Access PDF version - Asian Indigenous and Tribal Peoples Network

contentsEditorial 1Philippines: IPRA must be upheldin peace agreement on Mindanao 2Bangladesh: Q& A session at the UPR 5Editor-in-Chief: Paritosh ChakmaCover photos:Courtesy: www.mindanao.comSubmit articles/letters/news:IRQ welcomes articles ranging from1200 to 2000 words. Any article submittedmust be exclusive - the articlemust not have been published or submittedto other publications.Malaysia at UPR: OHCHR’ssummary forgets Sabah and Sarawak 8New Delhi Guidelines on theEstablishment of NationalInstitutions on the Rightsof Indigenous Peoples 11The Government Committeeis Not Enough : CEMA of Vietnam 16The Ministry of Chittagong Hill TractsAffairs of Bangladesh : An Agency forDiscrimination 18The Department of Orang Asli Affairs,Malaysia : An Agency for Assimilation 21Land Alienation of Tribals in India 25If you have news on indigenousissues, please send them to us.You can also send comments, clarificationsor letters to the articles published.IRQ reserves the right to edit with thefinal approval of the writers/authors.Subscriptions:Single copy: US$ 5 + postageYearly: US$ 20 + postageContacts:Articles for submission, letters to theeditor or any query should be sent tothe editor by email at: aitpn@aitpn.org© Asian Indigenous andTribal Peoples Network. All rightsreserved. Reproduction is prohibitedwithout the prior permission of AITPN.Asian Indigenous & Tribal Peoples NetworkC-3/441 (Top Floor), Janakpuri, New Delhi 110058, INDIATel/Fax: +91 11 25503624Website: www.aitpn.org; Email: aitpn@aitpn.org

Indigenous Rights Quarterly Vol. III : No. 4 • October-December 2008 1The formation of a new peace panelby the Government of Republic ofPhilippines on 25 December 2008for resumption of the stalled peaceprocess with the Moro IslamicLiberation Front (MILF) is welcome.AITPN also takes note of the fivepointpreconditions announced by theCentral Committee of the MILF on 26December 2008 for resumption of thetalks. The talks were stalled followingdeclaration of the Memorandum ofAgreement on Ancestral Domainon Bangsamoro Juridical Entity”(MOA-AD-BJE) between thegovernment of Philippines and theMILF as unconstitutional by theSupreme Court on 14 October 2008.What followed were humanitariandisasters, especially for theindigenous peoples, caused by thearmy and the socalled renegades ofthe MILF.The conditions put by the MILF,among others, include (i) having aninternational guarantee composedof states or association of states toensure that both the Governmentand MILF will honor and implementagreement or agreements forged bythe parties; (ii) change in the standof Government over the MOA-ADas ‘no deal’ and ‘unconstitutional’ inthe aftermath of the Supreme Courtjudgement of 14 October 2008; and(iii) Malaysia to stay as facilitator ofthe peace talks.In fact all the international actorsinterested in the peace process inMindanao, in particular, Malaysia,Japan and the United Statesmust recognize the diversityof the conflict in Mindanao andensure that the rights of indigenouspeoples, who are numericalminorities, are not subsumed forpeace with the MILF.editorialPhilippines: Indispensability of the IPRAfor peace in MindanaoObviously, the legitimate questionarises as to who are the indigenouspeoples of Mindanao. Many Morosclaim themselves as indigenous.AITPN does not dispute their claims.However, the fact remains thatthe Bangsamoros are not legallyrecognised as indigenous peoplesunder the Indigenous PeoplesRights Act (IPRA) of 1997. The IPRAlists 110 ethno linguistic groups ofPhilippines as indigenous peoplesbut Bangsamoros are not included.Many Moros opine that their nonrecognitionas indigenous peoples isan act of discrimination by Christiandominated Filipinos.At the same time, in the existingAutonomous Region of MuslimMindanao (ARRM) – a product ofthe peace process with the Moros, theIndigenous Peoples Rights Act of 1997is not applicable. The experiencesof the indigenous communities ofTeduray, Lambangian and DulanganManobo of Maguindanao and SultanKudarat provinces whose AncestralDomains of 400,000 hectares wereincluded have not been encouraging.In the ARMM Act, there is noprovision for titling of ancestraldomains of the indigenous people asprovided under the IPRA. Absenceof title means lack of tenurial securityand therefore lack of ownership.Having the powers of eminentdomain, the Regional Government ofthe ARMM under section 3 of ArticleV of the ARMM Act has the authorityto acquire/take over the ancestraldomain of the indigenous peopleciting public interest.The IPRA whose constitutionalvalidity has been upheld by theSupreme Court has been relegatedto oblivion. The token representationfrom indigenous communities hasnot been helpful. Under Clause1 under heading “Concepts andPrinciples” of the MOA-AD-BJE, theBangsamoro identity is imposed onthe indigenous peoples. It providesthat, “It is the birthright of all Morosand all Indigenous peoples of Mindanaoto identify themselves and be accepted as“Bangsamoros”. The Bangsamoro peoplerefers to those who are natives or originalinhabitants of Mindanao and its adjacentislands including Palawan and the Suluarchipelago at the time of conquest orcolonization and their descendantswhether mixed or of full native blood.Spouses and their descendants areclassified as Bangsamoro. The freedom ofchoice of the Indigenous people shall berespected.”For indigenous peoples, it is a matterof rights recognized under the IPRAand not freedom of choice that thegovernment of Philippines and theMILF would like to espouse. Anypeace agreement with the MILFmust explicitly recognize that theIndigenous Peoples Rights Act of1997 shall prevail. Without suchexplicit reference, indigenouspeoples of Mindanao shall loosetheir rights.Unless Bangsamoros recognizethe applicability of the IPRA inany future agreement with thegovernment of Philippines, theMoros themselves can be accusedof committing the same act ofdiscrimination for which theyrightly point the fingers towards theChristian dominated Filipinos.Recognition of rights of indigenousPeoples through explicit reference tothe IPRA remains fundamental.

2Indigenous Rights Quarterly articleVol. III : No. 4 • October-December 2008Philippines: IPRA must be upheld in peaceagreement on MindanaoOn 25 December 2008, the governmentof Philippines formed a new peacepanel consisting of three membersfor negotiation with the MoroIslamic Liberation Front (MILF).On 26 December 2008, the MILFCentral Committee announced itspreconditions, which, among others,included (i) having an internationalguarantee composed of states orassociation of states to ensure thatboth the Government and MILF willhonor and implement agreement oragreements forged by the parties; (ii)change in the stand of Governmentover the Memorandum of Agreementon Ancestral Domain on BangsamoroJuridical Entity” (MOA-AD-BJE)as ‘no deal’ and ‘unconstitutional’in aftermath of the Supreme Courtjudgement of 14 October 2008; (iii)continuance of Malaysia as thefacilitator of the peace talks.While the peace process must resumesoon, it is not yet clear as to whetherthe Memorandum of Agreement onAncestral Domain on BangsamoroJuridical Entity” (MOA-AD-BJE)declared unconstitutional by theSupreme Court will form the basisof the peace talks. What is clear isthat the rights of indigenous peoplesare being abrogated both in thepeace process and the final outcomedocument.I. MoA-AD-BJE in the present form- a deadly knock for indigenouspeoplesa. Total disregard of the IndigenousPeoples’ Rights ActThe Indigenous Peoples Rights Actof 1997 provides for the “right tofree and prior informed consent”.Unless the Bangsamorosrecognize the applicabilityof the IPRA in any futureagreement with thegovernment of Philippines,the Moros themselves can beaccused of committing thesame act of discrimination forwhich they rightly point thefingers towards the Christiandominated government.However, in the whole peace processthat culminated in the form of MOA-AD-BJE, both the Government and theMILF failed to ensure respect for theindigenous peoples. This is despitethe fact that many indigenous peopleswho do not identify themselvesas Bangsamoros are supposed tobe subsumed in the Bangsamoroidentity. As per Clause 2 under theheading “Territory” of the MOA-AD-BJE, the territorial extent of the BJE isidentified as three categories of areasviz. (i) Core area of BJE, (ii) CategoryA areas, and (iii) Category B areas.All the three categories of areas covervast tracts of ancestral domains ofthe indigenous peoples in a numberof provinces.Inclusion of indigenous peoples in thepeace process has been only a tokenattempt on the part of both the MILFand the government of Philippinesto impress upon the indigenouspeoples. While the government ofPhilippines does not consider theindigenous peoples including theLumads as necessary party solely onthe ground that they are not engagedin armed conflicts, the MILF soughtto assimilate indigenous peoplesunder the Bangsamoro identity.b. Imposition of “Bangsamoro”identity on the indigenous peopleThe MOA-AD-BJE imposes the“Bangsmoro” identity on theindigenous people. This is clear froma simple reading of Clause 1 underheading “Concepts and Principles”,the MOA-AD-BJE which reads,“It is the birthright of all Moros and allIndigenous peoples of Mindanao toidentify themselves and be acceptedas “Bangsamoros”. The Bangsamoropeople refers to those who are nativesor original inhabitants of Mindanaoand its adjacent islands includingPalawan and the Sulu archipelago atthe time of conquest or colonizationand their descendants whether mixedor of full native blood. Spouses andtheir descendants are classified asBangsamoro. The freedom of choiceof the Indigenous people shall berespected.”The above clause states that allMoros and indigenous peoples ofMindanao have the birth right toidentify themselves and acceptedas Bangsamoro. However, the 1987Constitution of Philippines identifiedthe indigenous peoples as IndigenousCultural Communities (ICCs). In 1997,the IPRA used the term “indigenouspeoples” to identify the 110 ethnolinguistic groups of Philippinesand formally recognized them as

Indigenous Rights Quarterly articleVol. III : No. 4 • October-December 2008 3indigenous peoples. The Moros arenot listed as one of the indigenouspeoples. Yet, the MOA-AD-BJEseeks to subsume the identity of allindigenous peoples of Mindanaounder the Bangsamoro identity. Thisis an attempt of forced assimilation ofthe indigenous people by the Moropeople aimed at destroying theirestablished formal identity.c. Denial of the right of selfdeterminationof indigenouspeoplesThe IPRA provides for the rightof self-governance of indigenouspeoples through a number of rightsincluding the rights to ancestraldomains (sections 4-12), rights tosocial justice and human rights(sections 21-28); right to culturalintegrity (sections 29-37) and theestablishment of the NationalCommission on Indigenous Peoplesconsisting of indigenous peoples.Section 17 of IPRA specificallyprovides that the indigenous peopleshave the right to determine andto decide their own priorities fordevelopment affecting their lives,beliefs, institutions, spiritual wellbeing,and the lands they own,occupy or use. They also have theright to participate in the formulation,implementation and evaluationof policies, plans and programsfor national, regional and localdevelopment which may directlyaffect them.Section 15 further provides that theindigenous peoples shall have theright to use their own commonlyaccepted justice systems, conflictresolution institutions, peace buildingprocesses or mechanisms and othercustomary laws and practices withintheir respective communities.Section 13 also provides thatthe government of Philippinesrecognizes self-governance and selfdeterminationas inherent rights ofindigenous people. It also providesthat the State respects the integrity oftheir values, practices and institutionsand shall guarantee the right of ICCs/IPs to freely pursue their economic,social and cultural development.As no reference to the IPRA Actis made in the MOA-AD-BJE,indigenous peoples are all set to losetheir right of self-determination.d. Regression of all other rightsprovided under IPRAFor indigenous peoples recognizedas such under the IPRA of 1997,the MOA-AD-BJE of 4 August 2008would have constituted a regressionof rights.Under the IPRA, the right toancestral domain includes the rights- of ownership; to develop landsand natural resources; to stay in theterritories; in case of displacement; toregulate entry of migrants; to safe andclean air and water; to claim parts ofreservations; and to resolve conflict.Self-Governance and Empowermentis recognized as an inherent right ofthe indigenous peoples and they havethe right to determine and decidetheir own priorities for developmentaffecting their lives, beliefs,institutions, spiritual well-being, andthe lands they own, occupy or use.They also have the right to participatein the formulation, implementationand evaluation of policies, plansand programs for national, regionaland local development which maydirectly affect them.The provisions on social justiceand human rights includes- equalprotection and non-discrimination ofICC/IPs (section 21), right to specialprotection and security in periods ofarmed conflict (section 23), freedomfrom discrimination and right toequal opportunity and treatment(section 23), right to basic services ofthe state (section 25) etc.The indigenous people have the rightto preserve and protect their culture,traditions and institutions (section29). The state is under legal obligationto provide equal opportunities to theindigenous peoples through a mannerappropriate to their cultural methodsof teaching and learning. They arealso entitled to the recognition ofthe full ownership and control andprotection of their cultural andintellectual rights.However, no such provision has beenmade under the MOA-AD-BJE.II. Experiences of Indigenouspeoples within ARMMThe experiences of the indigenouscommunities of Teduray,Lambangian and Dulangan Manoboof Maguindanao and Sultan Kudaratprovinces whose Ancestral Domainsof 400,000 hectares were includedin the existing Autonomous Regionof Muslim Mindanao (ARMM)has not been encouraging. ThoughARMM Act predates the IPRA, whileadopting IPRA and expanding theARMM, no reference was made aboutthe applicability of the IPRA in theARMM. In reality, there is no legal barfor applying the IPRA in the ARRM.However, in reality the ARMMauthorities only apply the ARRMAct and not the IPRA. Consequently,non-Muslim indigenous communitiesliving under the ARMM were furthermarginalised.a. Limited ownership over ancestraldomainsIn comparison to IPRA, the concept ofancestral domain under the ARMMAct is restrictive and incomplete.Section 1 of Article XI of the ARMMAct excludes “strategic minerals such

