Access PDF version - Asian Indigenous and Tribal Peoples Network

The quarterly journal of Asian Indigenous & Tribal Peoples NetworkDéjà vu at the UPRUPR: The experience ofindigenous peoples of AsiaVol. III : No. 2-3 • April-Sept. 2008 • www.aitpn.org/irq.htmBangladesh: “We want the lands,not the indigenous peoples”Malaysia: ExtinguishingIndigenous Peoples RightsAlso:Election Commission of Indiafails Chakmas and HajongsNCPCR visits Bru IDP camps

contentsDéjà vu at the UPR 1The Election Commission of Indiafails the Chakmas and Hajongs ofArunachal Pradesh 2NCPCR visits Bru IDP camps 5Editor-in-Chief: Paritosh ChakmaCover photos:Bru IDP ChildrenSubmit 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.If you have news on indigenousissues, please send them to us.You can also send comments, clarificationsor letters to the articles published.From Despair to Despondency:Land Acquisition, Rehabilitationand Resettlement 6The State of India’s Indigenousand Tribal Peoples 2008 7National Institutions onIndigenous Peoples: The Experienceof the Philippines 13UPR: The experience of indigenouspeoples of Asia 19Bangladesh: “We want the lands,not the indigenous peoples” 25Malaysia: ExtinguishingIndigenous Peoples Rights 27Papuans killed on the WorldIndigenous Day 29Bangladesh: Brutal attack on theindigenous peoples by theillegal settlers at Sajek areas 30IRQ 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. 2-3 • April-September 2008 1editorialDéjà vu at the UPRThe first and second sessions of themuch-waited Working Group onUniversal Periodic Review of the UNHuman Rights Council took place inApril and May 2008. The OutcomeDocuments have been adopted by theplenary session of the Human RightsCouncil in June 2008. The experiencesof the first two sessions provide someglimpses about the UPR processwhich seeks to ensure the respectfor “the principles of universality,impartiality, objectivity and nonselectivity,constructive internationaldialogue and cooperation, with aview to enhancing the promotionand protection of all human rights,civil, political, economic, social andcultural rights, including the right todevelopment”.In order to highlight indigenouspeoples issues of Asia, AITPNsubmitted stakeholders reports onIndia, Indonesia and Philippines.The submissions were titled “India:No democracy for those living on themargins”, "Indonesia: Transmigration,human rights violations and impunity”and “The Philippines: All promises,No implementation”. AITPN’ssubmissions were duly noted inthe summaries prepared by theOffice of the United Nations HighCommissioner for Human Rights onIndia (A/HRC/WG.6/1/IND/3),Indonesia (A/HRC/WG.6/1/IDN/3) and Philippines (A/HRC/WG.6/1/PHL/3).Yet, the sessions of the Working Groupon the UPR of the Human RightsCouncil have been a case of déjà vu.The Troika of the UPR had no rolein the deliberations of the WorkingGroup. The consideration of a Statereport started with the presentationsof the report by the representativesof the concerned State. As the Troikahad no role, the summary ofstakeholders' information and theCompilation of UN informationprepared by the OHCHR were notintroduced at all. Most of the Statesrefused to refer to the summary ofstakeholders' information and thecompilation of UN information whichactually reflected the realities on theground. Except a few, most Statescontinued to either congratulatethe examinee State in order to killthe time or ask “stating the obviousquestions”. For many States whichare currently being criticised for grosshuman rights violations, it was a timefor taking pot shots at the Westerncountries.Obviously, there are many problemswith the UPR process.First, most of the States who raisedquestions failed to reflect the groundrealities of human rights situationsin general and indigenous peoplesin particular. The State reports stillfocused on providing informationabout the people, constitution andvarious laws which are seldomimplemented at national level.Second, most State delegates failedto refer to two documents (summaryof stakeholders' information and theCompilation of UN information)and therefore, the debate in theWorking Group on UPR of theHuman Rights Council also failedto reflect the reality. Many Statesoragnised their own bed-fellowsto congratulate and spent 3 hoursallotted for the debate.Third, the Outcome Documentsmostly did not reflect the debate inthe Working Group on UPR.Fourth, the Outcome Documentsand the decisions of the HR-Councilregarding the countries with badhuman rights records did not reflectthe reality.Fifth, the recommendations didnot reflect one of the main tasksof the Human Rights Counci thatof technical assistance and fieldoperations. After all, those whoadvocated the Universal PeriodicReview to address selectivity,politicisation etc had put promotionof “human rights education andlearning as well as advisory services,technical assistance and capacitybuilding”as one of the main tasks ofthe UN Human Rights Council.The recommendations adopted at firstand second sessions of the UPR onall the countries across the spectrumfall far short of the recommendationsmade by the UN Treaty Bodies if aparticular country has been examinedespecially by the UN Human RightsCommittee, UN Committee on theESCR and the CERD Committee. Itis hard to find a recommendation inthe UPR that has not been made bythe UN Treaty Bodies or the SpecialProcedures in a more succinct andeloquent manner. The UPR is usefulfor those States which refuse to ratifythe key international human rightstreaties or which do not implementthe recommendations of the TreatyBodies. For those which do not haveany commitment on the promotionand protection of human rights, UPRcould indeed be a forum to obtainlegitimacy and block any countryresolutions.

Indigenous Rights Quarterly Vol. III : No. 2-3 • April-September 20082 articleThe Election Commission of India fails the Chakmas andHajongs of Arunachal PradeshFrom 1999, the Chakma and Hajongtribal communities have beensubmitting claims (Form no.6 underRegistration of Electors’ Rules,1960) for inclusion of names in theelectoral rolls. Initially, the ElectoralRegistration Officers, who are alsoemployees of the State Governmentof Arunachal Pradesh simply refusedto accept the claims of the eligibleChakma and Hajong voters. Theycited the grounds like absence ofspecific order from the ElectionCommission of India to enroll theChakmas and Hajongs as electorsand that the Chakmas and Hajongsare not citizens of India.The Committee for CitizenshipRights of the Chakmas and Hajongsof Arunachal Pradesh (CCRCHAP),formed in 1991 to campaign for theattainment of constitutional and basicrights for the Chakmas and Hajongs,approached the Election Commissionin 1998. But, the Election Commissionfailed to ensure enrollment of theeligible Chakma and Hajong votersin the electoral rolls.Meanwhile, CCRCHAP also filed apetition before the National HumanRights Commission, among others,seeking directions from the NHRCto the Government of India to issuea notification declaring that thoseChakmas and Hajongs who wereborn between 1964 and 1st July 1987are citizens of India by birth underSection 3(1)(a) of the CitizenshipAct, 1955 and are therefore eligiblefor enrolment in the voters list. Inresponse to CCRCHAP’s petition,NHRC sought replies from theGovernment of India as well as theState Government of ArunachalChakma voters in Arunachal Pradesh during the parliamentary elections in May 2004Pradesh. In its reply, the Governmentof Arunachal Pradesh stated, “…if at all any in this regard has to beissued, this has to be done by the CentralGovernment and the State Governmentis not competent to amend any CentralAct or rules framed thereunder.” On itspart, the Government of India stated,“…as per provisions of the CitizenshipAct, 1955, every person born in India onor after 26 January 1950 and before 1stJuly 1987 are citizens of India by birthand therefore are eligible for inclusion inthe Electoral Rolls.”Pursuant to the order of the NHRC,the eligible Chakma and Hajongvoters again submitted claims forinclusion of names but the localelectoral officials refused to receive.The matter was taken up with theElection Commission of India in Delhibut the Election Commission againfailed to ensure receipt of claims ofthe Chakmas and Hajongs by thelocal electoral officials. Aggrievedby repeated failure of the ElectionCommission, the CCRCHAP andPeoples’ Union for Civil Liberties(PUCL) filed a public interestlitigation (Civil Writ Petition No.886of 2000) in the Delhi High Court in2000. The operative paragraphs ofthe Judgement dated 28 September2000 read as under-“3. There is practically no dispute on thequestion that a person acquires citizenshipby birth if either of the parents is a citizenof India at the time of his birth and also aperson, who is born in India in 1950 butbefore the commencement of AmendmentAct is a citizen of India. The aforesaidconditions are mutually exclusive of eachother and are not conjoint. Obviouslyif a person claims to be citizen of India,for the purpose of inclusion of his/hername in the electoral roll, material tosubstantiate the claim of citizenship hasto be produced. Learned counsel for theCommission stated that if such materialis produced, obviously, the same shall be

Indigenous Rights Quarterly articleVol. III : No. 2-3 • April-September 2008 3considered and the decision shall be takenas to whether the claim of citizenship iscorrect or not. The claim obviously isrelatable for the purpose of inclusion inthe electoral roll. So far the State ElectionCommission’s role is concerned, it has tobe also established that for the purpose ofinclusion in the State electoral roll, theapplicants have to satisfy the requirementof residence or such other conditions asmay be stipulated in law. Therefore, incase any person, who claims inclusionin the electoral roll, produces material tothat effect, same shall be considered by theCommission and/or the State Commissionas the case may be. It goes without sayingthat decision in this regard will be takenwithin a reasonable time”.However, the Delhi High Courtjudgement continued to be floutedboth by the State Government andthe Election Commission. The localelectoral officials in the four Chakma-Hajong inhabited Assembly segmentsof 14-Doimukh, 46-Chowkham,49-Bordumsa-Diyun and 50-Miaosummarily rejected thousands ofclaim forms of the Chakmas andHajongs on fictitious and whimsicalgrounds. The Election Commissionfailed to take any action when thearbitrary decisions of the localelectoral officials have been broughtto its notice. In 2002, the CCRCHAPand PUCL had to again approachthe Delhi High Court by way of aContempt petition.In 2002, 9 Polling Stations in 49-Bordumsa-Diyun; 2 Polling Stationsin 50-Miao Assembly Constituency;and 1 Polling Station in 46-ChowkhamAssembly Constituency were createdfor the Chakma-Hajong villages. In2003, Election Commission of Indiaordered Special Summary Revisionof electoral rolls in the Chakma andHajong inhabited constituencies.However, the majority of theChakma and Hajong citizens couldnot be included into the electoralrolls as the Electoral RegistrationOfficers rejected their applications onfrivolous grounds. Out of total 11,110claims submitted, names of only1497 Chakmas and Hajongs wereaccepted after the hearing. However,in order to block the publishing ofthese names finally in the electoralrolls, the Arunachal Pradesh StateCabinet passed a resolution dated14 May 2003, directing that non-Arunachalese shall not be entitled tobe enrolled in the electoral rolls in theState unless they possessed Inner LinePermits under the Bengal East Areaand Frontier Regulation Act, 1873,having a minimum validity periodof six months. Apparently, the abovesaid resolution of the State Cabinet,the concerned Electoral RegistrationOfficers rejected the said acceptedclaims.As the Government of ArunachalPradesh failed to withdraw the abovesaid resolution despite request bythe Election Commission of India,in an order dated 2 January 2004the Election Commission of Indiasuspended all electoral activitiesincluding preparation and revision ofelectoral rolls in these four assemblyconstituencies. Subsequently, in anorder dated 3 March 2004, the ElectionCommission of India revoked its2 January 2004 order in view of theGeneral Elections to the Lok Sabha.However, it directed that the namesof 1,497 Chakma and Hajong voterswhose claims have been initiallyaccepted but later rejected shall beenrolled in the electoral rolls. Namesof these 1,497 Chakma and Hajongvoters have been finally published inelectoral rolls and they participated inthe last Parliamentary and ArunachalPradesh State Assembly Elections in2004.From 1 October 2005, the ElectionCommission of India carried outIntensive Revision of electoral rollsthroughout Arunachal Pradesh.Earlier on 23 March 2005, the ElectionCommission of India issued specificguidelines for enrollment of theeligible Chakma and Hajong votersduring the Intensive Revision. Insteadof complying with those guidelines,the Electoral Registration Officersand Assistant Electoral RegistrationOfficers and other electoral officerswho are also employees of the StateGovernment summarily rejectedthe claims of the Chakma andHajong citizens for inclusion of theirnames. The Election Commissionof India suspended publication ofelectoral rolls of all four Chakma andHajong inhabited State Assemblyconstituencies. In February 2006, theElection Commission of India also senta team consisting of Mr. K.R. Prasad,Secretary and Mr. Narendra N.Butolia, Under Secretary for enquiryinto the violations/irregularitiesby the local electoral officials. In itsreport dated 14 February 2006, theteam, inter alia, stated –“Though the EROs have informed thatall the Commission’s directions have beenscrupulously followed but it is more thanclear that they have not only decided notto enroll any new Chakma but they alsointend to delete names of those Chakmaswho were included in the last roll……”.The report further added –“It is evident that under thesecircumstances, not even a single Chakmawill have his name in the roll when it isfinally published ……”.Yet, the Election Commission ofIndia failed to act. It simply declaredthe Intensive Revision 2005 asinconclusive and on 1 February2007, the Election Commission ofIndia ordered the conduct of SpecialSummary revision of electoral rolls.But in order to derail the process,the State Government has sought

Indigenous Rights Quarterly Vol. III : No. 2-3 • April-September 20084 articlepostponement of the revision citingproblems of “law and order”. Onthe other hand, on 20 February 2007,the State Chief Minister Mr. GegongApang demanded a “peace bonus” forArunachal Pradesh for maintainingits status of “Island of Peace” sinceits inception as a State in 1987.However, the Election Commissionof India succumbed to the traps of theState Government and postponed therevision process indefinitely.Again on 6 September 2007, theElection Commission of India orderedthe conduct of Special SummaryRevision of electoral rolls. Thoughthe Election Commission of Indiaissued specific guidelines as to howto conduct the revision of electoralrolls in the Chakma and Hajongareas the same were grossly violatedas earlier. The local electoral officialsdid not comply with the guidelinesat all and instead imposed their ownwhimsical directions to ensure thateven the 1,497 previously enrolledvoters are deleted. As many as 36 outof 326 of them were deleted in 14-Chowkham Assembly Constituencyeven before beginning of the SpecialSummary Revision 2007.In 49-Bordumsa-Diyun and 50-MiaoAssembly Constituencies, severalChakma villages were not evenofficially informed about the revisionprocess and the same were coveredonly after the Election Commissionof India issued specific instructionsfollowing complaints from theCCRCHAP. The Chakma andHajong claimants were subjected toharassments, humiliation and wereopenly discriminated by electoralofficers led by none other than theDeputy Commissioner of Changlangdistrict Hage Batt, who has beendesignated as Electoral RegistrationOfficer of 49-Bordumsa-Diyun and50-Miao Assembly Constituencies.Mr. Batt wanted to harass theChakma and Hajong claimants andtherefore instead of conducting thehearing of claims and objections atDiyun, sat at Bordumsa, which is60 kilometers away from Diyun. Asthere is no means of transportationbetween Bordumsa and Diyun, noneout of 7,311 Chakma and Hajongclaimants from Diyun Circle couldappear for hearing. The hearingswere re-held at Diyun only after theElection Commission intervened oncomplaints from the CCRCHAP.Taking cognizance of the blatantviolations of its guidelines by thelocal electoral officials, the ElectionCommission of India deputed twoteams to the four Chakma-Hajonginhabited Assembly Constituencies.But justice eluded the Chakmaand Hajong citizens as the ElectionCommission has again failed them.In February 2008, the ElectionCommission ordered the publishingof final rolls in three of the fourAssembly Constituencies namely14-Doimukh, 46-Chowkham, and50-Miao while keeping the 49-Bordumsa-Diyun in abeyance tillfurther orders. Out of about onethousand eligible voters, names ofonly 201 claimants were includedin the electoral rolls in 14-Doimukhwhile in 46-Chowkham, out ofmore than 1,400 new claimantsnames of only 14 were enrolled andnames of 44 previously enrolledvoters were deleted. Similarly, in50-Miao, only 1 out of about 4,500new claimants was included in theelectoral roll. From 28-30 April 2008,a two-member team of the ElectionCommission of India consisting ofMr. Standhope Yuhlung, Secretaryand Mr. S. K. Rudola, Secretary,verified 8,647 claims of Chakma-Hajong claimants and 1,115 objectionsfiled against Chakma-Hajong votersat the office of the Chief ElectoralOfficer, Itanagar and inter alia,recommended as under-“In view of the above, it is recommendedthat the ERO should re-verify all(464 + 63 = 527) objections upheldby him”.“After scrutinizing the claims documentsand disposals, we strongly felt that EROshould re-verify all (526 and 4291 claimswho have produced birth certificates andRefugee Identity Cards of their parents)by causing local verification and alsorandomly check and re-verify the casesbetween 18-25 years of age who havesubmitted birth certificates”.Pursuant to these recommendations,the Election Commission orderedthat the Electoral Registration Officerof 49-Bordumsa-Diyun AssemblyConstituency should re-verify all4,817 claims of the Chakmas andHajongs earlier rejected by him aswell as all the 527 objections againstChakma and Hajong voters upheldby him. From 25 June-3 July 2008,re-verification was conducted andthe ERO has sent a detailed report tothe Election Commission of India. Asexpected, only 253 of the total of 531objections filed against Chakma andHajong voters have been rejected andtheir names were not deleted fromthe electoral rolls while only 282 ofthe total 8647 new claimants havebeen enrolled. As earlier, majority ofthe claims of the Chakma and Hajongcitizens have been summarily rejectedand the most objections against theirvoters have been upheld to ensureleast possible inclusion of Chakmaand Hajong voters in the electoralrolls.It is evident that the ElectionCommission of India has failed toemploy its powers provided underClause (1) of Article 324 of the IndianConstitution which provides thatthe superintendence, direction andcontrol of the preparation of theelectoral rolls for, and the conductof, all elections to Parliament and tothe Legislature of every State and ofelections to the offices of Presidentand Vice-President held under thisConstitution shall be vested in it.

