurityAct of 200724. NCIP, MTPDP for Indigenous Peoples,2004-200825. Agency set to give more domain titles, 15February 2007, Sun.Star Bagui, availableat: http://www.sunstar.com.ph/static/bag/2007/02/15/news/agency.set.to.give.more.domain.titles.html26. 2002 Annual Report of the NationalCommission on Indigenous People of thePhilippinesAsian Indigenous and Tribal PeoplesNetwork has been receiving consistentreports of serious human rightsviolations including involuntary disappearancesand torture of indigenousAlifUrus in Maluku, Indonesia.In January 2007, an activist identifiedas Harun Haikutty (32) ofWaraloin village in Ceram inMaluku was murdered allegedly bythe Indonesian company “Pt AbdeGuna Bahari” owned by the country’sVicePresident JusufKalla. Thedeceased was atthe forefront inthe protest againstthe illegally loggingof tropicalhardwoodsaround Waraloinvillage by thecompany.Violations in MalukuAs the protestagainst the loggingcompanygrew louder,Harud had suddenlydisappeared. Later, his mutilatedbody was recovered at thelocation of the Pt Abde Guna Baharicompany in January 2007. The deadbody bore marks of stabbing and hishead was severed with a chain saw.But the police failed to take anyaction against the company or toinvestigate the killing. When thefamily members and the villagersdemanded an inquiry into the murderof Harud, the logging companythreatened them with dire consequencesif they did not remain silent.In protest, the family of the deceasedtook some chain saws and otherequipments of the logging companybut these equipments were forciblyrecovered by the company with theAsian Indigenous and TribalPeoples Network has beenreceiving consistent reports ofserious human rights violationsincluding involuntarydisappearances and torture ofindigenous AlifUrus inMaluku, Indonesia. The situationin Malukus calls forimmediaton intervention ofthe Indonesian and internationalhuman rights community.help of the Indonesian police andmilitary.There have also ben reports of arbitraryarrest and denial of fair trial.On 28 June 2007, 25 Moluccans werearrested for performing the“Tjakalele”, a traditional war dancecarrying the National Flag of theRepublik Maluku Selatan (Republicof the South Moluccas, RMS) beforethe President of Indonesia, SusiloBambang Yudhoyono and the internationaldelegatesas a show of peacefulprotest during afunction inMaluku. TheIndonesianPresident was thereto officially launchthe IndonesianNational FamilyPlanning programme.Apartfrom their aspirationsfor independence,the Malukupeople were alsoagainst theIndonesianNational Family Planning programme(which restricted the numberof children of a couple to two)because they felt that it was unnecessarilyimposed on them as Malukuwas not so overpopulated like theisland of Java and saw it as a measureof suppression.The police and the military immediatelyused force to arrest the 25Moluccans for their peaceful protestand sent to prison. They werecharged with being the members ofthe Republik Maluku Selatan(Republic of the South Moluccas,RMS).Contd. on pg 20

Indigenous Rights Quarterly ARTICLEVol. II : No. 4 • Oct-Dec 2007 15A critical analysis of“Consultation Draft of the Safeguard Policy Statement”of Asian Development BankIn October 2007, Asian DevelopmentBank released its “ConsultationDraft of the Safeguard PolicyStatement” and held “IndigenousPeoples’ Consultation” in Manila,Philippines on 27 November 2007.ADB’s Consultation Draft of theSafeguard Policy Statement ingeneral and its “SafeguardRequirements for Borrowers/Clientson Indigenous Peoples” (hereinafterreferred as “Indigenous PeoplesSafeguards”) in particular aredeeply flawed. A cursory reading ofthe Indigenous Peoples Safeguardsshows that the ADB places excessivetrust on the borrowers/clients at thecost of the fundamental rights of theindigenous peoples.I. General concernsa. Lack of borrower’s obligationsunder international lawThe Asian Development Bank hasvirtually kept the borrowers/clientsoutside the purview of theinternational laws. They do not haveany obligation under internationallaw. The ADB has overlookedvarious mechanisms and polices onindigenous peoples approved by theUnited Nations including theDeclaration on the Rights ofIndigenous Peoples.b. No responsibility for the ADBThe ADB has also shunned itsresponsibilities under internationallaw towards the indigenous peoplesonce the projects are awarded to theborrowers/clients. The draft policystates that the ADB shall take legalremedies including suspension orcancellation of the