4Indigenous Rights Quarterly articleVol. III : No. 4 • October-December 2008as uranium, coal, petroleum, and otherfossil fuels, mineral oils, and all sourcesof potential energy; lakes, rivers andlagoons; and national reserves and marineparks, as well as forest and watershedreservations” from the definition ofancestral domain.Further, in the ARMM Act, there isno provision for titling of ancestraldomains of the indigenous peoples.Absence of title means lack oftenurial security and therefore lackof ownership. Having the powersof eminent domain, the RegionalGovernment under section 3 ofArticle V of the ARMM Act has theauthority to acquire/take over theancestral domain of the indigenouspeople citing public interest. Undersection 2 of Article XI of the ARMMAct, right to ancestral domain inrespect of constructive or traditionalpossession of lands and resourcesis already dependent upon judicialaffirmation, which has not beendefined in the law.The safeguards against transfer/conveyance of ancestral domain tonon-indigenous peoples under theARMM Act are very weak. Section6 of Article XI of the ARMM Actprovides, “unless authorized bythe Regional Assembly, lands of theancestral domain titled to or owned by anindigenous cultural community shall notbe disposed of to nonmembers” whichmeans that the Regional Assemblyis the authority to grant permit fordisposing off lands of ancestraldomains to non-members (who isnot a domain holder). Effectively,indigenous peoples’ rights toancestral domain/land are at themercy of the Regional Assembly. But,it is the not case under IPRA, it is theindigenous community who has theright to decide what to do or what notdo with their ancestral domain, albeitin conformity with relevant nationallaws and policies.Unlike the ARMM Act, the right toancestral domains under the IPRA isvery strong and there are clear andprecise provisions on delineationand titling of ancestral domainsand ancestral lands by the NCIP byissuance of CADT or CALT. Thesetitles are again registered with theLand Registration Authority.The requirement of free and priorinformed consent acts like shieldagainst any attempt to dispossess orwrongfully deprive the indigenouspeople of their right to ancestraldomains.b. No right to determine and decidetheir own developmentAs discussed above, the ARMMAct recognizes only the indigenouspeoples’ right to ancestral domainsubject to some limitation and riders.The ARMM Act does not provide forthe indigenous peoples’ right to selfgovernanceand self-determinationunlike section 13 of IndigenousPeoples Rights Act of 1997.Section 17 of IPRA further re-enforcesthe right to self-governance and selfdetermination.A con-joint reading to sections 13and 17 read with section 7 of IPRA,which provides for rights to ancestraldomain means that the indigenouspeople have the right to determineand decide their own priorities fordevelopment and it is the duty ofthe State to guarantee their rightto freely pursue their economic,social and cultural development intheir ancestral domains and lands.Right from having ownership, theindigenous people have the right todeveloplands and natural resources;stay in the territories; remedies,including compensation in caseof displacement; regulate entry ofmigrants; safe and clean air andwater; claim parts of reservations; toresolve conflict.c. No provisions for affirmativeactions for indigenous peoplesunder the under ARMM ActThe IPRA provides for an array ofaffirmative action programs in favourof the indigenous peoples. Amongothers, these include – (i) right toself-governance and empowerment(Sec. 13); (ii) right to participate indecision making (Sec.16); (iii) specialmeasures for basic services (Sec.25);(iv) special provisions for AncestralDomains Fund (Sec. 71) etc.On the other hand, except theprovision to formulate and implementspecial development programs andprojects, responsive to the particularaspirations, needs and values of theindigenous cultural communitiesunder section 2 of Article XII, theARMM Act has no other provisionsfor affirmative action for theindigenous peoples.III. Self-identification as IPs vs.recognition under IPRASelf-identification or self-ascription isone of the criteria for determinationas indigenous or tribal group. In thisregard, Article 1(2) of ConventionNo. 169 of the International LabourOrganisation (ILO) reads,“Self-identification as indigenous ortribal shall be regarded as a fundamentalcriterion for determining the groups towhich the provisions of this Conventionapply.”In Section 3 (h), IPRA also providesthat indigenous peoples/indigenouscultural communities refer to a groupof people or homogenous societiesidentified by self-ascription or byothers.Undoubtedly, the Moros havean inalienable right to identifythemselves as indigenous peopleof Philippines. But, they have not

Indigenous Rights Quarterly articleVol. III : No. 4 • October-December 2008 5been classified as indigenous unlikethe 110 ethno linguistic groupswho have been recognized underthe IPRA.Bangladesh: Q & A sessionat the UPRWhile the Moros term this exclusionfrom the list of 110 ethno-linguisticgroups as an act of discrimination,the MILF and many other Morogroups have been committing thesame act of discrimination againstindigenous peoples recognizedunder the IPRA. It is also the dutyof the Government of Philippinesand the MILF that the rights of theindigenous people whose rightsare recognized and protectedunder IPRA are not violated whileexercising the right to selfdeterminationof the Moros.Asian Indigenous and Tribal PeoplesNetwork recommends to thegovernment of Philippines and theMILF to ensure the following in anyfuture peace process:- Make specific reference in anyfuture agreement with the MILFthat the Indigenous PeoplesRights Act of 1997 shall apply inany proposed area for BangsaMoro Judicial Entity;- include Chairperson of theNational Commission onIndigenous Peoples of thePhilippines in the PeaceSecretariat of the governmentof Philippines;- delineated Ancestral Domainsof the non-Muslim indigenouscommunities be recognisedand protected in any peacenegotiation between theGovernment and the MILF inthe future; and- include representatives ofthe non-Muslim indigenouscommunities in any peacenegotiation between theGovernment and the MILF.The Working Group of the UniversalPeriodic Review of the HumanRights Council is scheduled toexamine Bangladesh on 3 February2009. The government of Bangladeshhas submitted its report (A/HRC/WG.6/4/BGD/1). As manyas 17 stakeholders (civil societyorganizations), including AsianIndigenous and Tribal PeoplesNetwork (AITPN) 1 , have contributedto the process for effective scrutinyof the human rights situation ofBangladesh.The submission of Bangladeshis economical with the truth andpresented a hunky-dory situation inthe country while ignoring criticalhuman rights issues facing thecountry.Since the submission of the reportby the government of Bangladeshand stake-holders, major changeshave taken place in the country. TheNational Human Rights Commissionwas established through an Ordinanceand the Right to InformationOrdinance was promulgated.Most importantly, the AwamiLeague won the national electionsheld on 29 December 2008 and a newgovernment led by Prime MinisterSheikh Hasina has been formed sincethen.In the light of these developments,Asian Coalition on UPR submits thefollowing to be raised at the WorkingGroup on UPR:a. Elections in the CHTs RegionalCouncilsThe parliamentary elections held on29 December 2008 and the UnionParishad elections being held shouldbe welcomed.However, no election has been heldin the local bodies of the ChittagongHill Tracts (CHTs). The CHTsRegional Council established in1998 did not have any elections.The last elections in the Hill DistrictCouncils of Rangamati, Bandarbanand Khagrachari were held in 1989by then President General H MErshad. The Hill District Councilsand the Regional Council are beingrun by appointees of the authoritiesin Dhaka.The government of Bangladeshshould be asked as to when theelections in the Hill District Councilsand the Regional Council will beheld.The members of the Working Groupon UPR should recommend thegovernment of Bangladesh to holdthe elections in the Hill DistrictCouncils and the Regional Council ofthe CHTs as early as possible.b. Implementation of the CHTsPeace AccordThe present government ofBangladesh headed by Awami Leagueis the one that has signed the CHTsPeace Accord in December 1997. Inthe last 11 years, the CHTs Accordhas not been implemented. The armycamps have not been withdrawn asrequired under Section 17 (a) of PartD of the Peace Accord and the CHTLand Commission established underSection 4 of Part D of the Peace Accordfailed to take off and not a single caseof land dispute has been resolved.A total of 9,780 families out of total

6Indigenous Rights Quarterly articleVol. III : No. 4 • October-December 200812,222 Jumma families who returnedfrom India following the CHT PeaceAccord have not got back their lands,orchards or gardens and homestead.In May 2000, Task Force Committeeidentified 90,208 Jumma familiesand 38,156 non-tribal Bengali settlerfamilies as “internally displacedfamilies” in CHTs. 2 In addition, therewere some 10,000 tribal IDP familieswho were left out by the Task Force.By including the non-tribal IDPs,the government sought to legitimizethe settlement of the Muslims fromthe plains in the CHTs under theState-sponsored ethnic cleansingprogramme. While the Jumma IDPswere not provided any rehabilitationor food aid, educational facilities,health care services, sanitation andsafe drinking water etc, illegal settlerfamilies have been provided freerations and other facilities by thegovernment since 1978. 3On the other hand, indigenouspeoples and their lands continueto be targeted. In 2008, the SpecialRapporteur on the situation of humanrights and fundamental freedomsof indigenous people sent a jointcommunication calling the attentionof the Government to the allegedillegal seizure of the traditional landsof indigenous communities in the CHTand systematic campaign to supportthe settlement of non-indigenousfamilies in the CHTs with the activesupport of the security forces, withthe ultimate aim of displacing theindigenous community. 4The government of Bangladesh shouldbe questioned as to what measures itwill take to fully implement the PeaceAccord especially withdrawal of thearmy camps, functioning of the CHTsLand Commission and addressingthe issues raised by the SpecialRapporteur. The government ofBangladesh must also be questionedon the steps taken to ensure fulland proper rehabilitation of all theThe government of Bangladeshshould be asked to make thereport of the one-man JudicialInvestigationCommissionas well as the action takenreport including details ofpunishments awarded to theguilty along with the namesand designation of the personsfacing criminal proceedingspublic.returnee indigenous Jumma refugeesand indigenous IDPs.c. Return of the Enemy Properties:In 2000 the Special Rapporteur onreligious intolerance, after receivinginformation about appropriation ofproperty under Vested Property Act,recommended the government ofBangladesh to ensure full restorationof properties of the Hindu communityand the Hurukh/Oroan tribes. 5 NewDelhi-based Asian Centre for HumanRights (ACHR) in its UPR submissionnoted that Hindu minorities continuedto be targeted and their religiousfreedoms violated. It is reportedthat some 1.2 million or 44 per centof the 2.7 million Hindu householdsin Bangladesh were affected by theEnemy Property Act, 1965 and theVested Property Act, 1974 whichempowers to identify the Hindus asenemies of the State and seize theirproperties. 6 According to an estimate,approximately 2.5 million acres ofland of the Hindus was seized underthe Vested Property Act until the Actwas scrapped in 2001. 7The current government ofBangladesh led by Awami Leaguewas the one which adopted EnemyProperties Return Act 2001 with aview to restoring ownership of thelost land to the Hindu families. But nomeasure has been taken to implementthe Act. According to a recent study byAbul Barkat, professor of economicsat Dhaka University, nearly 200,000Hindu families have lost over 40,000acres of land since 2001. 8The government of Bangladesh shouldbe questioned as to what measuresit will take to fully implement theEnemy Properties Return Act 2001and restore the seized lands of theHindus.d. Human Rights Defenders:AITPN expresses concerns about thepersecution of the indigenous humanrights defenders in Bangladesh.The government has been seekingto establish an Eco-Park in theModhupur forest area under Tangaildistrict at the cost of displacement andsurvival of about 25,000 indigenousGaro and Koch peoples.On 27 April 2007, the SpecialRapporteur on the situation of humanrights and fundamental freedoms ofindigenous people jointly with theSpecial Rapporteur on extrajudicial,summary or arbitrary executions andthe Special Rapporteur on the questionof torture asked the government ofBangladesh to investigate the killingof Choles Ritchil and the ill-treatmentof Protab Jamble, Piren Simsang andTuhin Hadima, and prosecute theguilty as well as to compensate thevictims and Mr. Ritchil’s family. Inits reply submitted on 11 October2007, the government of Bangladeshstated that a one-member JudicialInvestigation Commission headed bya retired District Judge has been set upto investigate the killing of CholeshRitchil. Four persons belongingto Armed Forces were awardedpunishments, which includedremoval from service and exclusion