Indigenous Rights Quarterly articleVol. III : No. 2-3 • April-September 2008 5NCPCR vists the Bru IDP camps in TripuraOn 7 and 8 September 2008, a teamof the National Commission forChildren visited the Bru IDP campsfollowing the complaint of AITPN.The team held a public hearing anddiscussion with the officials of theState government of Tripura. TheTripura government reportedlyassured to take measures toimplement the recommendations ofthe NCPCR within one month.During January - February 2008,conducted a survey of the Bru, alsoknown as Reang 1 , relief camps inKanchanpur Sub-Division underNorth District of Tripura. AITPNconducted the survey followingcomplaints that Bru tribal IDPchildren have not been included in therelief ration cards and are thereforenot provided any assistance/facilitieswhich are provided to the adultBrus and registered children by theauthorities.After the survey, it was found that astaggering 7,204 Bru tribal childrenhave not been included in the reliefration cards. Consequently, these7,204 children are not entitled tobasic supplies like 225 gram rice,dal, and cashdole of Rs 1.45 perday, clothes and other facilitiesgiven by the Ministry of HomeAffairs (MHA), Government of Indiathrough the Food, Civil Supplies andConsumer Affairs Department, StateGovernment of Tripura. This impliesthat adult Bru IDPs have to sharethe meager quantity of food withtheir children who have not beenregistered.AITPN Legal Officer (1st from right) in conversation with the visiting team of the NCPCR at Bru IDP campsThe Bru tribal IDP children areextremely vulnerable to diseases dueto poor camp conditions. Deprivationof relief items have caused severemalnutrition among the IDP children.Further, on 15 October 2007, theFood, Civil Supplies and ConsumerAffairs Department, Government ofTripura reduced the monthly riceallocation being provided to the reliefcamps, inter alia, on the ground thatthere is no separate allocation of ricefrom the Government of India for theBru IDPs.The denial and non-inclusionconstituted an act of discriminationagainst the Bru IDP children as theybelong to Scheduled Tribes. On 17June 2008, AITPN filed a complaintto the National Commission forScheduled Tribe and NCPCR againstthe State Government of Tripura forits failure to include these 7,204 Bruchildren in the ration cards of theirrespective families. On 24 June 2008,acting on AITPN’s complaint andfindings, the National Commissionfor Scheduled Tribes initiated actionsto provide basic assistance to the7,204 Bru tribal IDP children.As a result of the AITPN’s finding andsubsequent complaint to the NCSTand the NCPCR it has been learntthat a meeting was called by the Sub-Divisional Officer of Kanchanpur,Tripura who promised to issue newration cards from August 2008.However, at the time of printing ofthis issue of IRQ, no measures hadbeen taken by the State governmentto improve the camp conditions.1. Bru/ Reang indigenous peoples fled from Mizoram to neighboring Tripura state following ethnic conflicts with the majority Mizo indigenouspeoples in 1997. About 30,000 Brus are presently taking shelter in six relief camps in Tripura. The Mizoram government has so far refused to takethem back despite orders from the NHRC of India to do so.

Indigenous Rights Quarterly articleVol. III : No. 2-3 • April-September 2008 7The State of India’s Indigenousand Tribal Peoples 2008The State of India’s Indigenous andTribal Peoples 2008 covering the eventsof 2007 is the second issue of theseries. Human rights situation of theindigenous and tribal peoples in Indiaremains grim. Since independenceindigenous peoples have been victimsof development and encroachmentsby non-tribals. The pauperisationof the tribals continued unabatedand unchecked. The affirmativeaction programmes could not keeppace with the marginalization of theindigenous and tribal peoples.The 55 page report highlightedwide range of issues concerning theindigenous and tribal peoples ofIndia.I. 2007 focus: Who are the ScheduledTribes of India?The report discusses the identificationof the Scheduled Tribes of Indiaas demands for inclusion into theScheduled Tribes list by the Gujjarsin Rajasthan and Adivasis in Asomdominated the news headlines in2007.In May and June 2007, at least 26persons were killed during the Gujjaragitation in Rajasthan. Most of themwere killed in police firing. 1 Therewas large-scale destruction of publicand private properties bringing it tothe notice of the Supreme Court. TheGujjar incident was not one-off case.On 24 November 2007, about 10,000tribal people, backed by the AllAssam Adivasi Students Union(AAASA), took out a protest rallydemanding Scheduled Tribe statusfor the community at the Beltolaarea of Guwahati in Asom. Theprotestors once again attacked publicand private properties. However, thelocal residents also turned violentand beaten up the Adivasis includingwomen with sticks, iron rods andcrude weapons, resulting in killing ofat least five Adivasis and injuring 70others, 30 of them critically, duringthe clash. Besides, an Adivasiswoman was beaten and stripped infull public view while she ran forcover amid horror of the others. Thepolice present there remained mutespectators. 2 As the stripping of theAdivasi girl beamed through themedia, it rightly raised condemnationacross the spectrum. 3The demands for Scheduled Tribe(ST) status, among others, relateto access to affirmative actionprogrammes. But the Constitutionfailed to identify all the STs. Article366(25) defines Scheduled Tribes as“such tribes or tribal communities orparts of or groups within such tribesor tribal communities as are deemedunder Article 342 to be ScheduledTribes for the purposes of thisConstitution”. Article 342 on the otherdoes not define “Scheduled Tribes”but only lays down the procedurefor scheduling and de-schedulingof the tribes. Under Article 342(1),“the President may with respect toany State or Union territory, andwhere it is a State, after consultationwith the Governor thereof, by publicnotification, specify the tribes or tribalcommunities or parts of or groupswithin tribes or tribal communitieswhich shall for the purposes ofthis Constitution be deemed to beScheduled Tribes in relation to thatState or Union territory, as the casemay be”. Under Article 342(2)“Parliament may by law include inor exclude from the list of ScheduledTribes specified in a notificationissued under clause (1) any tribe ortribal community or part of or groupwithin any tribe or tribal community,but save as aforesaid a notificationissued under the said clause shallnot be varied by any subsequentnotification.”The Ministry of Tribal Affairs in its2005-2006 Annual Report states, “Thecriteria followed for specification of acommunity as a Scheduled Tribe are(a) indications of primitive traits, (b)distinctive culture (c) geographicalisolation, (d) shyness of contactwith the community at large, and(e) backwardness”. The Ministryof Tribal Affairs further stated,“These criteria are not spelt out inthe Constitution but have becomewell established and accepted. Theytake into account the definitions inthe 1931 Census, the reports of thefirst Backward Classes Commission(Kalelkar) 1955, the AdvisoryCommittee on Revision of SC/ STlists (Lokur Committee) 1965 and theJoint Committee of Parliament onthe Scheduled Castes and ScheduledTribes Orders (Amendment) Bill,1967 (Chanda Committee) 1969.”

Indigenous Rights Quarterly Vol. III : No. 2-3 • April-September 20088 articleThe Scheduled Areas and ScheduledTribes Commission appointed bythe President of India on 28 April1960 pursuant to Article 339 of theConstitution of India in its report of14 October 1961 stated that “As thesegroups are presumed to form the oldestethnological sector of the population,the term “Adivasi” (`Adi’= originaland `Vasi’= inhabitant) has becomecurrent among certain people. TheInternational Labour Organizationhas classified such people as“indigenous”.As the identification of ScheduledTribes is left to the State government– which takes decisions on politicalconsiderations rather than the criteriafor identification of the ScheduledTribes, there are bound to be demandsfor inclusion in the Scheduled Tribeslist.II. Indigenous peoples and armedconflictsIndia faced increased armed conflictsas the Naxalites – the ultra left wingextremists – spread their activities.At present, 21 out of 28 states ofIndia are afflicted by armed conflicts.The seven North-Eastern states ofArunachal Pradesh, Asom, Manipur,Meghalaya, Mizoram, Nagalandand Tripura have been afflicted byarmed conflicts over demands forself-determination and autonomy. Atleast 13 other states – Andhra Pradesh,Bihar, Chhattisgarh, Jharkhand,Karnataka, Kerala, Madhya Pradesh,Maharashtra, Orissa, Tamil Nadu,Uttar Pradesh, Uttaranchal and WestBengal in mainland India were underpressure from the Naxalites, ultra-leftwing armed opposition groups alsocommonly known as Maoists. Withthe exception of Jammu and Kashmir,conflicts in all other states involveindigenous peoples irrespectiveof whether the armed groups areled by indigenoius persons or nonindigenouspersons like the Maoists’leaders.In North-East India, which is thehomeland of numerous tribalcommunities, several tribalcommunities have been demandingvarious degrees of autonomy andself-rule. The government of Indiahas responded with military actionwithout any accountability whichhas in turn fueled much resentmentand grouse against the Indianestablishment. The Armed ForcesSpecial Powers Act of 1958 which isoperative in the states of Manipur,Asom and Tripura has been used forextensive human rights violations ofthe indigenous and tribal peoples.Though the Central governmentcontinued dialogue with a numberof armed opposition groups butunrest continued to prevail over.Innocent tribal peoples who live inthe conflict areas have been victimsof atrocities of both the securityforces and the armed oppositiongroups. Many were killed in theNaxalite violence in mainland India.According to the Union Ministry ofHome Affairs (MHA), 418 civiliansand 214 police personnel were killedin Naxal violence as of Novemberin 2007. 4The majority of the civilian victimshave been the Adivasis, indigenouspeoples of mainland India.Chhattisgarh continued to remain theepicenter of the Naxalite conflict as adirect consequence of the counterinsurgencySalwa Judum campaignwhich involved the Adivasi civiliansto counter the Maoists. 5III. Violations of the rights ofindigenous/ tribal peoplesArbitrary deprivation of the rightto life has been an integral partof maintenance of law and orderespecially in respect of any unrestinvolving indigenous/tribal peoplesacross India. Dozens of tribals arekilled by law enforcement personneleach year.On 2 July 2007, a tribal identified asRamesh was killed by the police nearAntarvelia outpost in Jhabua districtof Madhya Pradesh. Ramesh wasstopped by two police constableswhen he was returning to Jhayadavillage along with his wife on a motorcycle. The police allegedly conductedRamesh’s post-mortem hurriedlyat night and then cremated him thesame night. The policemen alsoforcibly collected thumb impressionof the deceased’s wife on a blankpaper. 6On 10 July 2007, five tribal villagersincluding Gautam of Sindhanoor inRaichur district, Rame Gowda, hiswife and their relative Sundaresh werekilled by the police during an antinaxaloperation at Menasinahadyavillage under Narasimharajapurapolice station in Chikmagalur districtof Karnataka. The police claimedthey were Naxalites but the CivilLiberties Forum, an NGO whichinvestigated the incident, stated thatthe deceased were innocent tribalswho had nothing to do with the naxalactivities and that they were killed ina fake encounter. 7On 19 August 2007, a Karbi tribalyouth identified as Singh Timung (21),a higher secondary student of DiphuGovernment College was allegedlykilled in the custody of a team of theAssam Police and the Central ReservePolice Force (CRPF) during an antiinsurgencyoperation at Ingleng Kirivillage under Karbi Anglong districtin Asom. The deceased was also thePresident of Borlangfar unit of theKarbi Students’ Association (KSA)but the security forces claimed thathe was a member of the Karbi LongriNorth Cachar Liberation Front. 8IV. Violations of the internationalhumanitarian law by the AOGsThe armed opposition groups werealso responsible for gross violationsof international humanitarian law