project if “aborrower/client fails to comply withlegal agreements on safeguardrequirements”.The problem is that the indigenouspeoples have no say in theimplementation of the projects. Theindigenous peoples should be made“full or at least proforma party” inthe legal agreements between theBank and the borrower/client sothat the Asian Development Bank isdirectly responsible for thesafeguards of the interests of theindigenous peoples and theindigenous peoples as stakeholderscan exercise their powers to act inthe event of failure on the part of theborrower/client to comply withADB’s policy.c. No clarity about the timing forapplicability of the policyThe ADB’s Indigenous PeoplesSafeguards fail to clarify the triggertiming. Specifically, whether theapplicability of the “safeguardrequirements” shall start prior to orafter the signing of the agreementwith the borrower/client remainsunclear. AITPN suggested that thesafeguard requirements shouldapply from the moment dialoguewith the borrower is held (i.e. priorto the screening of a project) and theresponsibility to ensure complianceshall form part of the MOU orContract.d. Reject ADB’s “CountrySafeguard System”The ADB lays strong emphasis,rather over-emphasis, on theCountry Safeguard Systems whichis defined as a “mean a country’slegal and institutional framework,consisting of its national, subnational,or sectoral implementinginstitutions and relevant laws,regulations, rules, and procedures,which pertain to the policy areas ofenvironmental and socialsafeguards”. It is well known thatacross Asia, the legal andinstitutional frameworks of most ofthe countries are “anti-indigenouspeoples”. In a few countries likeIndia and the Philippines the rightsof indigenous peoples recognizedunder the law have beensystematically undermined by thejudiciary especially with regard to“land for land compensation” incase of forced evictions and the rightto free, prior and informed consent.The yardsticks provided by the ADBfor determination for “equivalenceand acceptability” of the CountrySafeguard System by the ADB doesnot meet international obligations ofthe borrowers/clients.In this regard, AITPN suggested thatCountry Safeguard System shouldbe done away with and ADB shoulddevelop its own system based oninternational obligations of theborrowers/ the State parties.II. Specific concerns with the“safeguard requirements onindigenous peoples”a. Consultation is not consentThe ADB only recognizes “Free,Prior and Informed Consultationand Broad Community Support”.But “consultation” is not “consent”and this is an attempt to undermineestablished international law. Article10 of the UN Declaration on theRights of Indigenous Peoples

16 Indigenous Rights Quarterly ARTICLEVol. II : No. 4 • Oct-Dec 2007recognizes the “the right to free,prior and informed consent”.The non-recognition of the right to“consent” denies the right to say“no” to any project which adverselyaffects indigenous peoples.Therefore, the draft safeguardrequirements do not provide anyprovisionforabandonment/cancellation of anyproject before its commencement.Under Section 11, the ADB states,“When the borrower/client and theaffected Indigenous Peoples haveserious differences anddisagreements on the project, itscomponents, or IPP, the borrower/client should adopt good faithnegotiations for them to resolve suchdifferences and disagreements”.Therefore, the intention is clear: byhook or crook, continue with theproject. This is indeed contrary tothe ADB’s proposed accountabilitymechanism which states “ADB mayexercise legal remedies includingsuspension, cancellation, oracceleration of maturity” for failureof compliance. If the project isopposed from the beginning byindigenous peoples why would theADB wait till it has to resort toextreme measures? Or is it a case theADB believes that accountabilityshall be an exception.b. Screening of project: Borrowerthe judge and juryThe screening of the project will beconducted by the borrower/clientwith the help of qualified experts.Many countries still do notrecognize the indigenous peoples intheir countries. Hence, without anyguidelines in place as to how tochoose the qualified experts, thesocalled experts will simply act ascronies to the borrower. In order toprevent the borrower frombecoming both the judge and thejury, the ADB should conduct theA cursory reading of theADB’s Draft Safeguard PolicyStatement in general andits “Safeguard Requirementsfor Borrowers/Clients onIndigenous Peoples” in particularshows that the ADBplaces excessive trust