Indigenous Rights Quarterly articleVol. III : No. 4 • October-December 2008 7from promotion. Finally, a numberof other individuals, including publicofficials, doctors and forest officials,had also been subject to criminalproceedings.The government of Bangladeshshould be asked to make publicthe report of the one-man JudicialInvestigation Commission and theaction taken report including detailsof punishments awarded to theguilty along with the names anddesignation of the persons facingcriminal proceedings.e. Accountability for extrajudicialexecutionsIn the stakeholders’ summary (A/HRC/WG.6/4/BGD/3) it has beenpointed out by several stakeholdersthat the security forces of Bangladeshhave been responsible for systematicand widespread “extrajudicialexecutions”, arrest and routine useof torture with impunity. AITPNnoted that the continued presenceand expansion of military basescontributes to the ongoing humanrights abuses including extrajudicialkillings in the Chitagong HillTracts (CHT). 9 According to humanrights group Odhikar, a total of 319persons have been killed by the lawenforcement personnel during thefirst 23 months of state of emergency(11 January 2007 to 11 December2008). Of them, 155 persons werekilled by the Rapid Action Battalion(RAB) and 118 by the police. 10The government of Bangladeshshould be asked what measuresare being taken for establishingaccountability into the killings byRapid Action Battalion, the policeand other security forces.f. National Human RightsCommissionThe care-taker government ofBangladesh should be welcomedfor the establishment of a NationalThe government of Bangladeshshould also be asked whatmeasures will be taken forenactment of a law includingguarantees for inclusionof religious minorities andindigenous/tribal peoples asmembers of the NHRC.Human Rights Commission andappointment of the members.The government of Bangladeshshould be asked what measureswill be taken for enactment of a lawincluding guarantees for inclusion ofreligious minorities and indigenous/tribal peoples as members of theNHRC.g. Right to Information OrdinanceOn 20 September 2008, the Caretakergovernment approved the Right toInformation Ordinance, 2008 and itcame into effect on 20 October 2008with the publication in the officialBangladesh Gazette.The Working Group on UPR shouldask the democratically electedgovernment of Sheikh Hasina to passthe Right to Information Ordinance inthe Parliament and to provide furtherinformation about the establishmentof the Information Commissionprovided for under the Right toInformation (RTI) Ordinance, 2008 toimplement the RTI Ordinance.h. Cooperation with human rightsmechanismsThe government of Bangladesh failedto comply with its treaty reportingobligation to submit periodic reportsto treaty bodies. Bangladesh’stwelfth to fourteenth report to theCERD is overdue from 2002 to 2006;initial and second report to CESCRis overdue from 2000 to 2005; initialreport to HR Committee is overduesince 2001; first to third reports toCAT is overdue since 1999 to 2007;Second report to OP-CRC-AC isoverdue since 2007. 11Bangladesh has also failed to ratify anumber of key international humanrights instruments including theInternational Labour OrganizationConvention No. 169 concerningIndigenous and Tribal Peoples inindependent countries.The government of Bangladeshshould be asked to submit its pendingperiodic reports to the treaty bodiesand to ratify the ILO Convention No.169 and other international humanrights instruments which it has notyet ratified.(Footnotes)1. AITPN’s submission “Bangladesh: We wantthe lands, not the indigenous peoples” canbe read online at http://www.aitpn.org/UN/UPR-Bangladesh.pdf2. Parbatya Chattagram Jana Samhati Samiti,Bangladesh3. Asian Centre for Human Rights – SouthAsia Human Rights Index 2008, BangladeshChapter4. Para 39, A/HRC/WG.6/4/BGD/25. Para 40, A/HRC/WG.6/4/BGD/26. Para 48, A/HRC/WG.6/4/BGD/37. Religious minorities vulnerable inBangladesh: US, Hindu JanajagrutiSamity, 17 September 2007, http://www.hindujagruti.org/news/3028.html8. Bangladeshi Hindus loose property: study,Economic Times, 26 May 20079. Para 20, A/HRC/WG.6/4/BGD/310. 23 Months of State of Emergency inBangladesh , Odhikar, 12 December 2008available at http://www.odhikar.org/documents/23months_report.pdf11. A/HRC/WG.6/4/BGD/2

8Indigenous Rights Quarterly articleVol. III : No. 4 • October-December 2008Malaysia at UPR: OHCHR’s summary forgetsSabah and SarawakDuring the upcoming fourth sessionfrom 2-13 February 2009, the HumanRights Council is scheduled toexamine the human rights situationin Malaysia under the UniversalPeriodic Review.On 19 November 2008, Malaysiasubmitted its national report to theHuman Rights Council. Malaysia’snational report comprising 114paragraphs in VI Parts, amongothers, summarizes Malaysia’sefforts for promotion and protectionof human rights; its achievements,best practices, challenges, constraintsand national priorities; and capacitybuilding.Various non-governmentalorganizations – national, regionaland inter-national – submittedstakeholders’ submission.In order to bring out the exact situationof human rights of the indigenouspeoples in Malaysia, it is pertinentto critically analyse Malaysia’snational report vis-à-vis variousstakeholders’ submissions, reportsand the compilation prepared by theOffice of the High Commissioner forHuman rights.Summary of Malaysia’s nationalreport (on the rights of theindigenous people)In sub-part B (Challenges, constraintsand national priorities) in Part IV ofits national report, Malaysia devoted11 paragraphs to highlight its effortsfor uplift of the indigenous peoplesand minorities. Malaysia considerslifting indigenous groups frombackwardness through assimilationinto mainstream society as the mostSince Malaysia has not yetratified most of the keyinternational human rightsinstruments, it provides anopportunity to the WorkingGroup on UPR to effectivelyexamine the human rightssituation in Malaysiaincluding the situation of theindigenous peoples.significant challenge. Malaysia statesthat it has developed comprehensivepolicies and strategies to upliftthe status and quality of life ofthe indigenous community viasocioeconomic programmes aswell as through prioritising thepreservation of traditional culturalheritage of the indigenous peoples.It particularly highlighted theConstitution, the Aboriginal PeopleAct, 1954; the Department of OrangAsli Affairs, State Committee onPenan Affairs and various programsformulated and implemented underthe Committee are Penan VolunteerCorps, Service Centres, EducationAssistance, Health and MedicalServices and Agriculture ExtensionServices.On land rights, Malaysia statesabout the gazetting of 2,128hectares of land to the Penans asnative customary rights (NCR) bySarawak State Government in 1981and development of these areas forcommercial plantation for the benefitof 154 Penans. Malaysia’s nationalreport further states that a total of52,864 hectares of land in the Baramdistrict was allocated to the seminomadicPenans for hunting andgathering purposes.OHCHR’s compilation of UNinformationExcept the Convention on theElimination of Discriminationagainst Women (CEDAW) and theConvention on the Rights of the Child(CRC), Malaysia has not ratifiedany of the major United Nationsconventions.Malaysia has neither issued anystanding invitation to any of theSpecial Rapporteurs nor agreedupon the requests by many SpecialRapporteurs to visit the country. Arequest by the Special Rapporteur onindigenous peoples has been pendingsince 2005.The UN Committee on the Rightsof the Child has recommendedthat Malaysia undertake steps toprevent and combat discriminatorydisparities against children belongingto vulnerable groups, including theOrang Asli, indigenous and minoritychildren living in Sabah and Sarawakand particularly in remote areas.On 14 January 2008, the SpecialRapporteur on the situation of humanrights and fundamental freedoms ofindigenous people and the SpecialRepresentative of the Secretary-General on the situation of humanrights defenders raised concerns

Indigenous Rights Quarterly articleVol. III : No. 4 • October-December 2008 9with the Government of Malaysiaon the death of an aboriginal leaderinvolved in anti-logging campaignsin the Upper Baram region.OHCHR’s summary of stakeholders’submissionsFrom various stakeholders’submissions, the Office of the HighCommissioner on Human Rights(OHCHR) summarized the followingissues with regard to indigenouspeople in Malaysia:“The Orang Asal, or indigenouspeoples, consist of more than80 ethno-linguistic groups,each with its own culture,language and territory, asindicated by the JaringanOrang Asal Semalaysia(JOAS). Collectively, the 4million indigenous peoplesare among the poorestand most marginalised.SUHAKAM noted that therights of indigenous peopleto customary land shouldbe upheld; and existingstate legislations should bereviewed. SUHAKAM notedthat the Malaysian Court hasprogressively recognisedcustomary land rights. BCMnoted that State Governmentshave cleared ancestral landand/or alienated land occupiedor utilised by aborigines tothird parties (e.g. for logging,palm cultivation) and has onlyoffered to pay compensationfor loss of agriculturalproducts planted on such land.According to BCM, the GOMhas found it difficult to extendto the aboriginal community theright to proper education andhealth services. 105 COMANGOalso indicated that there is alsoan ‘Islamisation policy’ thattargets the conversion of theOrang Asli community.”For reasons best known, OHCHR,though it confirmed the receiptof the submission by AITPN, hasfailed to mention AITPN and inthis process has omitted a numberof critical issues, raised by AITPN,from the stakeholder’s summaryreport. AITPN summarises theconcerns with regard to the situationof indigenous peoples in Sabah andSawarak.i. Preference for logging andplantations over cultivation inSabahIn southern part of Sabah, the Statehas given the lands which lie withinthe Kalabakan Forest Reserve toseveral companies against therepeated appeals from the SerudungMurut of Kalabakan. Severalindigenous communities haveestablished settlements and farmsin forest reserves as more lands arebeing taken for oil palm plantations.The process of demarcation andrecognition of customary lands isvery slow, while the alienation oflarge areas for plantations, loggingand protected areas is rapid. TheNational Human Rights Commissionurged the government to consider theproblems faced by the villagers whohave been residing in the areas sincebefore it was gazetted as a ForestReserve. 1In recent years, the governmentrapidly expanded oil palm cultivationespecially in States of Sarawak andSabah. At least 55-59 percent of oilpalm expansion between 1990 and2005 occurred at the cost of forests.The area of oil palm plantations morethan doubled to 3.6 million hectaresand at least 1.04 million hectares wereconverted for the oilseed during theperiod. 2Further, Native Customary Landsare being converted to corporatemonocultures in Sarawak. TheSarawak’s Land and SurveyDepartment signs away NCR landsbefore communities give priorinformed consent. For example,a South Korean-Malaysian jointventure is about to set up a cassavaplantation on about 2,000 hectaresof Native Customary Rights (NCR)land initially in Balut area in Julaudistrict. The State Land and SurveyDepartment reportedly confirmed theland status. The government statesthat the project will benefit the peopleand landowners besides creating jobsand business opportunities, etc. 3As a result of Native CustomaryRights (NCR) being continuouslyeroded, on 20 February 2008, amemorandum containing land claimsfrom 32,352 natives over a collectivearea of 339,984 acres from 18 districtsin Sabah was submitted to Head ofState Tun Ahmadshah Abdullahand Chief Minister Datuk Seri MusaAman. 4ii. Targeting the Penans of SarawakThe conditions of the indigenousPenans in Sarawak State remaineddeplorable. In July 2007, theSUHAKAM following a fact-findingmission issued statement identifyingseven key areas requiring “drasticimprovement” by the governmentin order to improve the situation ofthe Penans. The SUHAKAM listedthe following concerns – land rights;Environmental Impact Assessment(EIA) reports; poverty; personalidentification documents; education;health and the duty of the SarawakState government to protect therights of the Penans. The SUHAKAMstressed the need to amend theSarawak Land Code of 1958 as theCode has no provision on the rightsof the Penans to land ownership. 5Certifying the extinction process:In 2001, the Malysian TimberCertification Council (MTCC) started