Indigenous Rights Quarterly articleVol. III : No. 2-3 • April-September 2008 9against indigenous/tribal peoplessuch as “violence to life and person,in particular murder of all kinds,mutilation, cruel treatment andtorture; taking of hostages; outragingof personal dignity, in particular,humiliating and degrading treatment;and passing of sentences and thecarrying out of executions withoutprevious judgment pronounced by aregularly constituted court affordingall the judicial guarantees whichare recognized as indispensableby civilized peoples” as providedunder the Geneva Conventions onInternational Humanitarian Law.In 2007, the Naxalites continued to killinnocent tribal peoples accusing themof being “police informers”, membersof anti-Maoist civilian militias suchas Salwa Judum and for not obeyingtheir diktats. In Chhattisgarh,innocent tribal civilians were killedfor participating in the anti-NaxaliteSalwa Judum campaign, irrespectiveof whether they had participatedvoluntarily or by force. In July 2007,the Maoists banned farming in theMaoist-infested Bastar region ofChhattisgarh “to protest against theexploitation of the state’s naturalresources by the Government”. 9Whoever defied the ban was giventhe death sentence. According to thepolice, at least 11 tribal farmers werekilled by the Maoists for working intheir fields in July 2007 in Bijapurpolice district alone. 10 Most of thevictims were killed after brutaltorture.The Naxalites also executed manyAdivasis as alleged “police informers”.Those killed on the accusation ofbeing “police informers” included:- Gorle Ramesh (28) of Pathakotavillage who was killed at Kothapalemvillage in Guntur district of AndhraPradesh on 20 January 2007; 11- T Appa Rao (40) who was killednear Qotagedda village in GK VeedhiAgency mandal in Visakhapatnamdistrict of Andhra Pradesh on 23February 2007; 12- Nimmaka Musuru (30) who wastortured to death after tying to a treenear his house at Achchida villageunder Elwinpeta police station inVizianagaram district of AndhraPradesh on 13 July 2007; 13- Santosh Navdi (19) of Jambia villageand Ranjit Holi (18) of Kunjmarkavillage who were abducted and killedin a forest near Jambia-Gatta nearEtapalli tehsil town of Gadchirolidistrict in Maharashtra on 14 October2007; 14 and- Tambeli Beturu Siddhu (25) ofKotagunnala in Chintapalli mandalwhose throat was slit at Peddageddajunction in Visakhapatnam districtof Andhra Pradesh on 27 December2007. 15V. Violence against tribal womenand childrenIndigenous/tribal women facedviolence including torture, rape,killing and other inhuman anddegrading treatment at the handsof the law enforcement personnel,vigilante groups, the armed oppositiongroups, non-tribals and in manycases from the tribals themselves.Many indigenous women were alsotargeted as “witches” especially inAsom, Chhattisgarh, Jharkhand,Tripura and West Bengal.As majority of indigenous/ tribalpeoples live in armed conflictsituations, indigenous/ tribalwomen have often become victimsof arbitrary arrest, illegal detentionand sexual violence by the lawenforcement personnel. Some of thecases included:- On the morning of 20 August 2007,11 tribal women were allegedly gangraped by the Greyhound policemenduring anti-Naxalite operations atVakapalli village under Nurmatipanchayat in Visakhapatnam districtof Andhra Pradesh. While someof the women were raped in theirhomes, some others were raped inthe fields. 16- On 9 January 2007, the policearrested three Paharia tribal womenalong with several tribal men on thecharge of killing of one Deba Pahariaand detained them at Sundarpaharipolice station in Godda in Jharkhand.While the men were detained inthe police lock up, the women wereillegally detained in the residentialquarter of the Officer-In-Charge(OC) of Sundarpahari police station,Dipnarayan Mandal. They wereallegedly tortured and raped by OCDipnarayan Mandal and the AssistantSub Inspector Mahadev Oraon. 17- On 13 February 2007, a tribal womanfiled a complaint alleging gang rapeby some personnel of the Mizoram2nd India Reserve Battalion inDantewada district of Chhattisgarh. 18- On the night of 27 August 2007, a42-year-old Karbi tribal woman wasraped by a soldier belonging to BiharRegiment at Mansingh Bey villageunder Hauraghat Police Station underKarbi Anglong district of Asom. 19The armed opposition groups werealso accused of perpetrating rapeon indigenous/ tribal women. On9 July 2007, a 20-year-old tribalwoman was raped by two allegedmembers of an unidentified armedgroup at her Jhum hut at T-Phaijolvillage in Churachandpur district ofManipur. 20The indigenous/ tribal women werealso victims of violence by the nontribals.Some of the cases included:

Indigenous Rights Quarterly Vol. III : No. 2-3 • April-September 200810 article- On 24 November 2007, an Adivasiwoman was stripped and beatenup in full public view by the nontribalresidents at Beltola area inGuwahati, the capital of Asom. TheAdivasis were holding a processiondemanding Scheduled Tribe status inAsom when it turned violent. 21- On 22 October 2007, a 20-year-oldtribal woman was allegedly rapedby two upper caste men identifiedas Badka alias Nandkumar Paswan,a bus conductor, and Fakla aliasRamgopal Verma in Birgaon areaunder the Urla police station inRaipur, Chhattisgarh. 22- On 9 April 2007, a tribal womanwas raped by Ramsevak Das, a priestof a Hanuman temple in Mohnatown in Gwalior district of MadhyaPradesh. 23Tribal women also faced sexual attackfrom fellow tribals. On the night of 12May 2007, seven Reang tribal womenwere allegedly gang raped by a groupof Jamatya tribal youths at remoteDalakcherra in Amarpur sub-divisionof South Tripura district. The victimsalong with some boys were returningfrom a village fair. 24The indigenous/ tribal children werevictims of sexual violence, arbitraryarrest and illegal detention. Some ofthe cases included:- On the night of 7 January 2007,suspected National Liberation Frontof Tripura (NLFT) cadres shot deada 13-year-old schoolgoing tribal boyidentified as Ramdhan after theydid not find his father MangaldhanTripura at home at Dinaramparavillage under Raisyabari policestation in Dhalai district of Tripura. 25- On 27 June 2007, a 15-year-oldminor tribal girl, daughter of Mihilal,resident of Jarwatola village wasVI. Violations of indigenousallegedly gang raped by three policenot appear to be 18 years of age. 29 forcibly took over lands earmarkedpersonnel of Nawadih Police Station peoples' right to landincluding Officer-In-Charge PramodThe constitutional safeguards asKumar during a socalled anti-Naxalprovided in the 5th Schedule and 6thoperation at Jarwatola village inSchedule to the Constitution of IndiaBokaro district of Jharkhand. Prior toand various other State level lawsraping the minor tribal girl, the policewhich among others prohibit transferpersonnel had stripped naked and of the lands of the tribal peoplebeat up her father Mihilal when he have failed to prevent widespreaddenied having any knowledge about alienation of the tribal lands.the Maoists. 26The rate of alienation of tribal land- On the night of 11 December 2007, a is alarming in India. In the stateminor tribal girl, daughter of Rajaram of Andhra Pradesh, non-tribalsDebbarma of Gopal Nagar village inWest Tripura was allegedly raped bySub-Inspector Nandan Baidya (30) inpresently hold as much as 48 per centof the land in Scheduled Areas ofthe state. Since the Andhra Pradeshthe custody of the Bisramganj police Scheduled Areas Land Transferstation in West Tripura. After publichue and cry, the State governmentsuspended and arrested the accusedpolice officer. 27Regulation came into effect in 1959,72,001 cases of land alienation havebeen detected involving 3,21,685acres of tribal land in the state.The tribals have been losing their- On 6 August 2007, two tribalchildren identified as Bhutan Khalko(6) and Bhuto Khalko (4), residentslegal fight in the Courts to recovertheir lands. Of the 72,001 casesregistered under the Andhra Pradeshof tribal colony near the Barasat Scheduled Areas Land TransferMunicipality, were picked up by theRegulation, 70,183 cases werepolice on the charges of stealing anddisposed off and 33,319 cases (47.47per cent) were decided against tribalsillegally detained at Barasat policeinvolving 1,62,989 acres of land.station in North 24 Parganas districtAs of January 2007, about 300 casesin West Bengal for three days fromwere pending in Andhra Pradesh6-8 August 2007. Finally, they wereHigh Court involving about 2,500released without any charges. 28acres of land under the AndhraPradesh Scheduled Areas LandIn the state of Chhattisgarh,Transfer Regulation. 30thousands of tribals have beendisplaced due to the naxalite conflict.Apart from fraudulent means ofThe state government has providedland alienation by the non-tribals,them shelter in relief camps. In the the government can also take awayname of providing employment, any private land under the Landthe state government has employed Acquisition Act of 1894 for socalledtribal boys and girls as Special PoliceOfficers (SPOs) to fight the Naxalites.“public purposes”. In some states, thestate governments have been directlyAn investigation by Committee responsible for use of violence againstAgainst Violence On Women foundthat there were 4,048 SPOs, of whomthe tribals who try to fight for theirrights on lands.299 were women/ girls, and furtherstated that many of the young girlswho have been recruited as SPOs didFor instance, the ruling CommunistParty of India (Marxists) cadres

Indigenous Rights Quarterly articleVol. III : No. 2-3 • April-September 2008 11for distribution to Adivasis,indigenous peoples in Munnar ofKerala in November 2007.VII. Displacement of indigenous/tribal peoplesIndigenous peoples have beendisproportionate victims ofdevelopment and conflicts. While by2001 they constituted 8.2% of the totalpopulation, they comprised 55.1% ofthe 8.54 million persons displaced inIndia by development projects andconflicts between 1950 and 1990.On 31 October 2007, the governmentof India notified the NationalRehabilitation and ResettlementPolicy of 2007 but it failed to addressthe key issues relating to the boomingof conflicts: forcible acquisition oflands.The tribals have been victims ofdevelopment projects, armed conflictsand security related activities.The tribals formed the majority ofthe development-induced displacedpersons. According to a recentsurvey conducted by ActionAidand Indian Social Institute, over 1.4million people have been displacedfrom their homes in the four statesof Andhra Pradesh, Chhattisgarh,Orissa and Jharkhand where a total of10.2 million acres have been acquiredfor setting up of development projectssuch as mines, industrial plants anddams in the last decade. Out of the1.4 million displaced persons in thesefour states, 79 per cent were tribals. 31Indigenous peoples also constitutethe majority of over 600,000 conflictinducedinternally displaced persons(IDPs) in India.Hundreds of tribals/ indigenouspeoples living along the India-Bangladesh border have beendisplaced or facing displacement dueto the acquisition of their lands by thegovernment to erect fencing along theborder to prevent illegal immigrationand any anti-India activitiesfrom the other side of the porousborders. In Mizoram, the India-Bangladesh border fencing projectwill displace not less than 5,790Chakma tribal families consisting of35,438 persons from 49 villages. Theyare facing enormous hardships to geteven basic compensation from thegovernment.Once displaced, the governmentusually refused to rehabilitate thetribal/ indigenous IDPs.VIII. Failure of the affirmativeaction programmeThe constitution of India providedan array of affirmative actionprogrammes for the Scheduled Tribesand the Scheduled Castes, includingreservation in the legislature,education, employment etc. Theseaffirmative action programmeshave been instrumental in bridgingthe social, political and economicdisparities. Yet these programmescould have shown better results hadthe government of India and variousstate governments been serious abouttheir implementation.For instance, the state government ofMadhya Pradesh has refused to issueScheduled Tribe (ST) certificates tothe children of tribal communitieslike Barela, Bhil, Bhillala, Pateliaand Nagwanshi tribal communitiesliving in 13 villages in Buxwahablock in Chhattarpur district andthree villages under Batiagarh blockin Damoh district although theyare recognized as Scheduled Tribesin Madhya Pradesh. Due to nonissuanceof tribal certificates, theyhave been denied all rights andwelfare schemes such as education,scholarships, employment, landrights, etc to which they are otherwiseentitled to under the Constitution aswell as relevant laws.The government of India also failedto implement job reservations asprovided under the Constitution ofIndia.IX. Status of the ParticularlyVulnerable Tribal GroupsSeventy five tribal communities havebeen identified as socalled “PrimitiveTribal Groups” by the governmentof India in 17 states and one UnionTerritory. Their total population was2,412,664 in 1991 census. 32 The Centralgovernment has been providingassistance to these vulnerable tribalcommunities through Tribal Sub-Planand the Special Central Assistance tothe states. But these vulnerable tribalcommunities have not been benefitedso much.Today, many tribal communities suchas the Singphos of Asom, 33 Birhores,Chero, Paharia and Malpahari inJharkhand; Abuj Madias and Baigasof Chhattisgarh; Karbongs of Tripura,and the Great Andamanese, Onges,Shompens, Jarawas, and Sentineleseof the Andaman and Nicobar islandsare on the verge of extinction due tothe government’s apathy.By the end of 2007, the governmentfailed to implement the directive ofthe Supreme Court of 2002 to closedown the Andaman Trunk Road thatruns along and through the JarawaTribal Reserve as it threatens thesurvival of vulnerable Jarawa tribals.X. Denial of voting rights to theChakmas and Hajong of ArunachalPradeshThe Chakmas and Hajongs ofArunachal Pradesh continued tobe denied enrollment into electoralrolls. Electoral activities in the fourChakma-Hajong inhabited AssemblyConstituencies of 14-Doimukh, 46-Chowkham, 49-Bordumsa-Diyunand 50-Miao continued to remainsuspended for complaints of bias on

Indigenous Rights Quarterly Vol. III : No. 2-3 • April-September 200812 articlethe part of the local electoral officials.On 6 September 2007, the ElectionCommission of India revoked thesuspension and ordered the conduct ofSpecial Summary Revision of electoralrolls. The Election Commissionissued specific guidelines as to howto conduct the revision of electoralrolls in the Chakma and Hajongareas. As earlier, the local electoralofficials who are also employees ofthe State Government of ArunachalPradesh did not comply with theguidelines and instead they imposedtheir own whimsical directions toensure that even the 1,497 previouslyenrolled voters are deleted. Asmany as 36 out of 326 of themwere deleted in 14-ChowkhamAssembly Constituency even beforebeginning of the Special SummaryRevision 2007.XI. The state of the NationalCommission for Scheduled TribesIn 2003, the Government of Indiathough an amendment to Article 338of the Constitution (89th Amendment)of India established the NationalCommission for Scheduled Tribes(NCST). The NCST is a constitutionalbody mandated to safeguard therights of the Scheduled Tribes inIndia.Despite being a constitutional body,the NCST has not been able to emergeas an effective and independentmechanism to safeguard the rights ofthe Scheduled Tribes. It is primarilybecause of inherent flaws in Article338A which set up the NCST.Some of such inherent flaws are –appointment of Chairperson andother members is not based on definedcriteria, lack of powers to enforceits rulings or recommendation, andlack of resources- finance as well asmanpower. Even after more than 3years of its coming into existence, theNCST does not have an adequate andwell furnished office.Its mandate, though broad remainfully unused. More often, it seemsthat the NCST is another agency ofthe Government instead of it being aconstitutional body to safeguard therights of the Scheduled Tribes.XII. A critique on the NationalRehabilitation and ResettlementPolicy of 2007On 31 October 2007, the governmentof India published the NationalRehabilitation and ResettlementPolicy of 2007 (NRRP of 2007) in theOfficial Gazette of India.The NRRP of 2007 was supposed to bean improvement of the Draft NationalRehabilitation Policy of 2006 whichwas drafted to address the admittedfailures of the National Policy onResettlement and Rehabilitation forProject Affected Families of 2004. Butit once again failed to address theproblems of the displaced peoples.AITPN does not claim the report tobe the authority on the situation ofthe indigenous/tribal peoples inIndia. It has not been able to capturemany critical issues and regions.Yet, undoubtedly The State of India’sIndigenous and Tribal Peoples 2008remains the only document thatcaptures the essence of the issues/problems being faced by indigenous/tribal peoples in India.Endnotes1. Talks succeed, Gujjar stir to be called off,Rediffnews, 4 June 2007, available at:http://www.rediff.com/news/2007/jun/04rajriot7.htm2. Assam violence: 3 arrested for strippingtribal woman, Sify News, 26 November2007, available at: http://sify.com/news/fullstory.php?id=145666293. Adivasi clash: probe skips stripping,blames govt, The Indian Epxress, 3 April20084. Overview of Internal Security Situation,available at: MHA website5. “The Naxals get lethal Chhattisgarhcontinues to be the epicenter of theconflict”, Naxal Conflict Monitor, Vol-II,Issue-III, Asian Centre for Human Rights,3 October 20076. Oppn walkout over ''murder by police'',The Central Chronicle, 25 July 20077. ‘Police action a violation of rights’, TheHindu, 12 July 20078. Encounter sparks mob fury in Diphu, TheTelegraph, India, 23 August 20079. Maoists enforce ban, kill farmers, TheIndian Express, 10 July 200710. 11 farmers killed by Maoists in a month,The Hitavadaonline, 31 July 200711. Tribal youth shot dead, The DeccanChronicle, 22 January 200712. Maoists shoot tribal dead, The DeccanChronicle, 25 February 200713. Tribal killed by Maoists, The Hindu, 15July 200714. Naxals kill two youths in Gadchiroli, TheIndian Express, 15 October 200715. Maoists kill tribal, set afire lorry, TheHindu, 29 December 200716. Eleven Girijan women allege gang-rape bypolicemen, The Hindu, 21 August 200717. Gangrape slur on Godda cops, TheTelegraph, 29 January 200718. Mizo police reported in gangrape case, TheNewslink, 14 February 200719. Rape slur on Bihar jawan, The Telegraph,30 August 200720. Gunmen rape housewife in Churachandpur,The Kanglaonline, 10 July 200721. Shame on Guwahati streets, The Telegraph,27 November 200722. Tribal girl’s rape sparks brawl, TheHitavadaonline, 24 October 200723. Tribal woman raped, The Pioneer, 11 April200724. Rape sparks tension, The Telegraph, 18May 200725. Tripura rebels shoot teenager, TheTelegraph, 9 January 200726. Gangrape inquiry ordered, The Telegraph,9 July 200727. Tripura cop arrested for rape-Subinspectorassaults tribal girl in custody,The Telegraph, 17 December 200728. Tribal protest police action, The Statesman,14 August 200729. Girls turn SPOs in Chhattisgarh, The AsianAge, 19 January 200730. Half of tribal land grabbed, The DeccanChronicle, 29 January 200731. 79 per cent land oustees tribals, TheHindustan Times, 20 December 200732. Annual Report 2006-2007, Ministry ofTribal Affairs, Government of India33. Singphos, an aboriginal tribe nearingextinction, The Shillong Times, 11 June2007