on theborrowers/clients at the costof the fundamental rights ofthe indigenous peoples.There is something wrongwhen the ADB seeks to shirkits responsibility to the borrowers.screening with the help ofindigenous experts.c. No representation of indigenouspeoples for Social ImpactAssessmentThe present draft provides that“When screening confirms likelyimpacts on Indigenous Peoples, theborrower/client will retain qualifiedand experienced expert(s) to carryout a full social impact assessment,and if adverse impacts onIndigenous Peoples are identified,prepare an IPP [Indigenous PeoplesPlanning] in conjunction with thefeasibility study”.But the indigenous peoples havebeen totally left out of the SocialImpact Assessment study, which isso crucial if the factual adverseimpacts of the project on theindigenous peoples are to bepresented. While indigenous expertsmust be mandatorily included in theSIA team, it is also essential that theADB must be equally responsible forthe Social Assessment. The SIAstudy must be made public.d. Indigenous Peoples PlanningThe preparation of the IndigenousPeoples Plan is as crucial as theSocial Impact Assessment and hencethe inclusion of the indigenouspeoples must be made mandatorywhich is not the case at present.Another matter of serious concern isthat the draft requirements do notprovide answers as to under whatcircumstances a project can berejected at any stage. Therequirements assert unequivocallythat a project must continuewhatever be the adverse impacts onthe indigenous peoples. This is quitefrightening considering that theADB does not include projectswhich “promotes racism” in its listof prohibited investment activities.e. Information disclosureThis provision also providesexcessive control to the borrowerrelating to indigenous peoples. Infact, it provides that “(i) draftIPP/Indigenous Peoples PlanningFramework (IPPF) endorsed by theborrower/client, before appraisal.”Since the borrower under the currenttext is mandated to conduct the SIAand prepare Indigenous PeoplesPlan, the suggestion that the draftIPP too will be endorsed by theborrower is ridiculous and selfserving.In an age of the right toinformation, the procedure forinformation disclosure is quiteoutdated.Instead of the borrower, the ADBshould take the responsibility todisclose all the information to thepublic and disclosing all informationin all stages must form a part of theagreement signed with theborrower.f. Grievance mechanismThe present draft on IndigenousPeoples Safeguards provides for thecreation of a grievance mechanismby the borrower against itself. In away, the borrower is being asked to

Indigenous Rights Quarterly ARTICLEVol. II : No. 4 • Oct-Dec 2007 17act as judge and jury on itself! It is acase of too much “good faith on theborrower/client”. It violatesinternationally accepted principleson independence and impartialityon any grievance mechanism.In this regard, AITPN recommendedthat the ADB should establish itsown grievance mechanismconsistent with internationallyaccepted principles onindependence and impartiality onany grievance mechanism.g. Monitoring and reportingThe draft Indigenous PeoplesSafeguards provides that monitoringand reporting on theimplementation of the IPP is to bedone by the borrower. It alsosuggests that borrower hire externalexperts. It is clear that borrowers arenot interested in developingsafeguard policies on indigenouspeoples. The ADB should developindependent monitoring mechanismfor implementation of the IPP withthe full participation of indigenouspeoples’ experts.h. Project completionIt is strange that borrower is alsogiven the responsibility to conductassessment of implementation of theIPP and the degree of compliancewith indigenous peoples relatedloan covenants. The ABD mustconduct the study itself, amongothers, for the lessons learnt forfuture operations involvingindigenous peoples.i. Special considerations: No landrights for indigenous peoplesThe Asian Development Bank usesthe ancestral domains, land andrelated natural resources to mislead.The critical issue is not ADB’spromises to take measures torecognize land rights as providedunder para 45 and para 46 underSpecial Considerations. Theseprovisions assume that indigenouspeoples do not have any land rights.The critical issue is whereindigenous peoples have their landrights recognized under normallaws or specific laws such as the 5thand 6th Schedules of theConstitution of India whichguarantee land for land ascompensation. Even in these cases,the ADB under para 47 