10Indigenous Rights Quarterly articleVol. III : No. 4 • October-December 2008a dubious method of legalizing itsillegal trade of timber by issuing“certificates” in the name ofpromoting environmentally soundlogging practices. The MTCC issuestwo types of certificates - Certificatefor Forest Management andCertificate for Chain-of-Custody. TheCertificate for Forest Managementcertifies that the Forest ManagementUnits (FMU) is sustainably managedand that timber was harvestedlegally. The Certificate for Chainof-Custodyassures the buyers thattimber products originated fromMTCC-certified FMUs. MTTC statesthat participation and consent oflocal communities, particularlyforest-dwelling indigenous people,is a key criterion for issuing of such“certificates”. 6However, since 2001, the Networkof Indigenous Peoples and Non-Governmental Organisations onForest Issues (JOANGOHutan)withdrew from talks with thegovernment on certificationprocess. The organisation heldthat the scheme is “only concernedwith the sustainability of timberproduction and not the socialculturalsustainability of indigenouslivelihoods”. Like elsewhere,participation of indigenous peoplesis tokenism at its best. 7In January 2007, the Sarawakauthorities prevented the indigenousleaders from meeting an officialdelegation of European Unionwhich visited Sarawak as part ofthe negotiations between the EUand Malaysia to reach a “VoluntaryPartnership Agreement” to controlillegal logging and work towardssustainable forest management inMalaysia. 8The socalled certification processby the MTCC has been allowing theillegal loggers to flout the sustainableforestry practices and indigenouspeoples’ rights over their lands andresources. The MTCC has reportedlycertified 4.73 million hectares ofPermanent Forest Reserves (PFR)that include eight forest managementunits (FMU) in the peninsula andthe Selaan-Linau FMU in Sarawak.The practice is therefore proving tobe disastrous for the survival of theindigenous peoples who are largelydependent on forests produce. 9Manipulating EnvironmentalImpact AssessmentEnvironment Impact Assessmentsfor projects are often manipulatedby the authorities. In the Belagain Sarawak, the EnvironmentalImpact Assessment (EIA) done byJB Agriculture Management Servicesfor an oil palm and forest plantationtotally overlook the presence of thePenans by saying that there wasno evidence of human settlementsin Ulu Belaga forests. However,the Malaysian Human RightsCommission (SUHAKAM) followinga fact-finding mission to Sarawak inSeptember 2006 found contradictionsand inconsistencies in the EIA onShin Yang Forest Plantation whichstretches between Batang Belagaand Sungai Murum. The EIA ofthe plantation scheme erroneouslydeclared that there is no humansettlement in the 155,930ha projectarea. Earlier, in 1999, Shin Yang hadobtained a 60-year Licence for PlantedForest. The project is divided into 80%forest plantation and 20% oil palm.Suhakam which released its report‘Penan in Ulu Belaga: Right to Landand Socio-Economic Development’in August 2007 revealed that 19% ofthe Penan population of 15,500 residein Ulu Belaga, with 20 settlements inthe disputed region. 10Killing as the responseThose who oppose logging weretargeted. Many Penans have beenarrested and jailed for their actions.In December 2007, a village chieftainidentified as Kelesau Naan (70) wasfound dead in the jungles of Borneoin Sarawak state. Some of his boneswere reportedly fractured indicatingthat he had been assaulted. Hedisappeared on 23 October 2007while checking an animal trap nearthe remote village of Long Kerongin eastern Sarawak State. KelesauNaan has been a key figure in antiloggingefforts by the Penans. 11 Manysupporting activists who carriedout fact-finding missions or spokeout against atrocities perpetrated bylogging companies, police, etc werebanned from entering Sarawak. 12On 28 January 2008, an Iban villagechief and two others identified asTuai Rumah Taman Anak Embat(55), Robert Anak Gickson Sawing(23) and Alu Anak Embat (58) werearrested for setting up a blockadeto stop encroachment by plantationcompany, Saradu Plantation Sdn Bhdfor logging activities into their NativeCustomary Rights (NCR) land in UluBalingian. 13iii. Displacement due to Bakun Damin SarawakIn late 2007, the government ofMalaysia decided to resume thecontroversial Bakun Hydro ElectricProject in Sarawak to its originaldesign to generate 2,400 megawattsof electricity power. 14 The Dam hasalready destroyed 23,000 hectares ofvirgin rainforest and displaced 9,000indigenous people. The communitiesclaimed that the survey conducted onthe ground was not properly carriedout. On 9 August 2007, AustraliabasedRio Tinto Aluminium signeda deal with Malaysian conglomerateCahya Mata Sarawak for a jointstudy to build a US$ 2 billion smelterin Similajau near Bintulu, 80 kminland from the Bakun Dam. 15 Theindigenous people were strugglingto survive on resettlement sites due

Indigenous Rights Quarterly articleVol. III : No. 4 • October-December 2008 11to unemployment and hunger. Theindigenous people displaced by thedam project claimed that they havenot been properly resettled andadequately compensated. However,the State government has deniedthese and claimed that only the oldergeneration had reservations aboutthe resettlement program. 16(Footnotes)1. The Indigenous World 2008, InternationalWork Group for Indigenous Affairs,Copenhagen2. Half of oil palm expansion in Malaysia,Indonesia occurs at expense of forests,Mongabay.com, 20 May 2008, http://news.mongabay.com/2008/0520-palm_oil.html3. Biofuels from cassava plantation in Sarawak:new corporate monoculture planned onNCR lands without prior informed consentof indigenous communities, availableat: http://borneoproject.org/article.php?id=6714. Memo on land claims submitted, The DailyExpress, 21 February 20085. The Indigenous World 2008, InternationalWork Group for Indigenous Affairs,Copenhagen6. Malaysia: Certifying extinction ofindigenous peoples, Indigenous RightsQuarterly -Vol. II: No. 01,Jan-March, 2007,AITPN, available at: http://www.aitpn.org/IRQ/vol-II/issue-1.htm7. Ibid8. Ibid9. Ibid10. Overlooked minority, The Star.com,30 October 2007, available at: http://thestar.com.my/lifestyle/story.asp?file=/2007/10/30/lifefocus/20071030094513&sec=lifefocus11. Borneo tribesman who fought loggingfound dead in Malaysia, family says, TheBangkok Post, 3 January 200812. The Indigenous World 2008, InternationalWork Group for Indigenous Affairs,Copenhagen13. Ulu Balingian Ibans held for settingblockade, The Rengah Sarawak, 29 January200814. Malaysia Government should respond tothe Report of World Commission on Dams,The Rengah Sarawak, 7 January 200815. Indigenous World 2008 and IndigenousWorld 2007, The Indigenous World 2008,International Work Group for IndigenousAffairs, Copenhagen16. IWGIA, available at: http://www.iwgia.org/sw18360.aspNew Delhi Guidelines on theEstablishment of National Institutionson the Rights of Indigenous Peoples,IntroductionNew Delhi,October 18-19, 2008Regional Conference on theRole of the National Institutions on theRights of Indigenous PeoplesAt the Regional Conference on theRole of the National Institutions on theRights of Indigenous Peoples 1 heldin New Delhi, on 18-19 October 2008,the representatives of indigenouspeoples participating in theconference unanimously welcomedthe contributions made by UN SpecialRapportuer on the situation of humanrights and fundamental freedomsof indigenous peoples, Prof JamesAnaya; Chairman of the NationalCommission on Indigenous Peoplesof the Philippines and member of theUnited Nations Permanent Forumon Indigenous Issues, Mr Eugenio AInsigne; Member of the GoverningCouncil of the National Foundationfor Development of IndigenousNationalities of Nepal, Mr ArjunLimbu; Member of the NationalCommission for Protection of ChildRights of India, Ms Dipa Dixit;Representative of the Delegation ofthe European Commission to India,Mr Hans Schoof; and former SpecialRapporteur on the right to adequatehousing, Mr Miloon Kothari.The representatives of indigenouspeoples participating in theconference adopted the followingguidelines which they understandto reflect the minimum standardsfor the establishment of anyNational Institutions on theRights of Indigenous Peoples(NIRIPs). These guidelines aredesigned to be of use to all whoare concerned with promotionand protection of the rights ofindigenous peoples, in particular, thegovernments and the United Nationsbodies and agencies.New Delhi Guidelines on theestablishment of NationalInstitutions on the Rights ofIndigenous Peoples, New Delhi,October 18-19, 2008I. The significance of NationalInstitutions on the Rights ofIndigenous Peoples1. Since the adoption of theUnited Nations Paris Principleson National Human RightsInstitutions in 1991, a numberof National Human RightsInstitutions have beenestablished by the governmentsacross the world.2. A number of NationalInstitutions on the Rightsof Indigenous Peoples havealso been established by thegovernments across the world.

12Indigenous Rights Quarterly reportVol. III : No. 4 • October-December 20083. The establishment of the NationalInstitutions on the Rights ofIndigenous Peoples reflects apolicy shift of the concernedgovernments from assimilationof indigenous peoples torecognition and preservationof the distinctiveness of theindigenous peoples and therights of indigenous peoplesto all human rights andfundamental freedoms.4. There have also been significantlegal developments atinternational level enhancingthe rights of indigenous peoplesincluding the UN Declarationon the Rights of IndigenousPeoples, ILO Convention No169 concerning Indigenous andTribal Peoples in IndependentCountries and a number ofinternational instruments whichrefer to indigenous peoples.5. It is now undisputed that allhuman rights are indivisible,interdependent, interrelatedand of equal importancefor human dignity and thatindigenous peoples are equallyentitled to all these rights.6. It is recognized that theNational Institutions on theRights of Indigenous Peopleshave an important and crucialrole to play for recognition,promotion, protection andimplementation of the rights ofindigenous peoples includingthe UN Declaration on theRights of Indigenous Peoples.7. The United Nations bodiesespecially those relating toindigenous peoples like SpecialRapporteur on the situation ofhuman rights and fundamentalfreedoms of indigenouspeople, Permanent Forumon Indigenous Issues and theExpert Mechanism on the Rightsof Indigenous Peoples of the UNHuman Rights Council have arole to play for promotion andestablishment of the NationalInstitutions on the Rights ofIndigenous Peoples.8. The UN agencies shouldencourage States and includethe establishment of theNational Institutions on theRights of Indigenous Peoplesin their technical cooperationprogrammes.Chapter I: Constitution of aNational Institution on the Rightsof Indigenous Peoples1. The National Institutionson the Rights of IndigenousPeoples (NIRIPs) should beconstitutional bodies mandatedto protect, promote and defendhuman rights, fundamentalfreedoms and other rights andinterests of the indigenouspeoples with due regard to theirbeliefs, customs, traditions andinstitutions and shall exercisethe powers conferred upon, andperform the functions assignedto it.2. The NIRIPs shall reflectplurality and representation ofindigenous communities.3. The Chairperson, members andChief Executive Officer shall beindigenous persons.4. The NIRIPs shall have officesin the territories of indigenouspeoples.1. Criteria /Qualifications1. The Chief Commissioner andthe Commissioners must haveexperience and expertise onindigenous peoples’ issuesincluding the experienceworking with an indigenouscommunity for substantialperiod of time and/or anygovernment agency involved inindigenous peoples’ issues, theability, integrity and standingfor selflessness to the causeof justice for the indigenouspeoples.2. The composition of the NIRIPsshall reflect the diversityof the indigenous peoplesincluding gender, ethnicity andgeographical regions.2. Procedure of appointment ofmembersThe members of the NIRIPs shall beappointed by the head of the State onthe recommendation of a committeecomprising of the representativeof the government, leader/s of theopposition in the National Parliamentand representatives of indigenouspeoples.The procedures of appointment shallbe made public through issuance ofa notification through publicationin all national newspapers andother communication systems likeinternet inviting recommendationsfrom indigenous communities forappointment and filling up the vacantposts of members of the NIRIPs aswell as inviting comments from theindigenous peoples (individuals andorganizations) on candidature of allthe nominees; and further the detailsof the nominees including names,address, educational qualifications,work experience etc. beforeappointment and the informationpertaining to all the nominees shallbe made public.3. Resignation and removal ofmembers1. The members of NIRIPs may,by notice in writing under his/her hand addressed to the Headof State, resign his/her office.2. The members of NIRIPs shallonly be removed from his/her office by the initiativeof appropriate authority orupon recommendation by anyindigenous community on theground of proven misbehaviour

Indigenous Rights Quarterly reportVol. III : No. 4 • October-December 2008 13or incapacity after the apex court,on reference being made to it bythe appropriate authority, has,on inquiry held in accordancewith the procedure prescribedin that behalf by the apex court,reported that the members ofthe NIRIPs, as the case may be,ought on any such ground to beremoved.3. The Head of State on the adviceof the appropriate authoritymay by order remove membersof NIRIPs as the case may be;(a) is adjudged an insolvent;or(b) engages during his/herterm of office in any paidemployment outside theduties of his/her office; or(c) is unfit to continue in officeby reason of infirmity ofmind or body; or(d) is of unsound mind andstands so declared by acompetent court; or(e) is convicted and sentencedto imprisonment for anoffence involves moralturpitude.4. Procedure to be regulated by theNIRIPsThe NIRIPs shall regulate its ownRules of Procedure.5. Officers and other staff of theNIRIPs1. The NIRIPs shall be madeavailable:(a) an officer who shall bean indigenous personand serve as the ChiefExecutive Officer; and(b) such investigative staffand officers as may benecessary for the efficientperformance of thefunctions of the NIRIPs.2. The NIRIPs may appoint suchother administrative, technicaland scientific staff as it mayconsider necessary.6. Offices and departments of theNIRIPsThe NIRIPs, among others, shall havethe following offices which shall beheaded by indigenous persons and beresponsible for the implementation ofthe policies hereinafter provided:(a)Policy, Planning and Researchand Advocacy office will beresponsible for formulationof appropriate policies andprograms for indigenouspeoples such as, but notlimited to, the developmentof a Five-Year Master Plan forthe indigenous peoples. TheNIRIPs shall endeavor to assessthe plans and make necessaryrectifications in accordance withthe changing situations. TheOffice shall also undertake thedocumentation of customarylaw and shall establish andmaintain a Research Center thatwould serve as a depository ofethnographic information formonitoring, evaluation andpolicy formulation. It shall assistthe legislative branch of thegovernment in the formulationof appropriate legislation onindigenous peoples(b) Education and CultureOffice will ensure effectiveimplementation of theeducation, cultural and healthrights of the indigenous peoples.It shall assist, promote andsupport community schools,both formal and non-formal,for the benefit of the indigenouscommunities, especially in areaswhere existing educationalfacilities are not accessible tomembers of the indigenousgroups. It shall administer allscholarship programs and othereducational rights intendedfor indigenous people’sbeneficiaries in coordinationwith the Ministry of Education,Culture and Sports and otherrelated agencies. It shall alsoundertake special programsto preserve and promote thelanguages and traditionalknowledge of the indigenouspeoples.(c) Office on Socio-EconomicServices and Special Concernswill coordinate with pertinentgovernment agenciesspecially charged with theimplementation of variousbasic socio-economic services,policies, plans and programsaffecting the indigenous peoplesto ensure that the same areproperly and directly enjoyedby the indigenous peoples. Itshall also be responsible forsuch other functions as theNIRIPs may deem appropriateand necessary.(d)(e)(f)Women Rights Cell which,among others, shall design andimplement the programmesof the NIRIPs pertaining toindigenous women.Youth and Child Rights Cellwhich, among others, shalldesign and implement theprogrammes of the NIRIPspertaining to indigenous youthsand children.Office of Empowerment andHuman Rights will ensure theenjoyment of the human rightsand fundamental freedomsby the indigenous peoples. Itshall, among others, undertakecapacity building programmes,participation of indigenouspeoples at all levels of decisionmakingand intervene againstviolations of the rights of