Indigenous Rights Quarterly articleVol. III : No. 2-3 • April-September 2008 13National Institutions on Indigenous Peoples:The Experience of the PhilippinesOn 29-30 March 2008, AsianIndigenous and Tribal Peoples’Network (AITPN) in cooperationwith Lumad Mindanaw PeoplesFederation (LMPF) organised a‘National Seminar on NationalInstitutions on Indigenous Peoples:The Experience of the Philippines’in Manila, Philippines. About 30indigenous and non-indigenousrepresentatives participated in theNational Seminar. The NationalSeminar was organized to assessthe implementation of IndigenousPeoples Rights Act (IPRA) and theNational Commission on IndigenousPeoples (NCIP) to see whetherexperiences could be drawn fromsimilar laws and situations or whethergood practices from the IPRA andNCIP can be replicated in otherAsian countries for protection andpromotion of the rights of indigenouspeoples.Across Asia, a few governmentshave established national institutionsto address the problems of theindigenous peoples who live inthe lowest rung of the society. TheNational Commission on IndigenousPeoples of Philippines and theNational Commission for ScheduledTribes of India closely resemble theNational Human Rights Institutionsestablished in accordance with ParisPrinciples on National Human RightsInstitutions.A few other governments haveestablished separate departments orministries to deal with indigenous/tribal peoples in their respectivecountries. The government ofVietnam’s Committee for EthnicMinorities and MountainousAreas (CEMMA), the governmentof Bangladesh’s Ministry of theChittagong Hill Tracts Affairsand the government of Malaysia’sDepartment of Orang Asli Affairs aresome of such departments/ministriesestablished in the region so far.The Philippines was one of thefirst Asian countries to enactlegislations to protect the rightsof the indigenous peoples like theIndigenous Peoples Rights Act (IPRA)of 1997 and established the NationalCommission on Indigenous Peoplesfor implementation of the IPRA.About a decade has passed since theIPRA and the NCIP came into force.The critical question remains whetherthe IPRA has been implemented andwhether the NCIP has been able tofulfill its mandate.Those who attended the NationalSeminar were Attorney GregorioAndolana, Former Congressman andChairman of Board of Trustees ofIndigenous Peoples Resource Center,Mindanao; Prof. Ponciano Bennagen,Anthropologist and formerParticipants at the National Seminar in ManilaCommissioner in the ConstitutionalCommission which drafted thepresent Constitution in 1986; Ms.Myrna Caoagas, Director, AncestralDomains Office of NCIP; LagtumPasag, Former Commissioner ofNCIP; Ms. Nemia I. Pareza, EpiscopalCommission on Indigenous Peoples(ECIP); Datu Antonio Lumandungfrom Region X; Artiso Mandawafrom Palawan; Prudencion Mansigue,Community leader of BannuaonTribe from Agusan Sur, RegionXIII; Timuay Woy Lim P. Wongfrom Central Mindanao; Gilbert P.Hogang, Koalisyon ng KatutubongSamahanng Pilipinas (KASAPI,a coalition of indigenous peoplesorganizations in Philippines);Ervin Juit, Indigenous PeoplesResource Center, Mindanao; EdtamiMansayagan, Former Commissionerand General Secretary of LumadMindanaw Peoples’ Federation;Santos M. Unsad, Timmuay Justiceand Governance; Madam ZenaidaPawid; Maxine Tanya M. Hamada,International Center for Innovation,Transformation and Excellence inGovernance (INCITEGOV); Jocelyn

Indigenous Rights Quarterly Vol. III : No. 2-3 • April-September 200814 articleVillenueva, Executive Director, LegalResource Center; Masli A.Quilaman,Director, Office of Empowermentand Human Rights, NCIP; JimidMansayagan, Kebager Te Ked-Inged(KTKI) - Lumad Peoples Movementfor Peace, Power and Righteousness;Alim Bandara, Timuay Justice andGovernance; among others.The participants discussed manyissues concerning the indigenouspeoples in the Philippines during thetwo-day National Seminar. Summaryof some of the speeches are givenbelow.The Opening Session was addressedby Attorney Mr Gregorio Andolana,Prof. Bennagen and Ms. MyrnaCaoagas, Director, Ancestral DomainsOffice of NCIP.Attorney Gregorio Andolana,Former Member of the House ofRepresentatives and Chairman ofthe Board of the Indigenous PeoplesResearch Centre, Mindanao whodrafted of the IPRA Law providedthe genesis of IPRA - how IPRAcame about and of course, whatprotocol were followed during theformal enactment of the law whichrespect and recognizes the rights ofthe indigenous cultural communitiesand their ancestral domains. Hestated that long before the Spanishcolonization, the indigenous culturalcommunities had all elements ofa sovereign state. They had theterritory, land and resource, thepeople who organized themselves assovereign communities.Before the enactment of the 1987Constitution, the indigenous peopleshad lost their inherent right to selfgovernance and empowerment. Itis only upon the enactment of 1987Constitution that the rights of theindigenous cultural communities arebeing respected and recognizedAttorney Andolana stated thedifficulties faced while getting theIPRA passed as the “Congress isnot a congregation of lawmakersbut a congregation of vestedinterests of loggers, of ranchers, ofbig plantation owner, of bananacorporate representatives.” Hestated that Section 56 of the IPRAwhich begin with “Subject to vestedprior rights…….” has always beenused as a deterrent to the right toself determination, the right to selfgovernanceand the right of theindigenous peoples to ancestraldomains. According to him, theGovernment is responsible for the“poor implementation” of the IPRA.He added that the local governmentsespecially the politicians would notlike that the IPs be empowered for fearof losing political domain. AttorneyAndolana is of the view that the IPsshould have political empowerment.“For the IPs to be liberated, they mustnot only have the titles of ancestraldomains but also have economic andpolitical empowerment. The IPs intheir respective communities mustalso practice not only customarylaws as to how policies are madebut also be empowered to legislatein their respective domain”, heasserted. To realize this, he said,“NCIP should move as fast aspossible by creating as many tribalbarrangays as possible. If there arealready barrangays, these should beconverted into tribal barrangays.” Herevealed that “only 10% or even lesspercentage of IPs have representationin the LGUs.” Attorney Andolana,among others, recommendedthat “NCIP should exercise itsjurisdiction in Autonomous Regionin Muslim Mindanao with respectto identification, delineation andissuance of title of Ancestral Domainand to establish an institute of IPcustomary laws and alternativeconflict resolution.” He suggestedthat IPs should not be “adversaries”of NCIP rather always be “partners”of NCIP. At the same time, headded, NCIP must also call uponthe IPs to share their “experiences”.Finally, Attorney Andolana stronglyproposed that the IPs should createa “National Forum” and carry outa sustained “lobbying” with thepoliticians.Prof. Ponciano Bennagen,Anthropologist and formerCommissioner in the ConstitutionalCommission which drafted thepresent Constitution in 1986 in hisaddress stated that the indigenouspeoples had within them the“institutions of autonomy” beforethe coming of Islam or Westerninstitutions of domination.Theoretically, the bundle of rightsprovided under the IPRA is verynice, he said. Unfortunately, theinstitutions of domination that weregenerated by series of colonizationcontinue to exert their influence on theexisting NCIP, Professor Bennagenlamented. He pointed out that the“NCIP has exposed its vulnerabilityby towing the line of big corporationsand State bureaucracy.” ProfessorBennagen stressed the need for a“through going understanding” ofwhat NCIP means for the indigenouspeoples and communities to asserttheir rights within these dominantnational institutions. Otherwise itwill take much longer time for theindigenous communities to reallyconsolidate the surviving institutionsof autonomy and to prevail upon theState institutions, he said.Ms. Myrna Caoagas, Director,Ancestral Domains Office ofNCIP, while discussing the nonimplementationof the IPRA, statedthat “not only the NCIP but theindigenous peoples are also to beblamed as they are also part of theNCIP”. She outlined that NCIP didnot have enough budget till 2002while titling and delineation wasincluded in the NCIP budget only in2003. Ms Caoagas highlighted NCIP’sone of the prioritized programmesof creating “Provincial Consultative

Indigenous Rights Quarterly articleVol. III : No. 2-3 • April-September 2008 15Bodies” which has already beenstarted from the provinces which willeventually go up to the ethnographicregions. To fast track CADT claims,NCIP has started training regionalofficers for titling and delineationfrom 2004 to early 2006, and NCIPwas able to title one million hectarestill now, asserted Ms Caoagas.On cases related to violations ofAncestral Domain Right of the IPs,she revealed, there were “no funds tobe used by Legal Officers/RegionalHearing Officers” during the hearingof cases. NCIP requested the Congressand the Senate to increase the budgetbut they did not consider it, addedMs Caoagas. She pointed out thatalthough there is requirement ofproduction of “only one of the proofslisted under IPRA” for delineation,NCIP has been “asking for productionof all proofs” listed in the IPRA inpractice. Besides, CADTs are issuedin the “name of the community”not in the “name of an individualclaimant” and “applications forCADTs are accepted only in name ofthe community not in the name of theperson.”The Working Session I on Situationof the indigenous peoples of thePhilippines was addressed by anumber of speakers.Mr Lagtum Pasag, formerCommissioner of NCIP highlightedthat “not all land titles given/issuedby the NCIP to the indigenouspeoples are registered with theLand Registration Authority.”Citing example of “the Mangyantribe people who did not receivethe necessary assistance when theywanted to implement their culturalway of conflict resolution,” theformer Commissioner exposed the“acute lack of funds” which hinder infully implementing the IndigenousPeoples Rights Act.Ms Nemia I. Pareza of EPISCOPALCommission was of the opinion thatsome indigenous communities haveCertificate of Ancestral DomainTitles but these titles have not giventhem “assured security of theirdevelopment” as well as the “right tomanage their resources.” “Inherentright” of the indigenous peoplesto resources and land even withinthe Ancestral Domain areas is notrecognized so is the “right to selfgovernance”as provided in the IPRA,remarked Ms Pareza. Analyzing thestatus of IPRA implementation, MsPareza observed “even after 10 yearsof IPRA implementation, indigenouspeoples are continuously losingtenurial rights. Land grabbing bynon-indigenous peoples is still verycommon. IPs are also losing theirlands to the so-called developmentprojects, mining projects, etc.”Datu Antonio Lumandung ofRegion X explained how his regionhas been made a mining region. Hestated that most political leaders“support mining” and divided theindigenous peoples by paying “bribeand inducements.” Expressingapprehension, Datu Lumandungwas of the view that “Bukidnonarea would soon be opened up formining operations.” He questionedthe “genuineness of the Free PriorInformed Consent being obtained”in some of the mining applicationspursuant to which MoUs have beensigned with some of the tribes in theregion. “There is lack of informationfrom NCIP about implementation ofIPRA particularly legal implicationsfor the IP communities,” he stated.Datu Lumandung also highlightedthe problems in the “constitution ofthe Provincial Consultative Body”and the “procedure of releasing/awarding of project funds” by theNCIP.Mr Artiso Mandawa, Member (IPsector) of National Anti- PovertyCommission highlighted theexistence of contradictory lawsand policies with IPRA. Mr. ArtisoMandawa of Palawan stated that“the very intention of the IPRA isgood but there are laws and policieswhich are contradictory to the IPRAand therefore negates the affirmativeactions of the IPRA.” He revealed thatalmost 80% of Palawan is covered bymining applications.Prudencion Mansigue, Communityleader of Bannuaon Tribe inAgusan Sur of Region XIII statedthe presence of mining companiesin San Luis which is very rich innatural resources. However, “it is thecompanies not the IP communitieswho are benefiting from these naturalresources”, asserted Mr Mansigue.Expressing serious concern, he statedthat indigenous peoples are caughtin the conflict between the armedgroups and the security forces.Mr Timuay Woy Lim P. Wong ofCentral Mindanao stressed the needof NCIP’s local and regional officesto be able to do some changes inthe implementation of works aswell as financial plans to suit localsituations. He stated how “B’laanancestral territories are illegallygiven to non-indigenous people, yetno compensation has been given tothe B’laan tribes.”Expressing concerns, Gilbert P.Hogang of KASAPI stated thatthere is no support of any kind fromthe local government units to theindigenous peoples in Region II.“All local and nationalized banksclosed any kind of borrowings tothe people of the area, thereby,increasing the vulnerability of the IPstowards inducements by the miningcompanies,” he said. Mr Hogangrecommended that the NCIP shoulddefend the legal challenges up to theSupreme Court till the title is awarded.He is of the view that the process ofFree Prior Informed Consent shouldnot be that “prescriptive” and thereshould be some sort of “flexibility”as all the regions are not similar and