proposes“resettlement” of the indigenouspeoples without making anyreference as to how indigenouspeoples’ lands will be acquired.Obviously, the land acquisition lawsshall be applied, and the ADBsupport acquisition of the lands ofindigenous peoples irrespective ofthe legal and constitutionalguarantees through the creation ofsocalled “culturally appropriatelivelihood restoration measures”which are just jargons, never used byany borrower or Bank. The UnitedNations Committee on Economic,Social and Cultural Rights under itsGeneral Comments No. 7 relating to“the right to adequate housing:forced evictions” concluded thatforced evictions are prima facieincompatible with the requirementsof the Covenant (ICESCR) and laidthe legal guidelines that must berespected by the borrower and theADB.The ADB also does not use rightsbased approaches with regard tocommercial development of naturaland cultural resources (para 48 and49) as provided under InternationalCovenant on Civil and PoliticalRights, UN Convention onBiological Diversity etc.In fact, under Para 50 relating tophysical relocation of indigenouspeoples, the ADB gives thediscretion to the borrower either toexplore alternate project designs orThe ADB does not use rightsbased approaches with regardto commercial developmentof natural and culturalresources as provided underInternational Covenant onCivil and Political Rights,UN Convention on BiologicalDiversity etc.carry out physical relocation ofindigenous peoples withoutrecognizing the rights of theindigenous peoples under nationallaw or obligation of the borrowersunder international law. The use ofthe terms “where possible” isnothing but providing the license to“relocate”. Moreover, the word“relocate” denotes the necessity toresort to such a measure which inreality is forced and thereforeinvolves “arbitrariness and ofillegality”.It is not the borrower but the lenderi.e. the ADB which must ensure thatthere is no force involved.Even under para 51 relating torestriction of access to protectedareas and natural resources, there isno reference to the safeguardsrelating to indigenous peoples asprovided under the declaration ofthe World Parks Congress (Durban2004) and article 28 of the UnitedNations Declaration on the Rights ofIndigenous Peoples.Most surprisingly, the prohibitedinvestment activity of AsianDevelopment Bank does not includeproject or investment activities,which are prima facie racist orinvolve violations of the right to life.In fact, any violation of the right tolife in the conflicts involving theADB supported projects must be thethreshold for the “suspension andcancellation” of the projects. •

18 Indigenous Rights Quarterly ARTICLEVol. II : No. 4 • Oct-Dec 2007Bangladesh: The Army attacks Buddhism to facilitateillegal settlement in the Chittagong Hill TractsOn 25 January 2008, indigenousJumma peoples are scheduled tohold a large religious gathering atSarnath Arannyo Kuthir, a Buddhisttemple at Karallyachari inKhagrachari Hill district of theChittagong Hill Tracts (CHTs). TheBangladeshi authorities havebanned the meeting. It is unclear ifthe meeting will go ahead. As weupload this Weekly Review, theDeputy Commissioner ofKhagrachari district is holding ameeting with the local Jumma eldersof Karallyachari to decide the fate ofthe religious gathering while theBangladesh army personnel havebeen seizing the bikes and othervehicles. But if the meeting takesplace it is likely that the governmentwill use violence to suppress it.The government’s actions at the templeare a microcosm of an ongoingand long established State policy toestablish a homogenous BengaliMuslim society; a policy that impliesthe destruction of the identity of theindigenous Jumma peoples througha process of illegal and often violentsettlement of the Bengali Muslimsettlers.With international community’sattention focused on Bangladesh’sparliamentary elections the caretakergovernment is free to executethe ethnic cleansing policy in theCHTs without external interference.Background to the SarnathArannyo Kuthir:The banning of the religious gatheringcomes as part of a pattern ofwider attacks on the religion of theindigenous communities. On 14January 2008, the Bangladesh Policearrested Reverend Arya JyotiBhikkhu, Head Priest of SarnathArannyo Kuthir, after a settler,Abdul Majid, son of late AkadZaman from Karallyachari clustervillage, filed a First InformationReport (No. 1 of dated 11/1/2008)under sections 143, 447, 379, 427, 506and 109 of the Bangladesh PenalCode. The complainant accusedThe