14Indigenous Rights Quarterly reportVol. III : No. 4 • October-December 2008(g)indigenous peoples.Administrative Office, amongothers, shall provide the NIRIPswith economic, efficient andeffective services pertainingto personnel, finance, records,equipment, security, suppliesand related services.(h) Legal Affairs Office shall,among others, advice theNIRIPs on all legal mattersconcerning indigenous peoplesand providing legal assistanceto indigenous peoples inlitigations.(i)Other Offices - The NIRIPsshall have the power to createadditional offices or regionaloffices in all developmentregions or wherever it maydeem necessary.7. Consultative AdvisoryCommittee1. It shall be the duty of theNational Institutions on theRights of Indigenous Peoplesto establish a ConsultativeAdvisory Committee ofindigenous peoples which shallhave the mandate to:(i) advise the NIRIPs onmatters relating to theproblems, aspirations andinterests of the indigenouspeoples; and(ii) ensure indigenouspeoples participationfor appointment of themembers of the NIRIPs;2. The Consultative AdvisoryCommittee shall ensureequitable representationof gender, ethnicity andgeographical diversity.Chapter II: Functions and Powers ofthe NIRIPs8. Functions and powers of theNIRIPs1. The National Institutions on theRights of Indigenous Peoplesshall be informed and consultedby the government on allmajor policy matters affectingindigenous peoples.2. The NIRIPs shall have quasijudicialand quasi-legislativepowers and functions andthe duty of the NIRIPs shallinclude:(a) To serve as the primarygovernment agencythrough which indigenouspeoples can seekgovernment assistanceand as the primary agencymedium, through whichsuch assistance may beextended;(b) To monitor, review, andassess the conditionsof indigenous peoplesincluding existing laws andpolicies pertinent theretoand to propose relevantlaws and policies toensure their proportionateparticipation in nationaldevelopment;(c) To coordinate, formulateand implement policies,plans, programs andprojects of the governmentfor the economic, socialand cultural developmentof the indigenous peoplesand monitoring theimplementation thereof;(d) To request and engagethe services and supportof experts from otheragencies of governmentor employ private expertsand consultants as may berequired in the pursuit ofits objectives;(e) To inquire into specificcomplaints, on receiptof complaints or suomotu, with respect to theviolations of the rightsand safeguards of theindigenous peoples;(f) To receive complaintsand/or take suo motuaction and inquire intonon-implementation of theservices provided by thegovernment and compelaction from appropriateagency;(g) To participate and adviseon the planning processof socio-economicdevelopment of theindigenous peoples andto evaluate the progress oftheir development;(h) To study and makerecommendations forsustainable developmentof indigenous peoples;(i) To discharge such otherfunctions in relation tothe protection, welfareand development andadvancement of theindigenous peoples;(j) To discharge such otherfunctions in relation tothe protection, welfareand development andadvancement of theindigenous peoples as thecase may be, subject tothe provisions of any lawmade by Parliament;(k) To convene periodicconventions or assembliesof indigenous peoples toreview, assess as well aspropose policies or plans;(l) To update the scheduledlist of indigenous peoplesthrough identificationand recognition ofthe unidentified andunrecognized ones;(m) To recognize, promote andprotect traditional wisdomand knowledge of theindigenous peoples andprevent transfer of such

Indigenous Rights Quarterly reportVol. III : No. 4 • October-December 2008 15knowledge and wisdom tonon-indigenous peoples/areas without benefitsharing and ensuring fullrespect for the right tofree, prior and informedconsent;(n) To act as the regulatingagency for implementationof programmes or projectsby non-governmentalorganizations and theprivate sector;(o) To promulgate thenecessary rules andregulations for theimplementation of therights of indigenouspeoples;(p) To secure the assistanceof the governmentdepartments to enforce theorders of the NIRIPs; and(q) To constitute one ormore Sub-Committeesfor purposes of research,investigation, reviewand monitoring of social,economic, cultural andcivil and political rights ofthe indigenous peoples.9. Powers relating to inquiries1. The NIRIPs shall, whileinquiring into any complainthave all the powers of a civilor criminal court whicheverapplicable in respect of thefollowing matters, namely:-(a) summoning and enforcingthe attendance of anyperson and examining himon oath;(b) requiring the discoveryand production of anydocuments;(c) receiving evidence onaffidavits;(d) requisitioning any publicrecord or copy thereoffrom any court or office;(e) issuing summons for theexamination of witnessesand documents; and(f) any other matter whichmay be prescribed by theparliament.2. The NIRIPs shall have powerto require any person, subjectto any privilege which may beclaimed by that person underany law for the time being inforce, to furnish informationon such points or matters as, inthe opinion of the NIRIPs, maybe useful for, or relevant to, thesubject matter of the inquiry andany person so required shall bedeemed to be legally bound tofurnish such information aslegally provided.3. The NIRIPs or any other officerspecially authorised in thisbehalf by the NIRIPs may enterany building or place where theNIRIPs has reason to believethat any document relating tothe subject matter of the inquirymay be found, and may seizeany such document or takeextracts or copies there fromsubject as provided under law.4. Every proceeding before theNIRIPs shall be deemed to bea judicial proceeding and thedecisions of the NIRIPs shall beappealable only before the apexcourt of the country.Chapter III: Procedures10. Inquiry into complaints1. The NIRIPs while investigatinginto non-implementation ofsafeguards available to theindigenous peoples under theConstitution or any law forthe time being in force mayinitiate an inquiry by its owninvestigation department orother agency of the governmentas the NIRIPs deems fit toinquire into the complaintsof violations of the rights ofindigenous peoples;2. Where the inquiry disclosesviolation of rights of theindigenous peoples ornegligence in the preventionof violation of the rights bya public servant, the NIRIPsmay take appropriate actions/measures as may deem fitgainst the concerned person orpersons;11. Annual and special reports of theNIRIPs1. The NIRIPs shall submit anannual report to the Parliamentand may at any time submitspecial reports on any matterwhich, in its opinion, is ofsuch urgency or importancethat it should not be deferredtill submission of the annualreport.2. The Government shall submita memorandum of actiontaken or proposed to be takenon the recommendations ofthe NIRIPs and the reasonsfor non-acceptance of therecommendations, if any.Chapter IV: Finance12. Financial autonomyThe National Institutions on theRights of Indigenous Peoples shallhave financial independence:1. The Government shall afterdue appropriation made byParliament by law in this behalf,pay by way of grants suchsums of money as the NIRIPsmay present in a budget to theGovernment annually.2. The NIRIPs can directly receiveadditional funds from anysource as donation, assistance,grants etc.(Footnotes)1. The Regional Conference was organisedby Asian Indigenous and Tribal PeoplesNetwork.

18Indigenous Rights Quarterly ReportVol. III : No. 4 • October-December 2008The Ministry of Chittagong Hill Tracts Affairsof Bangladesh : An Agency for DiscriminationArticle 19, Part 4 of the ChittagongHill Tracts (CHTs) Accord of 1997provided for the establishment of aMinistry of Chittagong Hill TractsAffairs headed by a tribal Minister.Pursuant to the Peace Accord, theMinistry of Chittagong Hill TractsAffairs was established on 15 July1998. The Ministry of CHT Affairsis mandated to supervise andcoordinate the overall developmentand administrative activities of theCHT region. An Advisory Committeehas also been formed to assist theMinistry.The CHT Affairs Ministry:Implementing racist policies againstindigenous peoplesThe Ministry of Chittagong HillTracts Affairs for all practicalpurposes has been reduced to aMinistry for illegal Bengali Muslimplain settlers to discriminate againstindigenous Jumma peoples becauseof their ethnic, religious and linguisticorigin.a. Tribal Minister not heard,Regional Council ignoredThe Ministry of CHTs Affairs isheaded by a Minister belongingto indigenous groups to overseeand coordinate the work of thevarious ministries and departmentsconcerning the CHTs. However, theMinister is seldom heard.According to former Deputy MinisterMoni Swapan Dewan, he wasallegedly never called in any policymeeting of the government on CHTduring his five years term. At least15 policy meetings were held duringhis tenure. Budgets involving croresof Taka were approved from theCHTs Affairs Ministry for variousdevelopment projects allegedlywithout his signature!The government has not framedany rules or issued the necessarydirectives to the Ministries. As aresult, the directives of the Ministryof CHTs Affairs were not compliedwith by the district and local leveladministrations.Further, there is lack of clarificationof mandates, responsibilities andauthorities of the Ministry ofCHTs Affairs vis-à-vis other CHTsinstitutions. There are no clearoperational rules and administrativeframeworks for most of the CHTsinstitutions. For example, thesupplementary rules and regulationsas well as the administrative ordersessential to make the governmentinstitutions such as the RegionalCouncil operational, are still tobe elaborated/approved by theGovernment. As a consequence,the mandates and authorities ofthe respective CHT institutionstend to overlap considerably. Thisin turn leads to inter-institutionalconfusion and differences whichgreatly undermine the delivery ofrelevant services to the people. TheParliamentary Standing Committeeon the Chittagong Hill Tracts AffairsMinistry observed that the ministrywas performing poorly because oflack of coordination among its topofficials.There is also lack of coordinationbetween the MoCHTA and otheraffiliated institutions such as CHTRegional Councils (CHTRC) andHill District Councils (HDC). Thisseriously undermines the functioningof the respective institutions. TheCHTRC can not perform its functionsproperly because of lack of propersupport from the Ministry of CHTAffairs. On the other hand, the threeHDCs and Chittagong Hill TractsDevelopment Board (CHTBD) whichare directly under the Ministry of CHTAffairs are ignoring the supervisoryand coordinating authority ofCHTRC over them in violationsof the CHT Accord. This tends tocreate frustrations among the officebearersand limit their effectivenessin facilitating and supportingdevelopment. Consequently, theCHTs Regional Council which wereestablished to resolve the problemsof the indigenous peoples have beenrendered useless.The CHTs Illegal Settlers’Development Board!The military government of ZiaurRahman sought to pacify the politicaldemands of the Jana Samhati Samiti(JSS) by recognizing the CHT crisisas “economic problem”, and set upChittagong Hill Tracts DevelopmentBoard in January 1976. But it wasrejected by the Jumma peoples. Asanticipated, the CHT DevelopmentBoard failed to bring economicdevelopment in the region as itimplemented counter-insurgencydevelopment projects.The CHTs Accord stipulates that, “TheChittagong Hill Tracts DevelopmentBoard shall discharge the assignedduties under the general and overallsupervision of the Council. TheGovernment shall give preferenceto the eligible tribal candidates in