Indigenous Rights Quarterly Vol. III : No. 2-3 • April-September 200816 articleidentical. He further recommendedthat NCIP should increase its effortsof collaboration with NGOs andIP organizations as it will help tounderstand what the NCIP is reallydoing.The Working session II oninternational mechanisms wasaddressed by Mr Suhas Chakma, MrEdtami Mansayagan and Mr ErvinJuit.Mr Chakma stated in his opinion,in comparison to the NationalCommission on Scheduled Tribesin India, National Foundation forthe Development of IndigenousNationalities of Nepal and theChittagong Hill Tracts AffairsMinistry in Bangladesh, NationalCommission on Indigenous Peoplesof the Philippines is the best nationalinstitution on indigenous peoples.Providing insight into the historyof development of National HumanRights Institutions, Mr Chakmastated the first national institutionon human rights in the Asian regionwas not established by any democratbut by one of the worst dictator vizSuharto in Indonesia. Indonesia isthe first country to establish a NHRCknown as KOMNAS HAM. It wasnot effective in the beginning but therole of the KOMNAS HAM has beencommendable on many areas.Mr Chakma provided the backgroundinformation on the Paris Principles onNational Human Rights Institutions– the minimum standards. In manyareas, Mr Chakma stated the NCIPis above the minimum benchmarkprescribed under the Paris Principles.For example, decisions given bythe NCIP could be challenged onlybefore the Supreme Court. Secondly,pursuing a legal cause for IP rightsunder the IPRA is more convenient,expeditious and cheaper than underthe normal judicial system of thePhilippines. At the same time,NCIP fails to comply with the ParisPrinciples relating to independenceand pluralism in its composition,nomination processes and financialautonomy.Further, capacity buildingprogrammes for the National HumanRights Commissions in Asia Pacificregion are being conducted by theAsia Pacific Forum on NHRIs. TheNational institutions on indigenouspeoples also require similarprogrammes to build its humancapacity. Unless this is done, it isreally difficult for the NIIPs to fulfilltheir mandates. The NIIPs are beingmarginalized by NHRIs.He highlighted dual role andresponsibility of indigenous peoples:to scrutinize and condemn thefailures of the NIIPs in one hand; toadvocate for these institutions so thatmore space for indigenous peoplescan be created.With an encouraging note, ErvinJuit of Indigenous Peoples ResourceCenter, Mindanao stated that “ifthe affected people are determinedthey can survive and over comechallenges.” He lamented that theNCIP do not even have the “basicinformation about the various IPtribes.” “It accepts applications forCADT from different communitiesinvolving the same territory withoutverifying whose territory it is,”observed Mr Juit. He recommendedthat NCIP should install a mechanismthat would monitor and evaluate theland titles, CADT titles. “Because oflack of monitoring mechanisms, theIPs are deprived from knowing whatis exactly happening,” he said.Edtami Mansayagan, FormerCommissioner and General Secretaryof Lumad Mindanaw Peoples’Federation stated that NCIP is usuallyunder tremendous pressure fromthe Office of the President and thereare serious bureaucratic hick-upsin the commission. He highlightedhow “NCIP has been drum beatingthe lack of funds for its inabilityto implement many of the crucialprojects but has not come up witha workable solution to arrange therequired funds either.” Accordingto him, the situations of the IPs arenot similar and identical acrossPhilippines, hence cannot be solvedwith a similar and identical solution.Mr Mansayagan recommendedthat NCIP should promulgatealternative supplementaryguidelines in the ancestral domaindelineation to basically addressthe need to officially notifythe other government agenciespertaining to the grant of applicationsof the IPs and encouraging theseagencies to cooperate on thedelineation process.Replies by Ms Myrna Caoagas,Director, Ancestral Domains OfficeA number of questions were directedtowards NCIP. Ms Myrna Caoagas,Director, Ancestral Domains Officereplied to a number of questionsraised by the participants.With regard to implementation ofIPRA in 2002, NCIP was able to draftand promulgate AdministrativeOrders No.1 and 2 (Series of 2002).There were not really enough fundswith the NCIP till 2002. It was onlyin 2003, that titling and delineationwas included in the NCIP budget toimplement the IPRA.With regard to the AdministrativeOrder for the creation of ProvincialConsultative Bodies, NCIP startedfrom the provinces and NCIPhopes that it would go up to theethnographic regions. In 2008, theNCIP already prioritised this as one ofthe programmes to be implemented.Up to 2002 since the IPRA was passedin 1998, there was no empowerment ofthe communities to be able to say yesor no to a project. Because it was onlyin 2003, the requirement of Free PriorInformed Consent was implemented

Indigenous Rights Quarterly articleVol. III : No. 2-3 • April-September 2008 17after the related guidelines werepromulgated. She further stated20 million Pesos was created forCADT delineation but there was noestablished system for titling anddelineation during that time. In 2004,56 prioritised provincial offices weregiven computers out of the 20 millionpesos received from the President.During 2004 to early 2006, NCIPstarted training regional officers fortitling and delineation. Till now, NCIPis able to title 1 million hectares.She explained the problems facedby NCIP while approving surveyplans. Other agencies including theDepartment of Natural Resources(DENR) questioned the authority toapprove the surveys. Therefore, NCIPhad to hold several meetings to sortout the differences because accordingto the DENR, it is the only competentauthority to approve surveys. Againwhen the NCIP registered CADTs,the Land Registration Authoritycreated problems saying as to howthe DENR can register AncestralLands and Ancestral waters. Theycited the lack of appropriate referencein the Presidential Decree there is noreference to the Ancestral Domain andAncestral Land. So, the LRA peoplewould ask what book we are goingto refer for registration of Ancestraldomains and Ancestral waters. Andagain, we had to sit down withthem to solve the problems throughmemoranda and agreements.Further, there is lack of funds. Therewere no funds to be used by the legalofficers/Regional Hearing Officersduring the hearing of cases. TheNCIP put the supplementary budgetduring the tenure of ChairpersonLingating but the Congress and theSenate did not consider it.During the Working Session III onthe functioning of the NCIP (Social,Economic and Cultural developmentand Human Rights of IPs) wasaddressed by many participants.Regretting the non-implementation ofthe IPRA in the Autonomous Regionof Muslim Mindanao (ARMM),Santos M. Unsad of TimmuayJustice and Governance explainedthe continued discrimination beingfaced by the Teduray, Lambangianand Dulangan Manobo tribes in theregion. He urged the NCIP to holdnation-wide debate on the “resolutionof the Regional Legislative Assembly(RLA)” and implementation of theIPRA while keeping in mind theissue of jurisdiction under the RLA269. Mr Unsad recommended thatthe selection of the NCIP staff andestablishment of accountabilityespecially at the regional level mustbe ensured given the involvementof NCIP staff for awarding leasesto the mining companies. Healso recommended that NCIPmust conduct a survey of all theindigenous peoples and ancestraldomains.He presented a discussionpaper highlighting his communities’problemsMs Briggit Pawid from Cordilleraregion observed that because of thefailure of NCIP, “UNDP funds meantfor NCIP” are being given to theDepartment of Agrarian Reforms andNational Anti-Poverty Commission.She suggested that instead ofimplementing programmes throughDepartment of Agrarian Reforms andNational Anti-Poverty Commission,NCIP should directly implement adevelopment plan under programmessuch as “Environment - PreservingAncestral Domains;” “Governanceand Political Integration - PhilippinesAutonomous Regions;” and “PovertyAlleviation - Income generationschemes.” Among others, MadamPawid recommended the NCIP toestablish one “Indigenous PeoplesResearch and Learing Center” in eachof the seven ethnographic regions,making available all “reports andbooks” relating to the indigenouspeoples in these centers; to ensure thatIP issues are more widely coveredby the “media;” making provisionsfor “data banking;” incorporationof “Indigenous Knowledge system”in the component of AncestralDomain Sustainable DevelopmentPlans; setting up “case law andCourts of customary law;” settingup “human rights centers” in all theseven ethnographic regions with “IPexperts”; and education, includingthe programme to impart “IP studiesand knowledge system” in collegesand universities.Ms Maxine Tanya M.Hamada ofINCITEGOV highlighted how thefunctioning of the NCIP wasinfluenced while being initiallydirectly under the Office of thePresident. At times, NCIP representeditself as a proxy of the Office of thePresident. “At present, we are ata juncture when the democraticinstitutions are very eroded andthose institutions that are hopedto strengthen the mandate of theNCIP are pulling it away from it,”she said. As the Philippines is againapproaching to another politicaljuncture, whether we are readyfor articulation of our rights in theprospective democratic transition iscrucial, she pondered.Mr Masli A.Quilaman, Director,Office of Empowerment and HumanRights, NCIP spoke about the reasonswhy most basic services and socioeconomicservices, health, education,infrastructure does not reaches theindigenous peoples. He stated that“neglect by the local governmentofficials, prevalent discriminationagainst IPs and lack of indigenouspeoples representatives at thepolicy decision making level in theLGUs” remained the factors. Themain problems facing the IPs are“development aggression throughmining; logging, big plantations;and “armed conflict” as the victimsare always the IPs whether theyare involved directly as a party orsides with either the Government

Indigenous Rights Quarterly Vol. III : No. 2-3 • April-September 200818 articleor the militant groups, statedDirector Quilaman. He rued thatthe “legal provisions for mandatoryrepresentation of the IPs in LGUs atthe provincial, city and municipalitylegislative council” have not yet beenimplemented by the Government.However, he mentioned thatNCIP in consultation with someProvincial Consultative Body(PCB) members and some non-PCBIP leaders is drafting four draftmodels in consultation to ensureimplementation of mandatoryrepresentation of IPs in the LGUs.Besides, Office of Empowermentand Human Rights is focusing on thesituation of the IP children in armedconflict under the programme calledDDRI- demobilization, disarmament,rehabilitation and finally integrationwith families, he stated. He pointedout that “as of now, NCIP has not beenable to come up with its guidelineson tribal barrangays.”Mr. Jimid Mansayagan of KTKIhighlighted the complicated,cumbersome and time-consumingprocedures for processing ofCADT and CALT applications bythe NCIP. “Instead of notifying byitself, NCIP should allow the CADTapplicants to notify other agencies,”he suggested. Mr Mansayagan isof the view that the “affected IPcommunities” should be able todetermine whether “Free PriorInformed Consent” is obtainedgenuinely. “This power shouldnot be exercised by the NCIP,” hefurther stated. Mr Mansayagan alsoexpressed concern about the “lack offunds” to process CADT applications.“As of now, NCIP has no reliablecensus of the indigenous peoples andin the absence of a reliable censusrecording all IPs, it is difficult forsuccessful deliveries of services,” hestated. The indigenous peoples, herecommended, “should constitute anational level IP forum.”Ms Jocelyn Villenueva, ExecutiveDirector of Legal Resource Centerstated that under the IPRA, NCIPhave quasi-judicial powers but thesepowers have never been used for theupliftment of the conditions of theindigenous peoples. She wonderedwhy these powers have neverbeen used and why cannot NCIPimmediately cancel the applicationsof mining companies. She stressedthat IPRA is social justice legislationand therefore be at higher level thanany laws or policies.Under Working Session IV onStrengthening the Safeguards/Mechanisms of IP Rights inthe Philippines chaired by MsRenuka Srinivasan of the EuropeanCommission, the followingrecommendations were made at theconference:Census:- Considering that there is no reliablecensus on all indigenous peoples andthe indispensability of such censusfor proper implementation of theIndigenous Peoples Rights Act 1997,the NCIP should conduct a census ofindigenous peoples.Indigenous peoples’ participation:- Recognising the indispensabilityof the participation of people,NCIP should facilitate thecreation of “National IndigenousPeoples Forum” represented bythe community leaders to ensureparticipation of indigenous peoplesin decision-making including raisingindigenous issues with the Congressand Senate;Ancestral domains:- NCIP should conduct a survey ofthe ancestral domains;- NCIP should strengtheninstitutional capacity building ofindigenous peoples by includingsocial preparation for processingCADT application;- Given the lack of funds for itsinability to implement many ofthe crucial projects, NCIP shouldprepare a budget for CADT andcreate a section within NCIPspecifically for fund raising frominternational community and directlyhelping a focused constituencybuilding.- In the meantime, NCIP should fasttrack the applications for ancestraldomains by issuing supplementaryguidelines in the AD delineation toaddress the need to officially notify theother government agencies pertainingto the grant of applications to theindigenous peoples, encouragingthese agencies to cooperate on thedelineation process to ensure thatthe areas enjoy the status as defactoancestral domain.Customary laws:- The customary laws of indigenouspeoples should be recognizedand NCIP should establish anInstitute of indigenous peoplescustomary laws and alternativeconflict resolution in line with theproposal of Modified Jury Systemon Court of Customary Law. TheIndigenous Peoples’ Council ofElders who will be on the Jurywill have the opportunity to havecontinuous legal education.Autonomy and self-governance:- The concept of tribal barrangay ofgovernance must be recognized asthe starting point for IP communitiesfor political empowerment andNCIP should create as many tribalbarrangays as possible. Where suchbarrangays have been established,these should converted into tribalbarrangays- The NCIP should establish oneIndigenous Peoples Research andLearning Center in each of the sevenethnographic regions;

Indigenous Rights Quarterly articleVol. III : No. 2-3 • April-September 2008 19Indigenous Knowledge:- Indigenous Knowledge systemshould be incorporated in thecomponent of Ancestral DomainSustainable Development Plans;UPR: The experience ofindigenous peoples of Asia- NCIP should focus on human rightsand set up human rights centers in allthe seven ethnographic regions withIP experts;Economic Development:- Instead of implementingprogrammes through Departmentof Agrarian Reforms and NationalAnti-Poverty Commission, theNCIP should directly implementa development plan under thefollowing programme-(i) Environment — PreservingAncestral Domains(ii) Governance and PoliticalIntegration — PhilippinesAutonomous Regions(iii) Poverty Alleviation — Incomegeneration schemes(iv) Education – Including theprogramme to impart IPstudies and knowledge systemin colleges and universitiesStaffing and accountability:- The NCIP should developmechanisms for accountability of itsstaff;- The NCIP should establishmonitoring mechanisms — first, tomonitor and evaluate the land titles,CADT titles; Second, to monitor theproblems faced by the IndigenousPeoples; and Third, the managementof Ancestral Domains throughestablishment of the ProvincialConsultative Bodies; and- NCIP has been requested tohold nation-wide debate on theresolution of 269 of the regionallegislative assembly and study forimplementation of the IPRA keepingin mind the issue of jurisdiction underthe RLA 269;Asian Indigenous and TribalPeoples Network (AITPN) has beenin the forefront of making Asianindigenous peoples' submissions forinclusion into the 10 page summaryof the OHCHR under the UniversalPeriodic Review of the Human RightsCouncil. The first session of the UPRwas held in April 2008. AITPN hasmade a joint -submission on Indiain partnership with InternationalWork Group on Indigenous Affairsand independent submissions onIndonesia and the Philippines.AITPN highlighted several issuesconcerning the indigenous peoples.The examination under the UPRhas been far from satisfactory as theproceedings indicate.1. India: No democracy for thoseliving on the margins, November2007“India: No democracy for those living onthe margins” was prepared by AITPNand endorsed by International WorkGroup for Indigenous Affairs (IWGIA)of Denmark. It was submitted asa stakeholders’ submission underthe Universal Periodic Review ofthe Human Rights Council whichexamined India’s commitment onhuman rights in April 2008.The report - “India: No democracy forthose living on the margins”- highlightedthe situation of indigenous peoples,assessed India’s human rightsobligations and commitments;situation of indigenous peoples onthe ground especially land alienation;development and victimization of thetribals; failure to implement ForestRights Act, 2006; armed conflictsand human rights violations;discrimination against indigenousIDPs; status of particularly vulnerabletribal groups; status of the socalleddenotified criminal tribes; nonimplementationof the reservationsin employment; Tribal Sub Planand misuse of funds; failure of theNational Commission for ScheduledTribes and non-implementation ofthe Scheduled Castes and ScheduledTribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act,1989, among others.OHCHR's Summary of theStakeholdersThe Office of the United NationsHigh Commissioner for HumanRights (OHCHR) prepared a 10 pagesummary (A/HRC/WG.6/1/IND/3)based on the 37 submissions madeby the stakeholders. The followingissues highlighted by AITPN andIGWIA were incorporated in thestakeholders’ summary of theOHCHR:The Asian Indigenous & Tribal PeoplesNetwork (AITPN) and the InternationalWorking Group on Indigenous Affairs(IWGIA) highlighted that India hasnot ratified the ILO Convention No.169 on Indigenous and Tribal Peoplesin Independent Countries. AITPNand IWGIA added that many of theParticularly Vulnerable Tribal Groupsare on the verge of extinction. Accordingto the Ministry of Home Affairs, quotedby AITPN and IWGIA, 21 out of 28States are afflicted by armed conflict andthe majority of these States are afflictedby Naxalite (Maoist) conflicts. AITPNand IWGIA noted that all the areasafflicted by internal armed conflicts,except Jammu and Kashmir are predominantlyinhabited by indigenous andtribal peoples, who constitute over 40%of conflict-induced IDPs in India and