government ofBangladesh recently sought toban a large religious gatheringat Sarnath Arannyo Kuthir, aBuddhist temple at Karallyachariin Khagrachari Hilldistrict of the CHTs. Thegovernment’s actions at thetemple are a microcosm of anongoing and long establishedState policy to establish ahomogenous Bengali Muslimsociety; a policy that impliesthe destruction of the identityof the indigenous Jummapeoples through a process ofillegal and often violent settlementof the Bengali Muslimsettlers.about 500 indigenous peoplesincluding Rev Aryo Joti Bhikkhuand Late(!) Tumbo Chakma of committingoffences of illegal gathering,theft and destruction to privateproperties. In reality, it appears thatthese indigenous Jummas were makingtemporary houses to accommodatethe Buddhist monks and thedevotees within the temple premise.On 21 January 2008, the AdditionalDistrict Magistrate of KhagrachariMr Manindra Kishor Majumder in acommunication (je.pra.kha/je.em/tin-75/2008-63) ordered theOfficer-in-Charge of MahalachariPolice Station area to issue showcause on the headmen and Karbaris(traditional village chiefs) ofKarallyachari area as to why theyhad failed to notify the administrationabout the religious programme.He also ordered that the court examinethe land documents of the templeand threatened legal actionagainst the headmen and Karbaris ifthey failed to provide satisfactorydocumentation.On 21 January 2008, Bangladesharmy personnel prevented local peoplefrom constructing a makeshiftbridge over the river Chengi atKarallyachari - Paujjyachari areaunder Mahalchari Police Station.The bridge was being prepared forthe religious programme.Targeting of the Buddhist temples:The events at Sarnath ArannyoKuthir are not isolated. Across theCHTs, Buddhist temples have beentargeted for destruction by theauthorities. Indigenous BuddhistChakmas and Marmas usually livein and around their temples. Oncetemples are destroyed the area canbe more easily cleared for illegalplain settlers.In August 2007, illegal settlers andthe Bangladesh army personnel triedto take over the lands of the SadhanaTila Buddhist temple of Babucharaarea under Dighinala upazila inKhagrachari district. As national andinternational protest grew, the defactoruler of the country GeneralMoeen U Ahmed visited Dighinalaon 28 August 2007 and assuredlocals that the temple will not be

Indigenous Rights Quarterly ARTICLEVol. II : No. 4 • Oct-Dec 2007 19destroyed.On 12 September 2007, Khagracharidistrict authorities banned the “constructionof new Mosque, Hindutemple and Buddhist temple” inMahalchari sub-division withoutprior permission of the authorities.While the order does not specificallytarget any religious group, given thelong history of well documented evidenceof violations against theJumma peoples the political reality isthat the order is targeted at theindigenous peoples and their religioni.e. Buddhism.On 5 November 2007, MajorQamruzzaman, Commander ofBabuchara zone, summoned SnehaMoy Chakma and Santosh JibonChakma to his camp and orderedthem not to use loudspeakers toannounce the Katin ChivorDanotsav, the Buddhist festival thatfollows the end of the rain retreat ofBuddhist monks.On 31 December 2007, a group ofarmy personnel led by CaptainSohel, Commander of ShuknachariIndra Singh Karbari Para camp ofthe Bangladesh Army, demolishedBhujulichuk Kuthir, a Buddhistmeditation centre in LakshmichariUpazila in Khagrachari district.Captain Shohel threatened witnesseson a prior attack that : “We will nottolerate any Buddha house here; wewant only Allah’s house”.On 17 January 2008, theCommanding Officer of Baghaihatzone in Rangamati district threatenedReverend Dwip BongshawBhikkhu, the Head Priest of BishwaMoitri Bouddha Vihar at Hazacharavillage in Baghaihat. TheCommanding officer threatened todemolish the temple if the priest didnot leave.The motivation for taking land of theSadhana Tila Buddhist temple andits surrounding areas is simple: furtherillegal settlement. Asian Centrefor Human Rights (ACHR) is in possessionof a letter dated 19November 2007 issued by Md. SulutZaman, Deputy Secretary of theMinistry of Chittagong Hill TractsAffairs (MoCHTA). It orders theDeputy Commissioner ofKhagrachari district to illegally settle812 families into the lands of theindigenous Jummas at Babucharaarea, Baghaichari mouza underDighinala upazila (sub- district) inKhagrachari district.Despite the increasing rate ofillegal settlement and blatanthuman rights violations in theCHTs, international concernis hard to discern. EvenHuman Rights