Indigenous Rights Quarterly reportVol. III : No. 4 • October-December 2008 19appointing the Chairman of theDevelopment Board” (Clause 10 ofPart C).But Prime Minister Khaleda Ziaappointed BNP Member of Parliamentfrom Khagrachari, Wadud Buiyan,an illegal settler, as the Chairman ofthe CHT Development Board on 11February 2002. On 20 February 2002,the Jana Samhati Samiti made anappeal to the government against theappointment of Wadud Buiyan butthe appeal fell on deaf ears.Under Buiyan’s chairmanship, theCHTDB has been undertaking settlerorienteddevelopment programmesinstead of tribal welfare programmes.Thousands of illegal settlers weresettled into the CHT and providedfree rations. The illegal settlers are soindebted to MP Wadud Buiyan thatnow many villages where they havebeen settled have been re-named as“Wadud Palli” (“Wadud villages”).When the Deputy Minister for theCHTs Affairs, Mani Swapan Dewanrefused to toe the line on the issue ofproviding rations, he was divested ofhis portfolio although he remainedminister.b. Implanting the illegal plainsettlersThe CHTs Accord did not help toresolve the illegal settlers’ issue.Rather, the CHTs Affairs Ministrybecame the lead agency forimplantation of tens of thousands ofillegal plain settlers on the lands ofindigenous Jumma peoples. They areconsidered illegal as the ChittagongHill Tracts 1900 Regulation restrictsthe entry of non-hill people into theCHTs. Moreover, Article 49 of theFourth Geneva Convention alsoprohibits such population transfers.Further, in the CHTs Accord, thegovernment of Bangladesh agreedto protect the “special character” ofthe CHT region as “Tribal inhabitedRegion”. Clause 1 of Part A: Generalof the CHTs Accord states, “Boththe parties, having considered theChittagong Hill Tracts region as atribe-inhabited region, recognized theneed of preserving the characteristicsof this region and attaining the overalldevelopment thereof”.However, the indigenous peoplesare increasingly being reduced tominority.One of the first steps taken by thegovernment of Bangladesh wasto legalise the illegal settlers whograbbed the lands of indigenousJumma peoples. In November 1999,after instructions from the PrimeMinister’s Office, illegal plain settlerswho displaced the indigenous Jummapeoples were included in the categoryof IDPs. Consequently, in 2000, theTask Force under the chairmanshipof Dipankar Talukder prepared thelist of 1,28,364 IDP families, including90,208 tribal and 38,156 non-tribalfamilies. It is strange that the illegalplain settlers who have displaced theJummas in the CHT were included inthe lists of IDPs.On 21 December 2000, the Ministryof CHT Affairs served a notificationNo. 62/99-587 empowering theDeputy Commissioners of the threehill districts in the CHTs to issue“permanent resident certificate” tothe illegal plain settlers.In September 2003, the governmentannounced a plan to give permanentresident status to 26,000 families ofBangalee settlers living in clustervillages in the CHTs. In line with thedirective of the Prime Minister, CHTAffairs Ministry started the processof forming a committee to finalisethe proposed plan. The settlers whowere relocated from the northern andsouthern regions of Bangladesh in1982-83 were promised governmentlands as incentive to settle in thetrouble-torn CHTs. They werepromised free ration of 28,000 tonnesof food grains worth Taka 28 crore ayear. The ration was to be withdrawnonly upon becoming permanentresidents.In June 2005, it was reported thatthe government of Bangladesh wasplanning to sponsor transfer of about65,000 illegal plain settlers’ familiesfrom the plains to settle them in SajekUnion under Rangamati district.Following the exposure, Member ofParliament from Khagrachari district,Wadud Bhuiyan, who is himself anillegal plain settler, confirmed thatthe plain settlers’ families had startedbuilding houses beside the Sajek roadbut the army did not allow them onsafety ground. A road from Baghaihatto Sajek has been constructed throughdense Kassalong reserve forestviolating the Forest Act of 1927 andBangladesh Forest (Amendment)Act 2000 to facilitate the transport ofthe plain settlers. The government ofBangladesh also proposed to providefree ration to 28,000 more illegal plainsettler families in CHTs in additionto 27,000 illegal plain settler familieswho have been provided free rationsince 1978.On 23 April 2006, the ParliamentaryCommittee on the CHTs Affairsconfirmed that number of peopleliving in the cluster-villages in thethree hill districts - Rangamati,Bandarban and Khagrachari - becamedouble and rose to 50,000.In a letter dated 19 November 2007Md. Sulut Zaman, Deputy Secretaryof the Ministry of Chittagong HillTracts Affairs (MoCHTA) directedthe Deputy Commissioner ofKhagrachari district to illegally settle812 families into the lands of theindigenous Jummas at Babucharaarea, Baghaichari mouza underDighinala upazila (sub- district) inKhagrachari district.

20Indigenous Rights Quarterly reportVol. III : No. 4 • October-December 2008The implantation of illegal settlerscontinues unabated and indigenousJumma peoples continue to bevictimised. On 20 April 2008,hundreds of illegal plain settlersbacked by Bangladesh armylaunched pre-planned attacks onseven indigenous Jumma villagesnamely Nursery Para, Baibachara,Purba Para, Nangal Mura, Retkaba,Simana para and Gangaram Mukhunder Sajek Union under Baghaichariupazila (sub-district) in Rangamatidistrict in the Chittagong Hill Tracts(CHTs) of Bangladesh from 9.30 pmto 1.30 am. Besides a church and twoUNICEF run schools, an estimated77 houses of indigenous Jummapeoples were burnt while fourindigenous villagers were woundedand hundreds of indigenous Jummaswere internally displaced.c. Supporting land grabbingThe Ministry of CHT Affairsacknowledge that land disputebetween Bangalee settlers andindigenous people remains one of themain reasons for communal tensionsin CHTs.The CHTs Accord provides forconstitution of a Land Commissionheaded by a retired Justice to “resolvethe [land] disputes in consonancewith the law, custom and practice inforce in the Chittagong Hill Tracts”.The Land Commission with tenureof minimum of three years has beenbestowed full authority to cancel theownership of those hills and landswhich have been illegally occupiedby the plain settlers. The decisionsof the Commission are final and noappeal can be made against suchdecisions.To term systematic land grabbing byillegal settlers as “[land] disputes” isa misnomer and an attempt to justifythe legality of land grabbing. In theCHTs, it was a clear case of landgrabbing and there were no questionsof disputes as the land belong toindigenous peoples as per “the law,custom and practice in force in theChittagong Hill Tracts”.Nonetheless, the Land Commissionwas formed on 3 June 1999 under theChairmanship of retired High Courtjustice AM Mahmudur Rahman.By May 2003, over 35,000 cases hadreportedly been lodged with theCommission. But the Commissioncould not function and its tenure hadto be extended up to 1 November2004. It received second extensionfor another three years “as thecommission failed to finish its task”.Justice AM Mahmudur Rahmancomplained that the governmentdid not provide adequate staff. On 8June 2005, the Commission convenedits first meeting at Khagrachari. Theineffectiveness of the Commission isevident from the views expressed byits Chairman Justice AM MahmudurRahman that he favoured a “tribunal”instead of a commission to settle theland disputes in CHTs.The government of Bangladesh doesnot have political will to settle theland grabbing issue in the CHT. In2001, the Awami League governmentpassed the CHT Land (DisputesSettlement) Commission Act, 2001.The indigenous peoples rejected theAct primarily because of the arbitrarypowers of the Chairperson to providefinal judgement in the event of lackof consensus among other members;the exclusion of Jumma refugeeswho returned to the CHTs under the1992 repatriation agreement fromthe ambit of the Land Commission;and the exclusion of the internallydisplaced Jummas from the scope ofthe Act.In December 2003, the ParliamentaryStanding Committee on the CHTAffairs Ministry asked the Ministryof CHT Affairs to settle land disputethrough the Land Commission.In 2007, the Advisory Committteein its meeting, among the decisionsmade was the reactivation of the LandCommission. Besides, the positionof chairman remained vacant sinceits last chairman AM MahmudurRahman passed away on 1 December2007.On 31 March 2008, Raja DevashishRoy, Special Assistant of ChiefAdviser on Ministry of CHT Affairsstated that the government hasinitiated the process to amend fewprovisions of the Land (DisputesSettlement) Commission Act andreconstitute the commission forspeedy disposal of disputes.Systematic attacks on indigenousJummas especially of those villagesin whose vicinity the cluster villagesof the illegal settlers have increasedfurther since the signing of the CHTsAccord. Further the Bangladeshmilitary has been responsible forforcible seizure of lands of theJummas in the name of constructionof military bases. The governmentof Bangladesh has undertakenprogrammes to acquire a total of atleast 66,774 acres of land for militarypurposes respectively 9,650 acres ofland in Bandarban for the expansionof Ruma military cantonment whichwill affect about 1,000 indigenousJumma families; 11,446.24 acres ofland in Sualok Union of Bandarbanfor establishing an Artillery TrainingCentre which will uproot 400indigenous families (each familywas provided only a paltry sum ofTaka 3,000 to 8,000 as compensation);450 acres of land in Pujgang underPanchari Thana of Khagracharidistrict for construction of an armycantonment; 45 acres of land inBabuchara under Dighinala Thana

Indigenous Rights Quarterly reportVol. III : No. 4 • October-December 2008 21in Khagrachari district which willaffect at least 74 Jumma families inthree villages; about 183 acres of landin Balaghata in Bandarban district;19,000 acres of land in Bandarban forthe expansion of an Artillery Trainingcentre and 26,000 acres of land inBandarban for establishing Air ForceTraining Centre. These are in additionto the notices to acquire a total of5,600 acres of land in Chimbuk areaof Bandarban district in the name ofconstructing an Eco Park and 5,500acres of land in Sangu Mouza ofBandarban district in the name ofcreating an “Abhoyarannyo” (animalsanctuary). The government officialshave also been forcing indigenousJumma peoples to lease away 40,071acres of land in Lama, NikkyongChari, Alikadam and BandarbanSadar to private individuals forrubber and tea plantation.d. Repression on NGOs activities inthe CHTsThe Ministry of CHT Affairs controlsNGOs activities in the CHTs. In fact,this is the only functions it has beendoing efficiently!The non-government organizationsin CHTs were established after thePeace Accord. These NGOs have beenimplementing development projectsin adherence of the governmentrules and regulations for NGOactivities in CHT. NGOs operatingwith foreign funds need a NoObjection Certificate (NOC) from theMinistry of CHT Affairs.There was no problem in gettingNOC from the Ministry of CHTAffairs for CHT based NGOs tooperate project activities with foreignfunds as of 2005. However, sinceJanuary 2006, the Ministry of CHTAffairs blocked NOCs to NGOs foroperating in CHT due to use of thewords “Indigenous People” in theproject documents. According to theMinistry of CHT Affairs, there are no“Indigenous People” or “MinorityPeople” in CHT or other parts ofBangladesh and such words are notmentioned in the constitution ofBangladesh. While local, national,regional and international NGOsplanning to operate or implementproject activities with foreignfunds in other parts of Bangladesh(excluding CHT regions), werereportedly not required NOCs eitherfrom Ministry of CHT Affairs orother Ministries. Moreover, NGOsoperating outside of the CHThave been able to use the words“Indigenous People” in their projecttitles and project documents. On19 April 2006, the Secretary to theForeign Affairs Ministry wrote aletter to the Secretary to the CHTAffairs Ministry mentioning thatfrom now people can not identifythemselves as “indigenous people.”They should be called “tribal people”not “indigenous people.”The Ministry of CHTs Affairs hasmanaged to silence critical NGOactivities in the CHTs.The Department of Orang Asli Affairs, Malaysia :An Agency for AssimilationThe ‘Orang Asli’ are the indigenousminority peoples of PeninsularMalaysia. ‘Orang Asli’ is a Malayterm which means ‘original peoples’or ‘first peoples’. It is a collective termintroduced by anthropologists andadministrators. Orang Asli compriseat least nineteen culturally andlinguistically distinct groups. Thelargest groups are the Semai, Temiar,Jakun (Orang Hulu), and Temuan. In1999, their population was 105,000persons representing less than 0.5per cent of the national population.According to the records of theDepartment of Orang Asli Affairs(JHEOA), a total of 147,412 OrangAslis or mere 0.6% of the nationalpopulation were living in 869 villagesin 2004.Most of them descended from theHoabinhians, stone tool-usinghunter-gatherers who occupied thepeninsula as early as 11,000 B.C.Orang Asli were once thinly scatteredthroughout the peninsula. But, asthe majority Malay population grewon the coastal plains and majorriver valleys most of the Orang Asliwere pushed back into the interiormontane forests. Majority of OrangAsli still lives in rural and remoteareas. Until recently they lived byvarious combinations of hunting,fishing, gathering, swidden farming,aboriculture, and trading forestproducts. Land development projectsand government programs haveturned many into rural peasants orday labourers.The Orang Aslis, literally meaningfirst peoples have been treated as