Indigenous Rights Quarterly Vol. III : No. 2-3 • April-September 200820 articlesuffer serious human rights violationsfrom both the security forces and thearmed opposition groups.”The report of the government ofIndiaThe report of the government ofIndia (A/HRC/WG.6/1/IND/1)under the UPR of the Human RightsCouncil among others highlightedthat the Constitution of India hasseveral special provisions relevant toits varied tribal population such as theFifth Schedule and Sixth Schedule;adoption of the Tribal Sub Plan (TSP);adoption of a separate Ministry ofTribal Affairs in 1999; establishmentof the National Level TribalDevelopment Finance Corporation;creation of National Commissionssuch as the National Commission forthe Scheduled Tribes, the NationalCommission for Denotified, Nomadic& Semi-nomadic Tribes, and StateCommission for Scheduled Tribes;Affirmative Action Programme suchas reservation of appointments orposts; and enactment of the ScheduledTribes and Other Traditional ForestDwellers (Recognition of ForestRights) Act, 2006.Interactive dialogue with the Stateunder reviewThe summary of OHCHR on the 37stakeholders’ submissions helped themember States to raise a number ofissues made in the statements duringthe interactive dialogue with the Stateunder review. Some of the statementsmade by member States are givenbelow.The United Kingdom and Germanyasked for additional informationon the steps and position of theGovernment to implement treatybody recommendations on theArmed Forces (Special Powers) Act of1958 (AFSPA). Canada also asked forinformation on the measures/studiesundertaken to repeal or reform theAFSPA.Malaysia and Luxembourgasked for additional informationon the implementation of therecommendations of nationalcommissions including ScheduledTribes Commission. France askedfor information on what meanswere available to and what analysismight be drawn from the workof the National Human RightsCommission of India and the NationalCommissions dealing with Women,Minorities, Scheduled Castes andScheduled Tribes. South Africaasked for further information on thefunctioning and results pertaining tothe national commissions created todeal with minorities and vulnerablegroups.The Republic of Korea asked forfurther elaboration on plans topromote and protect indigenousand tribal peoples’ rights in newlyindustrialized zones. Azerbaijan askedIndia to elaborate on the difficultiesexperienced by Scheduled Castesand Tribes in terms of their humanrights and what national plans existon Internally Displaced Persons andwhat access is given to internationalhumanitarian organizations to internaldisplacement affected regions. Italyasked for additional information onhuman rights education relating totraditional practices and customs andscheduled castes and tribes.The government of India acceptedsome of the recommendations. Theseincluded (a) Continue energizingexisting mechanisms to enhance theaddressing of human rights challenges(Ghana); (b) Share best practicesin the promotion and protection ofhuman rights taking into account themulti-religious, multi-cultural andmulti-ethnic nature of Indian society(Mauritius); among others.Responses by the IndianDelegationIn paragraph 47 of the report ofthe Working Group on the UPR,the Indian delegation with regardto questions on the Armed Forces(Special Powers) Act, 1958 statedthat “even though India is a countrywhich has had to confront withterrorism for well over two decades,its laws, including the speciallaws enacted in this context, havealways had clear elements ofadministrative as well as judicialreviews. It is well settled in Indianjurisprudence that all legislationmust conform to the basic structureof the Constitution and is subject tojudicial review. The constitutionalityof the Armed Forces (Special Powers)Act 1958 has been upheld by aConstitution Bench of the SupremeCourt. Moreover, it is important tonote that the Armed Forces of Indiaare governed by provisions of theirActs, which also ensure that anyviolations are expeditiously dealtwith. In so far as ensuring humanrights even while being engaged incounter terrorism operations, specialtraining and operating proceduresare in place to guide the forces onthe ground.”Further in Paragraph 73, “Indianoted that Canada, as well as others,referred to the impunity for humanrights violations under the ArmedForces Act which was incorrect. Indiastated that no forces, armed or police,function with impunity. Armedforces were under strict orders notto transgress human rights and thestrictest action is taken, and incidentsare swiftly adjudicated, includingthrough courts-martial.”In Paragraph 78, with regard to aquestion by the Republic of Koreaon the displacement of tribal peoplefrom forest lands, India noted that“based on a Supreme Court decision,no land can be diverted from forestuse, without prior approval andthere can be no displacement unlessthere is a comprehensive proposalto resettle the tribes as part of the

Indigenous Rights Quarterly articleVol. III : No. 2-3 • April-September 2008 21project. This had been the position inregard to implementation of miningprojects in Orissa as well.”2. Indonesia: Transmigration,human rights violations andimpunity, November 2007“Indonesia: Transmigration, humanrights violations and impunity”was submitted to the HumanRights Council for examination ofIndonesia’s commitment on humanrights, particularly, with regardto indigenous peoples. Underthe Universal Periodic Reviewmechanism of the UN Human RightsCouncil, Indonesia was examined inMay 2008.The report of AITPN highlightedthe situation of indigenous peoples,assessed Indonesia’s human rightsobligations and commitments;situation of indigenous peoples on theground especially impunity as a keyfactor encouraging continued humanrights violations; transmigration asthe root cause of the conflicts, the WestPapua imbroglio; negative impactof the proposed Kalimantan BorderOil Palm Mega-project; persecutionof religious minorities; persecutionof human rights defenders; nonrecognitionof ulayat, customary,rights of the indigenous peoples;failure to amend the Criminal Codeand failure to strengthen the NationalHuman Rights Commission.OHCHR's Summary of theStakeholdersThe Office of the United NationsHigh Commissioner for HumanRights (OHCHR) prepared a 10 pagesummary (A/HRC/WG.6/1/IDN/3)based on the 17 submissions madeby the stakeholders. The followingswere incorporated in the reports ofthe OHCHR:The Asian Indigenous and TribalPeople Network (AITPN) highlightedthat impunity to the security forcescontinues to encourage widespreadhuman rights violations. The judiciaryfailed to establish accountability withregard to the gross human rightsviolations in East Timor and the murderof prominent human rights defenderMunir Said Thalib on 7 September 2004.AITPN added that religious freedomremains a critical issue not only becauseof the increased fundamentalism butalso because of the preferential treatmentgiven to the six officially recognizedreligions - Islam, Protestantism,Catholicism, Hinduism, Buddhism andConfucianism. “Other non-recognisedreligions” face discrimination andrestrictions. AITPN noted that Articles18 and 28 of the Constitution ofIndonesia of 1945 recognize “traditionalcommunities” and their culturalidentities and traditional rights, andthe same were affirmed by Act No.39 of 1999 on Human Rights. Yet anumber of Acts failed to recognize theulayat, customary rights, of indigenouspeoples recognized under Article 3 andArticle 5 of the Basic Agrarian lawNo. 5 of 1960. AITPN explained thatserious conflicts following the fall ofSoeharto regime in 1998 in Aceh, Papua,the Malukus, Central Sulawesi, andCentral and West Kalimantan, amongothers displaced 1.3 million personsacross the archipelago. These conflictswere often described as “civil unrest”,“separatist” and “inter-communalviolence”. In reality, these conflicts tookplace between the transmigrasis - anestimated 3.6 million Javanese, Madureseand Balinese – who were planted on thelands of indigenous peoples across theislands.The report of the government ofIndonesiaThe report of the government ofIndonesia contained, among others,adoption of the National Action Planon Human Rights to be renewedevery five years which includesconcrete measures to be undertakenby the Government for the promotionand protection of human rights, inaccordance with cultural, religiousand traditional values, and withoutdiscrimination as to race, religion,ethnicity and faction; Reviewinglaws and regulations which are notin line with the spirit of the amendedConstitution and human rightsstandards; creation of the nationalinstitutions such as National HumanRights Commission (KOMNASHAM); violence against children;women’s rights; religious freedomand failure by followers of certainbeliefs to register their marriages.Interactive dialogue with the Stateunder reviewDuring the interactive dialoguedelegation of the member Statesraised a number of issues with theState under review. Some of theseincluded - (a) Belgium based onthe stakeholders’ summary reportstated the need to better guaranteethe independence of Komnas-HAM,and to provide information oninitiatives taken to implement therecommendations of treaty bodiesand measures taken to strengthenthe independence of the nationalinstitution. It also asked if legislativemeasures envisaged to allowKomnas-HAM to have immediateand unlimited access to police anddetenton centres; (b) Saudi Arabiaand the Islamic Republic of Iranasked for more information on therole that the Indonesian nationalhuman rights institutions such asKomnas-HAM play for the promotionand protection of human rights; (c)Pakistan asked about lessons learntand good practices with regard tomanaging the transition to democracyin a multi-religious, multi-ethnic andmulti-racial society; (d) Germanyasked for information on provisionsto end impunity and to guaranteeeffective prosecution of humanrights violations. Germany further

Indigenous Rights Quarterly Vol. III : No. 2-3 • April-September 200822 articleexpressed concern on the humanrights situation in Papua and askedabout the measures Indonesia intendsto take to address the situation inPapua. Germany also asked aboutthe measures that can be taken by theauthorities to protect human rightsdefenders who are threatened fortheir activities; (e) Canada, amongothers, asked information on howIndonesia will ensure that labelling ofindividuals as separatists especiallyin regions where recent or ongoingpolitical tensions are manifest, suchas Papua, is not used to suppresslegitimate democratic activity by civilsociety, including peaceful publicprotests and criticism; (f) The UnitedKingdom asked information aboutthe threats against Ahmadiyyahfamilies following a fatwa banningthe Ahmadiyyah and recommendedfurther measures by Indonesiato address this issue; (g) TheNetherlands asked how Indonesiawill prevent discrimination againstethnic and other minorities; (h)The Republic of Korea asked if theGovernment has any concrete plan tostrengthen measures to better protectthe human rights of indigenouspeople, in particular in the processof exploitation of natural resources;(i) Brazil asked what concretesteps have been taken to promoteindependence of the judiciary andthe administration of justice andabout the main results achieved inthe prosecution of those responsiblefor gross human rights violationsin Timor Leste by the IndonesianHuman Rights Courts; (j) Franceasked information on measurestaken to investigate reported cases ofintimidation and ill-treatment againsthuman rights defenders and to bringthose responsible to justice, amongothers.Responses by the IndonesianDelegationIn Paragraph 33 of the WorkingGroup on the UPR, the Indonesiandelegation with regard to questionson the independence of thenational institution, noted that itis an important partner for theGovernment, which benefits fromits expertise on many issues. Itsfull independence is granted bythe law No. 39/1999. It noted thatother institutions in Indonesia havethe same structure as the nationalinstitution, which does not diminishtheir independence. Thus, it reiteratesits respect for the independence ofthe national institution.In Paragraph 49, on the situationin Papua, Indonesia considersthis question as one of support toIndonesia’ efforts to improve thewelfare of Papuans and the people ofIndonesia. A member of the delegation,who is a representative of the localgovernment of Papua and a Papuanhimself, noted that the developmentprocess in Papua is centred aroundthe Papuans themselves. Economicand health assistance were providedand efforts are made to combatpoverty and promote employment,and achievements are made with theparticipation of the people. He notedthat in addressing the human rightsviolence in Papua, many capacitybuildingand other programmeshave been implemented throughoutthe region, including training forthe communities to understand theirrights.Indonesia has accepted most ofthe recommendations made by themember States. Some of these includedthe need to provide additional humanrights training for military and lawenforcement officials, including thepolice and local judges; to addresshuman rights abuses as urgent issueof priority of the Government; tosupport and protect those engaged indefending human rights including atthe provincial and local level as wellas in regions with special autonomy;to continue its effort to combatimpunity, among others.3. The Philippines: All promises, Noimplementation, November 2007“The Philippines: All promises, Noimplementation” was submittedto the Human Rights Council forexamination of the Philippines’ recordwith regard to indigenous peoplesunder the Universal Periodic Reviewmechanism. The Office of the HighCommissioner for Human Rights setthe deadline of 20 November 2007 forsubmission by the stakeholders.AITPN’s submission highlightedthe situation of indigenous peoples,assessed Philippines’ human rightsobligations and commitments;situation of indigenous peoples onthe ground especially with regardto impunity for killing humanrights defenders, journalists andjudges; indigenous peoples asdisproportionate victims of humanrights violations; violations of therights of women; violations of therights of the child; violations of therights of the prisoners; denial ofpolitical autonomy; analysis of thedraconian Human Security Act of2007; non implementation of theIndigenous Peoples Rights Act,1997; and the failure of the NationalCommission of Human Rights of thePhilippines.OHCHR's Summary of theStakeholdersThe Office of the United NationsHigh Commissioner for HumanRights (OHCHR) prepared a 10page summary (A/HRC/WG.6/1/PHL/3) based on the 31 submissionsmade by the stakeholders. Thefollowings were incorporated in thereports of the OHCHR:The Asian Indigenous and Tribal PeopleNetwork (AITPN) highlighted that most

Indigenous Rights Quarterly articleVol. III : No. 2-3 • April-September 2008 23of the capacity building programmes arefocused on the Commission on HumanRights of Philippines (CHRP), and itrecommended that such programmesalso be developed for the NationalCommission on Indigenous Peoples(NCIP), including for titling indigenouspeoples’ lands. AITPN also noted that thePhilippines has failed to extend a standinginvitation to the Special Procedures.AITPN considered the policy of someschools dismissing unmarried femalestudents (but not their male partner)if they got pregnant as being highlydiscriminatory against girls. AITPNadded that extrajudicial killings andenforced disappearances remain endemicin the Philippines. AITPN quoted figuresfrom the Alliance for the Advancement ofPeople’s Rights (KARAPATAN) whichclaimed that from January 2001 to June2007, a total of 885 people had been killedextra-judicially and 183 persons haddisappeared. According to AITPN, mostof the victims were affiliated with causeorientedgroups, and included humanrights activists, lawyers, journalists,church workers, leftist activists andleaders from indigenous communities.AITPN reported that between February2001 and January 2007, 123 indigenousrights defenders were killed. AITPNnoted that in the Autonomous Region ofMuslim Mindanao 7% of the victims ofextrajudicial killings from 2001 to 2007were children. According to AITPN,more than 1,000 children in conflictwith the law were languishing in subhuman conditions in jails together withadult criminals. AITPN also noted thatprison conditions remain deplorable dueto overcrowding, sub-standard facilitiesand lack of basic facilities. Overcrowdingresulted in spread of diseases such astuberculosis and sanitation problems.AITPN noted that the provisions of theCode of Muslim Personal Laws permitthe marriage of girls under 18 as wellas polygamy. AITPN highlighted thatwhile the Constitution recognizes theright of Muslims and indigenous peoplesof Cordillera to self-determinationin the form of autonomy, there hasnot been genuine autonomy for theCordillera peoples, which according tothe Unrepresented Nations and PeoplesOrganization (UNPO), constituteabout 2 per cent of the population ofthe Philippines. AITPN added that thesame applies with regard to the Moros inMindanao.Report of the government of thePhilippinesThe report of the government of thePhilippines highlighted the rightsof the indigenous peoples whichare protected under the landmarkIndigenous Peoples Rights Act(IPRA), which provides opportunitiesto exercise self-governance and toparticipate in determining economicdevelopment. Ancestral domains andancestral lands are preserved andprotected, and titled to indigenouscultural communities in accordancewith their historical claims, withassistance to ensure that these landsare productive; Legal mechanism forthe protection of indigenous peoplesin the criminal justice system as wellas the recognition of the diverseindigenous peoples’ justice systemsand conflict resolution institutionswhich are based on traditionalpractices and serve as alternativedispute mechanisms under theIPRA; understaffed, underfinancedand under-equipped governmentoffices which make it difficult in theinvestigative, judicial and humanrights services; the need to bettertarget and strategically design thesocial welfare programmes andprojects to address the need ofthe poor and vulnerable groupsincluding the IPs; the challengesfaced by the IPs and overcomingthem by key interventions, notably,the integration of IndigenousKnowledge, Systems and Practices(IKSPs) into the local and nationaldevelopment framework; utilizationof existing IKSPs and IndigenousPeople leadership structuresin government interventions;enhancement of cultural sensitivityand responsive interventions basedfrom IP perspectives and worldview;and, heightened information,education and advocacy on thecollective and individual rights ofIndigenous Peoples; among others.Interactive dialogue with the Stateunder reviewDuring the interactive dialoguedelegations of the member Statesraised a number of issues withthe State under review. Someof these included - (a) Turkeyasked for additional details onthe effectiveness of communitybased(Village Justice System)or traditional dispute resolutionsystem; (b) France observed thatcases of forced disappearances andextrajudicial killings, which mostlyaffect journalists and human rightsdefenders, are numerous and that thenumber of resolved cases remainslow. It also asked what measures aretaken to prevent recruitment and toassist the rehabilitation of children inarmed movements. France also askedif the Government planned to increasethe resources of the Commissionon Human Rights; (c) Japan askedfor further information on how theGovernment evaluates the effects ofthe measures taken so far, especiallyin view of facilitating investigationsin extrajudicial killings; (d) TheRepublic of Korea asked for additionalinformation on the promotion andprotection of indigenous peoples innewly industrialized regions andremote regions; (e) The RussianFederation asked information onmeasures taken to protect the rights ofindigenous peoples in the Philippinesand the cooperation with NGOsrepresenting indigenous peoples; (f)Canada expressed concern about thesecurity forces and recommendedthat the Philippines ensure that