Watch andAmnesty International omittedreference to the CHTs intheir Annual reports 2007.Land grabbing:There are many other recent incidentsof forcible land grabbing. InDecember 2007, illegal plain settlersled by Md. Wahab from Burighatunder Rangamati district forciblygrabbed 25 acres of land belongingto the indigenous Jumma people atHatimara village under BurighatMouza in Rangamati district.During March 2007-November2007, a total of 399.22 acres of landbelonging to 133 Jumma individualsand a primary school in 14 villagesunder four Unions ofMahalchari police station andKhagrachari Sadar police stationunder Kagrachari district have beenillegally and forcibly grabbed bythe illegal plain settlers with directhelp from the army.At a press conference in Dhaka on 19January 2008, representatives of theCommittee for Protection of Land inBandarban called upon the governmentto cancel the ongoing processof acquiring 9,560 acres of land forthe purpose of expansion of RumaGarrison. The government ispresently at the final stage of acquiring9,560 acres of land for the purposeof expansion of Ruma Garrisonin three Mouzas of Galenga, Pantolaand Sengum under Ruma Upazillain Bandarban. Out of the total landto be acquired, 1,569.06 acres belongto the indigenous peoples and 4,000acres belong to the ForestDepartment. The project will lead todisplacement of 4,315 indigenouspersons from 644 families. Way backin 1988, a joint study team ofBandarban District Administrationand the Bangladesh Military statedthat the project would be disastrousfor the local indigenous peoples.Background to the CHTs crisis:The root of the CHTs crisis lies in thepolicies of the government ofBangladesh which seek to establishhomogenous Bengali muslimsociety. This implies the destructionof the identity of the indigenousJumma peoples. ‘Jumma’ is thecollective name for the eleven tribesof the CHTs.Over the last 50 years, hundreds ofthousands of Bengali settlers havebeen moved onto Jumma land.Successive regimes in East Pakistan,and later Bangladesh have supportedthe influx of Bengali-speakingMuslim migrants into the 5,000 sqkm Hill Tracts, which is sparselypopulated in comparison to the restof the country. The settlement hasbeen carried out with varyingdegrees of violence, including in earlierperiods massacre.Today, as a result of the aggressivesettlement policy, the ChittagongHill Tracts has a population of900,000 which is evenly divided

20 Indigenous Rights Quarterly ARTICLEVol. II : No. 4 • Oct-Dec 2007between Muslim homesteaders andthe indigenous Jummas.On 2 December 1997, the governmentof Bangladesh and the Jummassigned a peace accord that broughtan end to the long running insurgency.It committed the governmentto removing military camps from theregion and to ending the illegaloccupation of Jumma land by settlersand the army.Since emergency rule was declaredin Bangladesh in January 2007,arrests, torture and extrajudicialkillings of Jummas have escalated.Jumma activists have been targetedby the Bangladesh military takingadvantage of the emergency. Sincethe declaration of Emergency on 11January 2007, at least 50 Jummaactivists have been arrested, including20 members of ParbatyaChattagram Jana Sanghati Samity(PCJSS) and 10 members of UnitedPeople’s Democratic Front (UPDF).False cases such as extortion, kidnapping,murder etc have beenlodged against arrested jummaactivists. During raids, theBangladesh military plant arms andammunitions and claim to haverecovered the same from the housesof the indigenous activists to providegrounds for arrest. Most caseshave been filed under Section 16(b)of the Emergency Power Rules of2007 which denies release on bail tothe accused during the enquiry,investigation and trial of the case.Prospects:The state has been carrying out illegalland grabbing in CHT since independence.There should be no doubtabout the central government’s longterm intentions in the CHT. Thedeliberate destruction of religiouscentres and intimidation of thepriests is part of the political strategyto realize the aim.The Army (the de facto government)is actively involved in the ongoingsettlement policy. There is no protectionunder the law: the rule of law inBangladesh is subverted to politicalinterference, weak institutions andan indifference to human rights.And the history of grave violationsof human rights and ongoing arrestand torture and extra-judicial executionof Jumma activists means anyprotest carries a high risk.Jumma culture centres around thereligion and the community derivesa