22Indigenous Rights Quarterly reportVol. III : No. 4 • October-December 2008second class Bhumiputras, sons ofthe soil. The Special Provision madeunder Article 153 of the Constitutionof Malaysia ensures “the specialposition of the Malays and nativesof any of the States of Sabah andSarawak” and makes no referenceto the Orang Aslis. The referencesto the Orang Aslis under Article 8(5)(c), Article 45(2), Article 160(2) andArticle 89 of the Federal Constitutionof Malaysia failed to addressdiscrimination against the OrangAslis.The Department of Orang AsliAffairsA. Historical backgroundColonial periodAfter the surrender of the Japanese in1945, the Orang Asli people suddenlybecame crucial players to determineas to who controls the country afterindependence. The British colonialrulers did not want the communists,mostly Chinese, in the governmentthat would be formed in independentMalaysia. On their part, thecommunists wanted to stake claimsin the anticipated post-independencegovernment. Subsequently in 1947,the communists returned to the forestsand started an armed insurrection,the “Emergency” which wouldlast from 1948-1960. To prevent thecommunist guerrillas from winningthe support of the Orang Asli peopleinside the deep forests, the Britishauthorities decided to resettle theOrang Asli like the Chinese squatters.The authorities forced the Orang Aslipeople residing at accessible villagesinto camps which were surroundedby barbed wire and constantlyguarded but the authorities did notprovide basic requirements likeproper shelters, sanitary facilities,or nutritionally adequate food.Denial of basic services in the campsresulted in death of large numbers ofOrang Asli and some of them whoescaped from the camps passed onThe Constitution of the Republicof Malaysia has been indicativeof the process of assimilationof the ethnic minorities bythe majority. The Constitutiondefines a Malay person as aperson who habitually speaksthe Malay language, practicesMalay customs, and is a Muslim(Malaysian Government 1982).Since most Malaysians can nowspeak Malay and Malay customsare variable and ever-changing,the definitive criterion is Islam.their experiences of ill treatment inthe camps back to their relatives stillin the forest. This led to increasingantagonism toward the authoritiesand virtually all the Orang Asli of thecentral highlands, mostly Temiar andSemai, had turned to the communistsfor protection against the governmentby 1953.Experienced with the setback, theauthorities drew the lesson that thecooperation of the Orang Asli peoplecould be won only by being kindto them and not by intimidation orforce. This prompted the colonialauthorities to allow all camp inmatesto go home. Then, the authoritiesset up “jungle forts” in the areas ofOrang Asli which had larger numberof communists. Security forcespatrolled the Orang Asli villagesat regular intervals to provideprotection to them and male nursesat the forts delivered basic healthcare services. The security forces alsosold salt, tobacco, and metal tools forsmall shops they had opened at theforts. Preceding the setting up of theDepartment of Orang Asli Affairs, thecolonial government established theDepartment of Aborigines primarilyto win the loyalty of Orang Asli. In1954, the government dramaticallyexpanded the Department ofAborigines and made it responsibleprimarily for enlisting Orang Asliin the government cause against thecommunists. Under the AboriginalPeoples Act of 1954, the Departmenthas been given the control over allmatters concerning Orang Asli andhenceforth it came to known asDepartment of Orang Asli Affairs, alsoknown as JHEOA. Field assistants—mostly Malays with some police ormilitary experience—were postedat the jungle forts. They were giventhe responsibility for medical carewhile some of them offered informalclasses in reading and writing Malayto Orang Asli children.The efforts of the authorities fructified.They were able to win the support ofthe Orang Asli to the governmentside. By the late 1950s the securityforces had even formed an antiguerrillaunit composed mostly ofOrang Asli, the Senoi Praak (FightingAborigines).Post independenceIn 1961, during the opening ofParliament, the King declared thatthe nation would not forget OrangAsli even though the Emergency wasover. He said his government wasadopting a “long-term policy for theadministration and advancement ofthe aborigines” in order “to absorbthese people into the stream ofnational life in a way, and at a pace,which will adopt and not destroytheir traditional way of living andculture.” In November 1961, theGovernment of the Republic ofMalaysia made the Department ofOrang Asli Affairs permanent andmade it responsible for all programs

Indigenous Rights Quarterly reportVol. III : No. 4 • October-December 2008 23concerning the Orang Asli. One ofthe reasons for the single agencyapproach was that over 60% of OrangAsli still lived in isolated areas, farfrom normal government serviceslike education and medical care.Since the end of the Emergency, theestablished aim of the Governmentwas to bring the Orang Asli into thenational “mainstream” but officialstatements and documents on theissue had ambiguity as to what thatmeant. The Ministry of the Interior’sStatement of Policy of 1961 statesthat the goal is “their ultimateintegration with the Malay section ofthe community,” while it also statedthat it prefers “natural integrationas opposed to artificial assimilation”and that “special measures shouldbe adopted for the protection ofthe institutions, customs, mode oflife, persons, property and laborof the aborigine people.” On theother hand, others advocated forcomplete assimilation of Orang Asliinto the Malay community to theextent that they would cease to existas a separate ethnic community.Throughout the 1970s, the officials ofthe Department of Orang Asli Affairsmade ambiguous pronouncementsabout their ultimate goal. However,by the early 1980s, apparently underpressure from the Islamic AffairsSection of the Prime Minister’sDepartment, the Department ofOrang Asli Affairs had decisivelyfavoured assimilation of the OrangAsli as the ultimate goal. In 1990,then Director-General Jimin Bin Idrisstated that he hoped the Orang Asliwould fully integrate into Malaysiansociety, “preferably as an Islamizedsubgroup of the Malays.”The policy of assimilation of theOrang Asli into the majority Malaycommunities cropped up fromMalaysia’s ethnic politics. Themajor ethnic groups in Malaysia, theMalays constituting 51% of the totalpopulation, Chinese constituting30%, and Indians constituting 9%compete for power and wealththrough a parliamentary politicalsystem and a market economy. Sinceindependence in 1957, the majorityMalays have dominated the politicalarena, while the Chinese havedominated business. One reason toassimilate Orang Asli into the Malaypopulation is to increase the numberof Malay voters and control thegovernment.B. Organisational set-upThe Department of Orang Asli Affairs(JHEOA), a federal government bodywas established in 1954 under theMinistry of Interior of the colonialgovernment. Depending upon therequirements of the Government, theDepartment of Orang Asli Affairs hasbeen catapulted from one ministry toanother ministry and so forth. TheJHEOA had been under the Ministryof Home Affairs from 1955-1956; thenunder Ministry of Education from1956-1959; then again under Ministryof Home Affairs from 1959-1964;then under the Ministry of Land andMines from 1964-1970; then underthe Ministry of Agriculture and Landfrom 1970-1971; then under Ministryof National and Rural Developmentfrom 1971-1974; then again under theMinistry of Home Affairs from 1974-1990; then again under the Ministry ofRural Development from 1990-1993.Since 1994, Department of Orang AsliAffairs has been functioning underthe Ministry of National Unity andSocial Development.The headquarters of the Departmentof Orang Asli Affairs is based inKuala Lumpur. It has 6 state branchoffices, 36 district offices and 133post or project (projek) offices. TheDirector-General of the Departmentis assisted by three Deputy Director-Generals. The Department hasvarious divisions like Administrationand Personnel Division, Financeand Supply Division, Transport andCommunication Division, Socio-Economic Development Division,Research and Information Division,Training Division, and Medicaland Health Program. Each Divisionhas a Director who remains underthe control of the Deputy Director-Generals.While the functions of the differentdivisions in the Department are selfexplanatorythere is one exceptionwith regard to one division viz.Research and Information Division.This division does not work on anykind of research of its own but collectsresearch reports and publicationsproduced by outside scholars. Onthe other hand, the Division gathersintelligence on threats to nationalsecurity and it devotes and spendsmost of its energy in propagatingIslam among Orang Asli.C. Personnel of the Department ofOrang Asli AffairsMajority of the employees, particularlyall in policy-making positions in theDepartment of Orang Asli Affairsare Malays. The Department seldomgives the exact figure of the OrangAsli employees in the Departmentand keeps on giving widely varyingfigures. The high-ranking officials ofJHEOA reportedly make blatantlydeceiving statements not only onTV but also in the Parliament. Forexample, in a TV Forum in April 1989the former Director-General of theDepartment of Orang Asli Affairs,Jimin Bin Idris stated that 1,000 oftotal 1,700 staff in the Departmentare Orang Asli. On the other hand,one month prior to the statement, ina written reply to a Parliamentaryquestion by Democratic ActionParty parliamentarian Dr. Tan SengGiaw, the JHEOA revealed thatthere were no more than 395 OrangAsli employed in the Department

24Indigenous Rights Quarterly reportVol. III : No. 4 • October-December 2008of Orang Asli Affairs and not 1,000as claimed on national TV. In 1997,the Director-General said 30% of thestaff in the Department was OrangAsli but none at management-level.Chinese or Indian Malaysians arenot hired by the Department exceptoccasionally as doctors.As all senior personnel in theDepartment of Orang Asli Affairsare Malay, the policies of theDepartment are influenced andbiased in favour of the majorityMalays. The Orang Asli facediscrimination as the Malays finds itdifficult to consider the Orang Asli astheir cultural equals. The Departmentrefers to Orang Asli religions as“superstitions” (kepercayaan) ratherthan “religions” (ugama). Malaysdo not feel comfortable entering thehomes of Orang Asli and usuallywill not eat with them because ofMuslim dietary prohibitions. Malaygovernment employees workingwith rural Orang Asli generallyprefer to live in Malay villages andcommute.Until about 1990, the staffs includingthe high ranking officials weretaken from within the Departmentof Orang Asli Affairs. Because ofthis, high ranking officials had achance to develop some expertiseabout Orang Asli and from 1961 to1992 all Director-Generals of theDepartment had formal training inanthropology. But since 1992, thePublic Services Department hasbeen appointing top officers, usuallyfrom other government departmentsand ministries and therefore, recentDirector-Generals have little, if any,prior knowledge of Orang Asli.D. Mission Statement and objectivesof the Department of Orang AsliAffairsThe primary Mission Statement of theDepartment of Orang Asli Affairs isto develop the socio-economic wellbeingof the Orang Asli communityand to enable them to participate andcompete actively in the mainstreameconomic, social and politicaldevelopment of the country, while atthe same time preserving the OrangAsli identity and culture.The main objectives of the Departmentare as under: -i. Eradicate poverty among theOrang Asli by the year 2020;ii.Reduce the gap in income,education, health and accessto the basic facilities betweenthe Orang Asli and the othermainstream communities inMalaysia;iii. Enhance the capability,confidence and self-esteem,courage and sense of disciplineand eliminate all forms ofnegative stereotyping towardsthe Orang Asli; andiv.As all senior personnel in theDepartment of Orang Asli Affairsare Malay, the policies of theDepartment are influenced andbiased in favour of the majorityMalays. The Orang Asli facediscrimination as the Malaysfinds it difficult to considerthe Orang Asli as their culturalequals.Upgrade the health level of theOrang Asli and eradicate allkinds of contagious diseases.But in the guise of accomplishing itsobjectives, the Department of OrangAsli Affairs has been pursuing itspolicy to assimilate the Orang Asliinto the Malay community. Most ofthese strategies such as resettlementof Orang Asli population inaccessible locations, destroying theirpolitical autonomy, transformingtheir economies into market-orientedpeasant economies are directedtowards its policy of assimilationand converting them to Islam andother features of Malay culture.The Constitution of the Republic ofMalaysia has been indicative of theprocess of assimilation of the ethnicminorities by the majority. TheConstitution defines a Malay personas a person who habitually speaksthe Malay language, practices Malaycustoms, and is a Muslim (MalaysianGovernment 1982). Since mostMalaysians can now speak Malayand Malay customs are variable andever-changing, the definitive criterionis Islam.The Aboriginal Peoples Act of 1954has given broad range of powersto the JHEOA. Under section 19 (1)(a-k) of the Act, these includes thecreation and regulation of OrangAsli settlements, control of entry intoOrang Asli abodes, appointment andremoval of Orang Asli headmen,prohibition of the planting ofany specified plant in Orang Aslisettlements, permitting and regulationof felling of forest within traditionalOrang Asli areas, permitting andregulation of forest produce, birdsand animals from Orang Asli areas,and even prescribing the terms uponwhich Orang Asli may be employed.Effectively, all these provisions ofthe Aboriginal Peoples Act of 1954are intended for destroying theautonomy of the Orang Asli. Fourteenyears after the end of Emergency, in1974, the Government of Malaysiahas amended the Aboriginal PeoplesAct of 1954 but these draconianclauses remain untouched althoughthe security concerns of that time arenot there any more.