Indigenous Rights Quarterly Vol. III : No. 2-3 • April-September 200824 articlemembers of the security forces aretrained on human rights and ontheir responsibility to protect humanrights and human rights defenders;(g) Slovenia recommended that thePhilippines enable the visit by theSpecial Rapporteur on the promotionand protection of human rights assoon as possible; (h) Australia askedabout the role of the national humanrights institution in the promotionand protection of human rights;(h) Switzerland recommended thatthe Philippines intensify its effortsto carry out investigations andprosecutions on extrajudicial killingsand punish those responsible andthe need to strengthen the witnessprotection programme. It alsorecommended that the Philippinesaddress the root causes of this issue inthe context of the appropriate reformof the judiciary and the securityforces; (i) The United Kingdomstated that reporting obligations totreaty bodies are often delayed andimplementation of treaty obligationsremains a problem; among others.Responses of the PhilippinesDelegationIn Paragraph 39 of the report of theWorking Group on the UPR, onthe issue of indigenous peoples,the Philippines informed that theIndigenous Peoples Rights Act(IPRA) adopted in 1997 has createdthe National Commission onIndigenous Peoples, whichadministers programmes forindigenous peoples and indigenouscultural communities. Traditionallegal system is culture sensitive,accessible, preserves the dynamicsof indigenous knowledge systemsand practices, promotes selfgovernance,expedites resolutionof cases, encourages communityparticipation, based on tradition andprecedent, and respect for the elders,and provides premium on restitutionnot retribution.A number of recommendations weremade by country delegations to theGovernment of the Philippines. Someof these included -(a)(b)To continue to develop a genderresponsiveapproach to issuesof violence against women andcontinue to build supportiveenvironment for women andchildren within the judicialsystem; this environmentshould take into account thespecial needs for rehabilitationand post-conflict care of womenand children in vulnerablesituations and conflict areas(New Zealand);To ensure that members ofsecurity forces are trained onhuman rights and on theirresponsibility to protect humanrights and human rightsdefenders (Canada);(c) To completely eliminatetorture and extrajudicialkillings (Holy See);(d) To intensify its efforts tocarry out investigations andprosecutions on extrajudicialkillings and punish thoseresponsible (Switzerland);(e)To step up efforts to meetthe basic needs of the poorand other vulnerable groups(Nigeria); among others.The government of Philippinesaccepted most of therecommendations made by countrydelegations cited in paragraph58 of the report of the WorkingGroup of the UPR. Some of theseincluded:• To continue to develop a genderresponsiveapproach to issuesof violence against women andcontinue to build supportiveenvironment for women andchildren within the judicialsystem; this environmentshould take into account thespecial needs for rehabilitationand post-conflict care of womenand children in vulnerablesituations and conflict areas(New Zealand);• To ensure that members ofsecurity forces are trained onhuman rights and on theirresponsibility to protect humanrights and human rightsdefenders (Canada);• To completely eliminate tortureand extrajudicial killings(Holy See);• To intensify its efforts tocarry out investigations andprosecutions on extrajudicialkillings and punish thoseresponsible (Switzerland);• To step up efforts to meet thebasic needs of the poor and othervulnerable groups (Nigeria);• To sign and ratify theInternational Convention onthe Protection of All Personsfrom Enforced Disappearances(Slovenia, Mexico); amongothers.The Philippines, taking intoconsideration the recommendationsmade, announced the followingvoluntary commitments:(a) To continue to develop agender-responsive approach toissues on women and children,including in the judicial systemand on violence against womenand children(b)(c)To continue to develop domesticlegislation for further protectionof the rights of the childTo maintain the momentum onaddressing killings of activistsand media professionals

Indigenous Rights Quarterly articleVol. III : No. 2-3 • April-September 2008 25(d)To continue and find additionalmeasures to answer the basicneeds of the poor and othervulnerable sectorsThe Government of Philippinesrejected the recommendation ofSlovenia (To enable the visit by theSpecial Rapporteur on the promotionand protection of human rights whilecountering terrorism as soon as possible),the recommendation of the Netherlands(To provide a follow-up report on effortsand measures to address extrajudicialkillings and enforced disappearances,taking into account the recommendationsof the Special Rapporteur on extrajudicial,summary or arbitrary executions),and recommendations of Switzerland(To strengthen the witness protectionprogramme and address the root causesof this issue in the context of the reform ofthe judiciary and the armed forces) and ofBrazil (To consider extending a standinginvitation to special procedures).Bangladesh:“We want the lands, not the indigenous peoples”Excerpts from AITPN’s submissionunder the Universal Periodic Reviewof the Human Rights CouncilThe Human Rights Council isscheduled to examine human rightssituation in Bangladesh under theUniversal Periodic Review duringthe fourth session from 2 to 13February 2009. In September 2008,Asian Indigenous and Tribal PeoplesNetwork with endorsement from theKebager te Ked-Inged (Philippines),Centre for Peace and Development(India), Asian Centre for HumanRights (India), Centre for IndigenousPeoples Research and Development(Bangladesh), Hill Watch HumanRights Forum (Bangladesh), TribalWelfare Association (Bangladesh),Hill Women Federation (Bangladesh)and Mr Edtami P Mansayagan,Former Commissioner, NationalCommission for Indigenous Peoples,Philippines submitted a stakeholders’submission.Excerpts from the submissions areappropriation of lands and killingof indigenous defenders which aregiven below.Officially, there are about 2 millionindigenous peoples in Bangladeshthough indigenous peoples claimthat their total number is 2.5millions. Whether in mainland andthe Chittagong Hill Tracts (CHTs),the government irrespective of thepolitical colour follows the dictum:“we want the lands but not theindigenous peoples”.This policy of land grabbing – forsocalled public purpose or privatepurpose - threatens the identity andsurvival of indigenous peoples. Thereis no rule of law. The law enforcementpersonnel are biased. Majority BengaliMuslims rule the roost as indigenouspeoples are discriminated because oftheir religion and ethnicity.Land grabbing and human rightsviolationsGrabbing the lands of indigenouspeoples and minorities is the Statepolicy in Bangladesh. The governmentitself grabs the lands and also remainsmute witness to land grabbing bythe mainstream Bengali populationswho use different methods, includingforging documents and forciblyousting indigenous peoples fromtheir lands.According to a survey conducted bythe Jatiya Adivasi Parishad (NationalIndigenous Peoples Council) whichwas released in Dhaka on 10 May2008, around 1,983 indigenousfamilies in 10 North-western districtsof Bangladesh have lost 1,748 acresof their ancestral land. Of the 1,983indigenous families, 521 lost their landthrough forged documents whereasthe forest department acquired over1,185 acres of land belonging to 466indigenous families in the name ofsocial forestry. In Dinajpur districtalone, the forest department acquiredaround 1,182 acres of land from 411indigenous families.In North Bengal district of Naogaon,15 Santal villagers were injuredand their houses burnt after morethan two hundred mainstreamBengalis attacked the indigenousneighbourhoods in an effort to evictthem from their land on 5 November2007. Earlier, on 18 August 2000,Alfred Soren (36), a leader fromSantal community, was killed by Mr.Shites Bhattachara alias Godai Babuand Md. Hatem Ali and their goonsat Vimpur village under Mahdevpurpolice station of Naogaon district in aland related case. None of the accusedwas arrested.More than 10,000 indigenous Khasishave been living in 65 villages inMoulvibazar district for many yearswithout land registration documents.In July 2007, the administration, ledby the Deputy Commissioner ofMoulvibazar, organised a meetingwith indigenous leaders, headmenand women and assured them thatsteps would be taken to resolve theland ownership problem. But no stephas yet been taken.Patterns of grabbing the lands ofindigenous Jumma peoplesLand grabbing is systematic in theCHTs. It is the single biggest challengebeing faced by the Jumma peoples

Indigenous Rights Quarterly Vol. III : No. 2-3 • April-September 200826 articletoday. The army has renewed itsefforts to settle Muslim plain settlerssince the imposition of the State ofEmergency.During March – November 2007, atotal of 399.22 acres of land belongingto 133 Jummas and a primary schoolin 14 villages under four Unions ofMaischari, Kiang-ghat, Kamalchariand Khagrachari Sadar No.1 underKhagrachari district have beenforcibly grabbed by illegal plainsettlers.In March 2007, the Ruma armycantonment in Bandarban acquiredabout 7,570 acres of ancestralland of indigenous peoples forexpansion of the Ruma garrison andordered more than 4,000 indigenousfamilies mostly belonging to Mrocommunity to leave the area. Mroleaders had not been consultedbefore acquiring the land. Accordingto the Movement for Protection ofLand Rights and Forest, a land rightsorganisation based in Rangamati,40,077 acres of land had been givenin lease to the illegal Bengali settlers,94,066 acres of land were acquiredfor so-called afforestation projectsand 75,686 acres were acquired forestablishment of military bases inBandarban district.On 8 March 2007, an army campwas set up on the land of anindigenous jumma identified asPrithwiraj Chakma at Dantkupyavillage under Khagrachari district toprovide security to the plain settlerfamilies. In June 2007, the Bangladeshmilitary reportedly settled at least200 families of illegal settlers atDantkupya village after forciblyevicting 12 indigenous families fromtheir ancestral lands.In August 2007, illegal settlersforcibly captured 59 acres of landbelonging to 17 Jumma peoples inKobakhali Mouza under DighinalaPolice Station in Khagracahridistrict. In an operation from 1 to15 August 2007, large groups ofillegal settlers led by former UnionParishad member Md. Abu Taleb ofHashinchonpur village and formerUnion Parishad member Md Kader ofKobakhali Bazaar took control of thehilly lands of the indigenous Chakmapeoples with the direct assistance ofthe army personnel, para-militaryforces and the local Village DefenceParty members. The army reportedlyplanned to settle 200 plain settlerfamilies in Kobakhali Mouza.Repression of indigenous humanrights defendersWhile human rights activists ingeneral remain under surveillance,human rights defenders fromindigenous and minority communitiesor those working with indigenousand minority communities werespecifically targeted with impunity.Indigenous rights defenders havebeen disproportionate victims.In 2007, the Special Representativeof the Secretary General on thesituation of human rights defendersinterventions with regard to 7 humanrights defenders: Mr Shahidul Islam,Mr Aminul Islam, Mr Abdul KashemPalash, Mr Nasruddin Elan, MrTasneem Khalil and Mr JahangirAlam Akash.In comparison, the SpecialRepresentative made interventionswith regard to 9 indigenous rightsdefenders: Mr Ronglai Mro, Mr.Bikram Marma, Mr. Sumit Chakma,Mr. Saimong Marma, Mr. SatyabirDewan, Mr. Balabhadra Chakma,Mr. Manubha Ranjan Chakma, MrSantoshito Chakma and Mr. MiltonChakma.This shows how indigenousrepresentatives are targeted. In theCHTs, at least 50 Jumma activistswere arrested, including 20 membersof Parbattya Chattagram JanaSamhati Samiti (CHT United PeoplesParty) and 10 members of UPDF as ofAugust 2007.Many indigenous leaders who havebeen protesting against the socalledEco-Park in Madhupur that woulddestroy the forest and displace about25,000 indigenous Garo and Kochpeoples in the Modhupur forest areaunder Tangail district were killed.On 18 March 2007, Mr CholeshRitchil was arrested and tortured todeath by the security forces stationedat Khakraid under Modhupur PoliceStation in Tangail district. Three otherindigenous peoples - Protap Jambil,Tuhin Hadima, and Piren Simsangwere arrested and tortured beforebeing released. The government setup an inquiry headed by SpecialCourt Judge Rofiuddin Ahmed.In its letter of 11 October 2007, thegovernment of Bangladesh informedUN Special Rapporteur on the Rightsof Indigenous Peoples that “Fourpersons belonging to Armed Forces wereassessed punishments, which includedremoval from service and exclusion frompromotion. Finally, a number of otherindividuals, including public officials,doctors and forest officials, had alsobeen subject to criminal proceedings.”However, the government ofBangladesh failed to disclose thenames of these officials. Under thecircumstances, the assertion does notappear credible.Earlier, on 3 January 2004, Mr PirenSnal was shot dead by the police andforest guards while participating ina peaceful protest rally against thecreation of Eco-Park at Modhupur. Acase was filed on 6 January 2004.The forest department officials ofMadhupur have found disingenuousway for harassing indigenouspeoples. They illegally sell thetimbers and files false cases againstthe indigenous peoples to cover uptheir illegal acts. Over 7,000 caseshave been filed against 10,000 poorpeople of Modhupur. Of these, atleast 70% cases were reportedlyagainst the indigenous peoples.In 2003- 2004 during the protestagainst the Eco-park project, ForestDepartment and police had filed 28false cases in the Courts against 95innocent indigenous peoples.