sense of protection from the religion.Attacking the religion isintended to dissipate Jumma communities.The attacks facilitate a climateof fear that undermines whatremains of any organized peacefulresistance to the settlement policy.The international community:Despite the increasing rate of illegalsettlement and blatant human rightsviolations, international concern ishard to discern. Even Human RightsWatch and Amnesty Internationalomitted reference to the CHTs intheir Annual reports 2007.In more ways than one, internationalcommunity is responsible for thegradual extinction of indigenousJumma peoples in Bangladesh. Theyhad funded the programmes forimplantation of plain settlers into theCHTs. While speaking about peacein the CHTs, they continue to remainmute witness as the government ofBangladesh continues to providefree rations only to the illegal plainsettlers.The failure to condemn state sponsoredracism has given a free hand tothe authorities in Dhaka to takemeasures that will eventuallydestroy the identity of the indigenousJumma peoples.Courtesy: Asian Centre for HumanRights•Contd. from pg 14AITPN is presently in possession ofa list of 45 Maluccans, aged between20 and 67, who have been arrestedand sent to jail for peaceful show ofdissent.They have been allegedly torturedbrutally in custody. But no independenthuman rights or humanitarianorganization has been providedaccess to them in detention.They were deprived of fair trial.Since their arrest, the prisoners werenot allowed access to anybodyincluding their lawyers and familymembers. Yet, the court convictedthem. Six of them were given deathpenalty, some others life imprisonmentand the rest at least 17 years ofimprisonment.On 13 October 2007 between 2.30and 4.30 am, the Indonesian policeand military arrested five AlifUrusindigenous peoples identified asNovi Adolph (32), Isak Saimima(31), Ferdinan Noya (33), YohanisSiplolo (45) and Deni de Fretes (45)from their homes on the charges ofbeing the members of the RepublikMaluku Selatan (Republic of theSouth Moluccas, RMS). About 35members of the Indonesian policeand the military raided their homesin the island of Ceram but foundnothing to prove their involvementwith the RMS. Yet they were arrested.Similarly, on 27 October 2007 ataround 4 pm, DominggusSalamena (44) was arrested by thepolice and the military on thecharges of being involved with theRMS.The six AlifUrus have been imprisonedwithout any trial.The situation in Malukus calls forimmediaton intervention of theIndonesian human rights organisationsas well as the internationalhuman rights community.•

Latest Publications from AITPNDéjà vu: One Year After the Kalinga Nagar Massacre,January 2007This report examines the wider issues surrounding the Kalinga Nagar massacre likeland alienation as a result of industrialisation, dispossession without rehabilitationand the denial of justice to the tribal peoples and government's apathy towards them.It also analyses the Rehabilitation and Resettlement Policy 2006 of the Orissa governmentwhich was enacted after the Kalinga Nagar massacre.The State of India'sIndigenous and Tribal Peoples 2007, March 2007The State of India's Indigenous and Tribal Peoples 2007 also reports on the violationsof civil and political rights in particular by the security forces and the armed oppositiongroups, atrocities by the non-tribals and an analysis of the non-implementationof the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act; violenceagainst indigenous women; land rights and land alienation; status of indigenous InternallyDisplaced Persons; repression under forest laws and denial of access to minor forest produce; nonimplementationof the affirmative action programmes; status of the Particularly Vulnerable Tribal Groupsand the Denotified Tribes; and the state of the right to food, health and education of the indigenous/tribalpeoples of India.Indonesia: Piecemeal approaches to systemic andinstitutionalised discrimination, August 2007This is a shadow report to the Initial to Third Periodic Reports (CERD/C/IDN/3 of 4April 2006) of the government of Indonesia submitted under the International Conventionon the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination (ICERD). The messageof the periodic reports can be summarised in one sentence: since discrimination is prohibitedunder Law No. 39 of 1999 concerning human rights, there are no violations ofthe provisions of ICERD. Indonesia stands exposed with this shadow report.ASIAN INDIGENOUS & TRIBAL PEOPLES NETWORK