Indigenous Rights Quarterly articleVol. III : No. 4 • October-December 2008 25Land Alienation of Tribals in IndiaAlienation, a euphemistic term forgrabbing the lands of the tribalpeoples by non-tribals, is widespreadin India. The Ministry of RuralDevelopment of the Government ofIndia in its 2007-2008 Annual Reportstates, “The State Governments haveaccepted the policy of prohibiting thetransfer of land from tribals to nontribalsand for restoration of alienatedtribal lands to them. The States withlarge tribal population have sinceenacted laws for this purpose.”The 2007-2008 Annual Reportfurther states, “Reports received fromvarious States, indicate that 5.06 lakhcases of tribal land alienation havebeen registered, covering 9.02 lakhacres of land, of which 2.25 lakh caseshave been disposed off in favour oftribals covering a total area of 5.00lakh acres. 1.99 lakh cases coveringan area of 4.11 lakh acres have beenrejected by the Courts on variousgrounds”.However, there are serious causesof concerns. Not a single case out of29,596 cases of alienation and restorationof tribal land has been ruled in favourof the tribals in Madhya Pradesh. InOrissa, an overwhelming 43,213out of 104,644 cases were decidedagainst the tribals. This was followedby Tripura where an overwhelming20,043 cases out of the 29,112 caseswere rejected.AITPN reports about land alienationof the tribals in India.Andhra Pradesh:Despite having stringent provisionsunder the Andhra Pradesh ScheduleAreas Land Transfer Regulation of1959 to protect the lands of the tribalsin the Scheduled Areas, the tribalsface alienation of their lands.The rate of alienation of tribal land isalarming in Andhra Pradesh. Nontribalspresently hold as much as48 per cent of the land in ScheduledAreas of the state. Since the AndhraPradesh Scheduled Areas LandTransfer Regulation came intoeffect in 1959, 72,001 cases of landalienation have been filed involving3,21,685 acres of land in the state.The tribals are losing their legal fightto recover their lands. Of the 72,001cases registered under the AndhraPradesh Scheduled Areas LandTransfer Regulation, 70,183 caseswere disposed of and 33,319 cases(47.47 per cent) were decided againsttribals involving 1,62,989 acres ofland. As of January 2007, about300 cases were pending in AndhraPradesh High Court involving about2,500 acres of land under the AndhraPradesh Scheduled Areas LandTransfer Regulation. 1Assam:The All Assam Tribal Sangha (AATS)and other tribal organisations ofthe State have alleged widespreadviolation of land transfer rules andregulations in the existing 9 tribalbelts and 28 blocks in the State. Casesof transferring of land to non-tribalsor non-bonafide people were onthe rise. 2Non-tribal and non-bonafide peoplehad bought plots of land individuallyor in the name of private school,societies, trust etc and they later usedthe plots for commercial purpose. 3The tribal peoples and theirorganization blame the StateGovernment and its agencies, mostparticularly the Circle Revenueoffices for massive alienation of triballands to non-tribals and persons ofdoubtful nationality in completeviolation of the Assam Land RevenueRegulation Act 1886.In May 2007, it was reported that asection of politicians and the localRevenue officials had allotted 22.5bighas of fertile agricultural landunder tribal belts and blocks inParbotjhora subdivision of BodoTerritorial Council to as many as34 non-tribal Muslim families. TheAssistant Settlement Officer ofBagribari revenue circle had sent aproposal to the Deputy Commissionerof Dubri district to the effect that 22.5bighas of land should be allotted tothese families. Lands in the tribalbelts had already been allotted for aburial ground as well as to 13 familiesof non-tribal religious minorities inBagaribari revenue circle. 4Jharkhand:In Jharkhand, cases of alienation oftribal land have risen despite twolaws - Chotanagpur Tenancy Actand Santhal Parangan Tenancy Actto prevent sale of tribal land to nontribalsin the state. A total of 2,608cases have been filed by tribals withthe Special Area Regulation Court in2003-2004, which increased to 2,657cases in 2004-2005 and further to 3,230cases in 2005-2006. As of January2007, 3,789 cases have been filed withthe Special Area Regulation Court in2007 for recovery of tribal lands. 5Lack of lawyers to take up land-relatedcases of the tribals further delayedadjudication. Around 5,500 land-

26Indigenous Rights Quarterly articleVol. III : No. 4 • October-December 2008related cases of tribals were pendingin various district courts in Jharkhandas of March 2007. The government ofJharkhand had an annual budget ofRs 50 lakh to provide legal assistanceto poor tribals to pursue their landrelatedcases. However, less than 10per cent of the total allocated budgetwas spent over the last six years.Lawyers were unwilling to fightcases on behalf of tribals seekinggovernment assistance. The offer ofRs 5,000 per case was cited as oneof the main reasons for pendency ofland-related cases in courts. 6In February 2007, the Supreme Courtallowed a tribal petitioner to file afresh petition before the JharkhandHigh Court for recovery of his landfrom a mining company. In its order,the Supreme Court held that theJharkhand High Court was wrongto dismiss the petition of SurendraDehri, a tribal who alleged thatover 10,000 acres of “notified triballand” had been usurped by miningcontractors in connivance with thegovernment officials. The HighCourt had dismissed his petitionsaying that it involved only “privateinterest”. But a bench of SupremeCourt comprising Justices B.N.Agarwal and P.P. Naolekar statedthat a clear violation of constitutionalguarantees given to the tribals couldnot be held to be related to “privateinterest”. 7The tribals of Jharkhand havealso been protesting against theimplementation of Koel Karohydroelectric project by NationalHydroelectric Corporation over theKoel and Karo rivers. The project,if implemented, would submergeas many as 256 villages involving50,000 acres of forest area, 40,000acres of agricultural land and 300forest groves (considered sacred bythe tribals), 175 churches and 120Hindu temples. 8KarnatakaThe state government failed toprevent further alienation of the landsof tribal people. According to theAnnual Report 2007-08 of the Ministryof Rural Development, Governmentof India, a total of 42,582 casesalleging alienation of 130,373 acres ofland have been filed in the court inKarnataka. The courts disposed off38,521 cases out of which 21,834 casesinvolving 67,862 acres of land havebeen decided in favor of tribals and16,687 cases involving 47,159 acre ofland have been rejected. About 4,061cases were pending in the court. 9Kerala:The State government failed to acton alienation of the lands of tribalpeoples or to compensate thosewho have been forcibly displaced.About 500 tribal families were given‘pattayams’ (land deeds) by thethen Chief Minister E.K. Nayanar in1999 in lieu of 10,000 acres that wasalienated from them in Attappady.The state government of Kerala hadfailed to allot any land to landlesstribals of Attappaddy by December2007. 10In November 2007, Communist Partyof India (Marxists) cadres forcibly tookover lands earmarked for distributionto Adivasis, indigenous peoples inMunnar. In 2003, following killings ofthe Adivasi protestors at Muthanga,the State government allotted an acreof land each in Chinnakanal to morethan 700 tribal families. Howeverafter four years, only 540 familieshave received land. Some 200 tribalfamilies have built makeshift hutson government land in Munnar inprotest. 11 But on 26 November 2007,they were attacked by CPI-M cadres.Over 2,000 CPI-M cadres captureda 1,500-acre stretch of governmentland in Munnar’s Chinnakkanal areaand forced the 200 Adivasi familiesto flee. The CPI-M cadres destroyedthe huts of the Adivasis and put upparty flags to symbolize their victory.They fenced off the area and beganconstructing their own huts there. 12On 20 February 2007, K.P. Rajendran,Minister for Revenue of KeralaGovernment stated that there were22,000 tribal families in the Statewithout land. 13Madhya Pradesh:According to Ministry of RuralDevelopment of Government ofIndia, Madhya Pradesh has thedistinction of not deciding a singlecase in favour of the tribals afteradjudication of 29,596 cases decidedby 2007. Another 24,210 cases werepending in the court. A total of 53,806cases involving 158,398 acres of landwere filed in the court in the MadhyaPradesh. 14The government of Madhya Pradeshfailed to implement the ScheduledTribes and Other Traditional ForestDwellers (Recognition of ForestRights) Act, 2006. Tribal peoplesfaced evictions from their forestdwellings although they have livedthere for generations.On 19 April 2007, several tribalforest dwellers, including womenand children, were injured when thepolice opened fire on them after theyresisted eviction at Gateha village ofTeonthar tehsil in Rewa district. 15In December 2007, forest dwellersfrom Nepanagar in Burhanpurdistrict were beaten up and forcefullyevicted from their villages by the StateForest department authorities afterthey were treated as encroachers onforest lands. 16Maharashtra:Maharashtra has a number of laws,such as the Maharashtra Land

Indigenous Rights Quarterly articleVol. III : No. 4 • October-December 2008 27Revenue Code, 1966, that prohibit thetransfer of tribal land without priorpermission of the District Collector.As the Maharashtra Land RevenueCode, 1966 failed, the governmentof Maharashtra enacted MaharashtraLand Revenue Code and TenancyLaws (Amendment) Act, 1974 whichprovided that no tribal can transferhis land to a non-tribal, by way ofsale (including sales in executionof a decree of a Civil Court or anaward or order of any Tribunal orauthority), gift, exchange, mortgage,lease or otherwise transfer withoutthe previous sanction (a) of theCollector, in the case of mortgage orlease for a period not exceeding fiveyears, and (b) of the Collector, withprevious approval of Government,in other cases with effect from6 th July, 1974. 17The government of Maharashtra itselfadmitted that permissions by theDistrict Collectors “appear to havebeen given as a matter of routine. Thetribals were also induced to sell theirlands because of indebtedness andpoverty.” 18In order to restore the alienated landsof the tribals, the state governmentenacted the Maharashtra Restorationof Lands to Scheduled Tribes Act,1974. This Act provides for restorationto a tribal his/her land transferredto a non-tribal during the periodfrom 1 April 1957 to 6 July 1974 asa result of validly effected transfers(including, exchanges). 19But both the land protection law -Maharashtra Land Revenue Codeand Tenancy Laws (Amendment)Act, 1974 and the land restorationlaw - Maharashtra Restoration ofLands to Scheduled Tribes Act, 1974have failed to check further alienationof the tribal land or restore alienatedlands. According to the AnnualReport 2007-08 of the Ministry ofRural Development, Government ofIndia, a total of 45,634 cases have beenfiled in the court in the state. 44,624cases have been disposed of by thecourt, of which 19,943 cases (44.7%)involving 99,486 acres of land havebeen disposed of in favor of tribalsand 24,681 cases (55.3%) againsttribals. 1,010 cases were pending inthe court. 20Orissa:There has been massive alienationof tribal lands in Orissa. Accordingto the Annual Report 2007-08 of theMinistry of Rural Development,Government of India, a total of105,491 cases alleging alienation of104,742 acres of land have been filedin the court in Orissa. An estimated104,644 cases were disposed of by thecourt. Out of these 61,431 cases weredisposed of in favor of tribals and56,854 acres of land was restored totribals. 21Rajashtan:The state government failed tocheck alienation of tribal lands.According to the Annual Report2007-08 of the Ministry of RuralDevelopment, Government of India,a total of 2,084 cases of land alienationinvolving 6,615 acres of land havebeen filed in the court in Rajasthan.1,257 cases have been disposed ofby the court, of which only 187 cases(involving 587 acres of land) havebeen disposed of in favor of tribalswhile 53 cases involving 187 acreswere rejected. 22Unless the Central governments andState governments take effectivemeasures to provide effective legalaid for restoration of the tribal lands,the current process of providing legalaid to the tribals to restore their landscould be reduced to legalizing theillegal land grabbing.(Footnotes)1. Half of tribal land grabbed, The DeccanChronicle, 29 January 20072. Concern over transfer of tribal lands tonon-tribals, The Assam Tribune, 1 February20073. Concern over transfer of tribal lands tonon-tribals, The Assam Tribune, 1 February20074. ABSU: Design to allot tribal land to‘minorities’, The Sentinel, 26 May 20075. Tribal land grab cases on rise in Jharkhand,The Pioneer, 14 February 20076. Jharkhand lawyers not interested in landcases of tribals, The Hindustan Times, 5September 20077. SC snubs land order, The Telegraph, 12February 20078. Koel Karo: Tribal surge that stalled a dam,The Times of India, 5 June 20079. see http://rural.nic.in/annualrep0708/anualreport0708_eng.pdf10. Landless tribals in the lurch, The Hindu, 9December 200711. After CPM men attack activist, tribalsrefuse to vacate Munnar land, The IndianExpress, 29 November 200712. After Nandigram, red terror in Munnar,The Indian Express, 28 November 200713. Distribution of land to tribal people to becompleted soon: Rajendran, The Hindu, 21February 200714. see http://rural.nic.in/annualrep0708/anualreport0708_eng.pdf15. Governor’s intervention sought in Rewafiring, The Pioneer, 24 April 200716. Forest dwellers allege eviction, The Hindu,15 December 200717. Maharashtra Tribal Development, see“MEASURES AGAINST ALIENATIONOF LAND BELONGING TO ST’S”available at http://www.maharashtra.gov.in/english/tribal/18. Maharashtra Tribal Development, see“MEASURES AGAINST ALIENATIONOF LAND BELONGING TO ST’S”available at http://www.maharashtra.gov.in/english/tribal/19. Maharashtra Tribal Development, see“MEASURES AGAINST ALIENATIONOF LAND BELONGING TO ST’S”available at http://www.maharashtra.gov.in/english/tribal/20. see http://rural.nic.in/annualrep0708/anualreport0708_eng.pdf21. see http://rural.nic.in/annualrep0708/anualreport0708_eng.pdf22. see http://rural.nic.in/annualrep0708/anualreport0708_eng.pdf

The Asian Indigenous and Tribal Peoples Network (AITPN)is an alliance of indigenous and tribal peoples' organisationsand individual activists across the Asian region. It seeks topromote and protect the rights of indigenous and tribalpeoples in Asia:• by providing accurate and timely information to nationalhuman rights institutions, the United Nations and itsspecialised mechanisms, as appropriate;• by conducting research, campaigning and lobbying oncountry situations or individual cases;• by increasing the capacity of indigenous peoplesthrough relevant training programmes for indigenouspeoples' rights activists and community leaders;• by providing legal, political and practical advice toindigenous peoples organisations;• by providing input into international standard-settingprocesses on the rights of indigenous peoples; and• by securing the economic, social and cultural rights ofindigenous peoples through rights-based approachesto development.AITPN has Special Consultative Status with the UnitedNations Economic and Social Council (ECOSOC).Asian Indigenous & Tribal Peoples NetworkC-3/441 (Top Floor), Janakpuri, New Delhi 110058, INDIATel/Fax: +91 11 25503624Website: www.aitpn.org; Email: aitpn@aitpn.org