Indigenous Rights Quarterly articleVol. III : No. 2-3 • April-September 2008 27Malaysia:Extinguishing Indigenous Peoples RightsThe Human Rights Council isscheduled to examine human rightssituation in Malaysia under theUniversal Periodic Review duringthe fourth session from 2 to 13February 2009. In September 2008,AITPN presented its submissionto the OHCHR on the situation ofindigenous peoples in Malaysia.Excerpts from the submission aregiven below.Why UPR is important for MalaysiaMalaysia, the typical “police state” ofAsia has not ratified any major UNconventions except the Conventionon the Rights of the Child and theConvention on the Elimination ofAll Forms of Discrimination againstWomen. The Universal PeriodicReview of the Human RightsCouncil which will scrutinize humanrights records of the government ofMalaysia including on indigenouspeoples provides possibly the onlyopportunity to highlight the situationof indigenous peoples.Indigenous peoples who constituteabout 12% of the 28.6 millionpopulation of Malaysia havebeen specifically targeted for notgiving their lands for plantations,logging, dams etc. Poor indigenouspeoples - the Orang Aslis ofPeninsular Malaysia, the Dayaksof Sarawak and the Natives orAnak Negeri of Sabah are beingforced to approach the judiciaryto fight against the companies andgovernment which obviously aremore resourceful.In its submission to the OHCHRthis excerpt, AITPN discusses theconditions of the Orang Aslis.The Orang Aslis: The second classBhumiputrasAccording 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.The Orang Aslis, literally meaningfirst peoples have been treated assecond class Bhumiputras, sonsof the soil. The Special Provisionmade under Article 153 of theConstitution of Malaysia ensures“the special position of the Malaysand natives of any of the States ofSabah and Sarawak” and makes noreference to the Orang Aslis. Thereferences to the Orang Aslis underArticle 8(5)(c), Article 45(2), Article160(2) and Article 89 of the FederalConstitution of Malaysia failed toaddress discrimination against theOrang Aslis.Non-recognition of land rightsThe Orang Aslis possess over1,38,862.2 hectares of land but theyare not recognized as the lawfulowners of their lands. The Malaysiangovernment maintains the obnoxiousposition that the Orang Aslis “haveno rights in the land itself” as theyare mere “tenants” on the lands theyoccupy.Under Section 12 of the AboriginalPeople’s Act of 1954, the authoritiesmay at any time seize or take under itscontrol by providing compensationfor the loss of whatever grownon the land. Section 12 of the Actprovides that “if any land is excisedfrom any aboriginal area or aboriginalreserve or if any land in any aboriginalarea is alienated, granted, leased for anypurpose or otherwise disposed of, or ifany right or privilege in any aboriginalarea or aboriginal reserve granted toany aborigine or aboriginal communityis revoked wholly or in part, the StateAuthority may grant compensationtherefore and may pay such compensationto the persons entitled in his opinionthereto or may, if he thinks fit, pay thesame to the Director General to be held byhim as a common fund for such personsor for such aboriginal community asshall be directed, and to be administeredin such manner as may be prescribed bythe Minister.”Under this Act, indigenous OrangAslis have been victims of systematicdiscrimination and forcible evictionsby the State and the privatecompanies.The government has the right togazette lands as Orang Asli Reserveand to degazette the same. However,land approved for gazetting as OrangAsli Reserves dating back to the 1960swas never officially gazetted. Some ofthese areas have been reclassified asState land or Malay Reserve land orgiven to individuals or corporationswithout the consent or knowledgeof the Orang Aslis. In fact, the areasof the Orang Asli gazetted reserveshave been decreasing over the years.For example, in 1990, 20,666.96hectares was gazetted as OrangAsli Reserves. However, by 2003only 19,222.15 hectares remained,with 1,444.81 hectares degazetted.During the same period, there wasan increase in applications for OrangAsli Reserves, from 67,019.46 hectaresto 79,715.53 hectares. A majority

Indigenous Rights Quarterly Vol. III : No. 2-3 • April-September 200828 articleof these new applications were toreplace Orang Asli lands de-gazettedfor development projects, such asthe Kuala Lumpur InternationalAirport and Selangor Dam or for newresettlement schemes.The litigation against the forcibleevictions of Temuan Orang Aslis: Willthe customary rights be recognized?In 1995, the State government ofSelangor forcibly acquired 38 acresof land from 23 families belongingto indigenous Temuan tribe for theconstruction of the Nilai-Bantinghighway linking with the KualaLumpur International Airport. Theeviction was done in haste so as tocomplete the highway project in timefor the 1998 Commonwealth Gamesheld in Kuala Lumpur. Their dwellinghouses and standing plantationsof oil palm, rubber and fruit treeswere indiscriminately destroyed.The displaced Temuan tribes weregiven nominal compensation onlyfor trees, fruits, crops and housesin accordance with section 12 of theAboriginal People’s Act of 1954.In the case, seven affected TemuanOrang Asli including Sagong Bin Tasifiled a case in the Shah Alam HighCourt, Selangor against the SelangorState government, United EngineersMalaysia, Malaysian HighwayAuthority, and Federal Governmentof Malaysia for the loss of their landsand dwelling houses. In an historicruling in 2002, the Shah Alam HighCourt ruled that the Orang Aslis havea proprietary interest in the customaryand traditional land occupied bythem and that they have the right touse and derive profit from the land.The Court held that members ofthe Temuan tribe were unlawfullyevicted from their ancestral landin central Selangor State to makeway for the highway and orderedpayment of compensation. The fourdefendents appealed before theCourt of Appeal of Malaysia. But theCourt of Appeal upheld the historicjudgment of the Shah Alam HighCourt in 2005.Again the defendants have appealedto the Federal Court, the HighestCourt of Malaysia. In April 2008, thecase has been postponed by threememberpanel led by Chief JusticeDatuk Abdul Hamid Mohamad asthe newly formed Selangor Stategovernment needed time to study the13-year-old Orang Asli case.This is a test case on whether theinterest of the Orang Asli overcustomary land is merely a right ofusage of the land or it also includesa proprietary interest in the land. Thesurvival of the Orang Asli to a largeextent hinges on this keenly awaitedjudgment.Exclusion from benefits ofdevelopment projectsPoverty is widespread among theOrang Asli community. There wereabout 22,967 Orang Asli familieswhose monthly incomes are belowthe poverty line as in mid-2005.The poverty is a direct consequenceof the failure of the initiativesundertaken by the Department ofOrang Asli Affairs (JHEOA) suchas RPS (Rancangan PerkumpulanSemula, the Regroupment Schemes)launched in late 1970s to assimilatethe Orang Aslis. The JHEOAlaunched RPS in Betau, Pahang; RPSand TSK Tanaman Semula KomersialPos Jernang, Perak; and RPS LenirBekok, Johor. These regroupmentschemes were implemented to regroupthe scattered Orang Aslisettlements located near the mainrange of Peninsular Malaysia.Under these schemes forest areaswere opened up and released bythe Forestry Department for landdevelopment schemes. The landschemes are transformed intosettlements of Malays, rubber and oilpalm plantations.Obviously, the Orang Aslis did notbenefit. These projects howeverisolated the Orang Aslis from theircustom and culture, destroyed theirhomes and the natural resources,and made them poorer and moremarginalised.Further, dam projects are alsodisplacing the Orang Aslis. TheChe Wong Orang Asli communityis facing relocation because of theKelau Dam project in Pahang. About500-plus Orang Aslis are affectedby the construction of the KelauDam which is expected to inundate4,090 hectare of land including 1,000hectare of the Lakum forest reserve,Felda reserves and Orang Asli’sancestral lands.Proselytization of the Orang Aslisby the IslamistsIn 1960s, a policy of integration ofthe Orang Aslis was started throughthe Department of Orang Asli Affairs(JHEOA) with the ultimate aim ofintegrating them into the mainstreamMalay society. However, this hastaken a different shape. The OrangAslis who traditionally do not followmainstream Muslim religion havebeen targeted for proselytization bythe Islamists.Preachers who marry Orang Asliwomen receive a lump sum of 10,000Ringgit (2,707 dollars) as well as freeaccommodation, a four-wheel drivevehicle and a monthly allowance of1,000 Ringgit (Malaysian currency).More than 12,000 Orang Aslis residein Kelantan State and 2,902 havealready converted to Islam. But theprovincial government is reportedlyunhappy with the slow processof proselytisation and wants tocomplete the process of conversionby inducements.

Indigenous Rights Quarterly articleVol. III : No. 2-3 • April-September 2008 29In June 2007, authorities in KelantanState demolished a church shortlyafter it was built by members of theTemiar tribe in their ancestral land.The village headman and three othershave challenged the State governmentin Court seeking a declaration thatthe land belonged to them and thedemolishment was unlawful. Whilethe Kelantan government claimedthat the church was illegally builton State land and villagers ignorednotices to stop construction.Kelantan is a province ruled by theIslamic fundamentalists.Ineffectiveness of the Departmentof Orang Asli AffairsThe Department of Orang AsliAffairs (JHEOA) set up pursuantto the Aboriginal Peoples’ Act of1954 retains a paternalistic attitudetowards the Orang Aslis. The JHEOAhas been ineffective in safeguardingor guaranteeing their land rights. A1961 Policy Statement which is stillapplicable states in respect of OrangAsli’s land rights that “every effortwill be made to encourage the moredeveloped groups to adopt a settledway of life and thus to bring themeconomically into line with othercommunities in this country.” In thesame section, seemingly contradictoryduties requires the Department torecognise “the special position of theaborigines in respect of land usageand land rights” and that they “willnot be moved from their land withouttheir free consent”.The JHEOA with a majority of nonindigenousstaff is perceived bythe Orang Aslis as being distant,unapproachable and irrelevant inrepresenting their interests at thenational level. A 2001 resolutionpassed by the Orang Asli Associationof Peninsular Malaysia calls for thedissolution of the Department, or thetransfer of the effective control to theOrang Aslis themselves.Papuans killed onWorld Indigenous DayOn 9 August 2008, an indigenousPapuan l identified as Opinus Tabuni(35) was shot dead by the Indonesiansecurity forces when a group ofpeople raised the ‘Morning Star Flag’during a peaceful demonstrationto mark the United Nations WorldIndigenous Peoples Day held atWamena in West Papua. Three otherflags - the UN flag, the Indonesianflag and a SOS flag – were alsoraised alongside the outlawed flag.About 20,000 West Papuans, whohad travelled mostly from the BaliemValley and neighbouring highlandareas attended the rally to mark theUnited Nations World IndigenousPeoples’ Day. The Indonesian Policeclaimed that the victim was killed bya fellow Papuan among the crowdwho was wielding traditional swordsand spears. However, the autopsyreport has revealed that the deceasedwas killed by a bullet shot throughhis chest. Two other West Papuanswere reportedly seriously injuredby Indonesian security forces – oneshot at and the other beaten by policeusing rifle butts.The government of Indonesiaregards the banned ‘MorningStar Flag’ as a symbol of Papuanseparatist movement. The unfurlingof the Morning Star flag is a crimepunishable by life imprisonment.Earlier on 19 July 2008, 41 WestPapuans, including ex-politicalprisoners and women, were arrestedby the Indonesian Police for raisingthe Morning Star flag at Fakfak.The police had allegedly beaten andkicked the demonstrators with bootsand later they were allegedly strippedto their underwear before beingtaken to the police compound. Of thearrested, six were reportedly chargedwith "Subversion" under Section110 of Criminal Code. They havebeen identified as Simon Tuturop(58); Tadeus Weripang (52); ViktorTuturop (42); Tomas Nimbitkendik(19); Benedidiktus Turuop (35);and Teles Piahar (20). Three othersidentified as Walter Wareopor (60),Daniel Nimbitkendik (14) and SimonHindom (50), who had bush knives/machetes in their possession werecharged under Emergency RegulationSection 12.Filep Karma and Yusak Pakage arecurrently serving prison sentencesof 15 and 10 years respectively forraising the Morning Star Flag inAbepura on December 2004.At the UPR in May 2008, Indonesiandelegation refused to answerquestions pertaining to humanrights violations and the right of selfdetermination.Indonesia stated thatit considers the question of Papuaas one of support to Indonesia’efforts to improve the welfare ofPapuans and the people of Indonesia.Indonesian representatives statedthat in addressing the human rightsviolence in Papua, many capacitybuildingand other programmeshave been implemented throughoutthe region, including training forthe communities to understand theirrights.Obviously, there is no commitmentto address the issue of impunity. TheIndonesian security forces enjoyedvirtual impunity killing the Papuans.The situation is yet to change as thelatest killings indicate.

Indigenous Rights Quarterly Vol. III : No. 2-3 • April-September 200830 articleOn 20 April 2008, hundreds ofillegal plain settlers attacked sevenindigenous Jumma villages ofNursery Para, Baibachara, Purba Para,Nangal Mura, Retkaba, Simana paraand Gangaram Mukh under SajekUnion under Baghaichari upazila(sub-district) in Rangamati districtin Chittagong Hill Tracts (CHTs) ofBangladesh. The attack lasted from9.30 pm to 1.30 am.Bangladesh:Brutal attack on the indigenous peoples bythe illegal settlers at Sajek areasI. Details about the attack on 20thApril 2008The Bangladesh army had startedfresh settlement of Bengali familiesalong the roadsides of Sajek roadfrom Baghaichari to Gangaram Mukhafter forcibly occupying the landowned by the indigenous Jummapeoples. The indigenous Jummashave been resisting the illegalsettlement programme. Tensionhas been mounting in the area sinceMarch 2008 when the Army beganillegally settling new settlers fromplain districts onto the lands ofthe indigenous Jumma peoples atBaghaihat, Gangaram, Massalongareas under Sajek Union.But with the direct help from themilitary, the Bengali settlers havebeen able to construct some housesat Gangaram village after capturinglands of the Jumma villagers.On 19 April 2008, a dozen of housesof Jumma villagers of Bhanga KarbariPara were destroyed by the Bengalisettlers.On 20 April 2008, having heardrumours of an impending attack,around 50 - 60 Jummas gathered atGangaram Mukh village to discussOne of the victims picking up the remaining after burning of their villages by illegal plain settlershow to defend themselves. Thisinformation somehow leaked to thearmy who approached the villagersand told them not to worry. As armypersonnel led by a Habilder, Harunkept the indigenous Jumma mentalking, a group of Bengali settlersbegan the attack.The attack continued for four hoursfrom 9.30 pm of 20 April 2008 to 1.30am of 21 April 2008 during whichhundreds of Bengali settlers equippedwith sharp weapons attacked sevenJumma villages namely NurseryPara, Dane Baibachara, Purba Para,Nangal Mura, Retkaba, SimanaPara and Gangaram Mukh of Sajekunion under Baghaichari upazila(sub-district) in Rangamati district.During the attack, the Bengalisettlers beat up the Jumma villagersincluding women and children andlooted valuables from their houses.The army did nothing to prevent theattacks.According to the reports of fourjournalists from Khagrachari whovisited the area on 21 April 2008 withlocal government officials, at least 500houses in the 4 kilometer stretch fromBaghaihat to Gangaram were burntdown. Several indigenous Jummaswere wounded and an unknownnumber of women were raped by theperpetrators.However, till date the governmentfailed to come up with official figureson the number of houses burnt,persons injured and raped.Hundreds of people have beendisplaced and indigenous Jummastook shelter into the deep forestfearing further attack.The Jumma villagers allegedthat Selim Bahari, President ofBaghaichari branch and Golam Molla,President of Baghaihat branch ofEqual Rights Movement, an extremenationalist and fanatic organisation

Indigenous Rights Quarterly articleVol. III : No. 2-3 • April-September 2008 31of Bengali settlers led the attack onthe indigenous Jumma peoples withthe direct support from the armypersonnel of Baghaihat army zoneled by Lt. Col. Sajid Md. Imtiaz.An independent investigation by acitizens’ group comprising humanrights activists, university teachers,lawyers and journalists also foundthat the attack on the indigenouspeoples was “pre-planned”. Theinvestigation report stated that themain motive of the attack was to driveaway the indigenous peoples fromthe area to make way for new Bengalisettlements. 1 Yet, the governmentfailed to arrest any of the accused.II. Aftermath of the Attack:indigenous peoples live underthreats and insecurityThe conditions of the Jummavillagers who have been attackedhad already been precarious. Thereis a serious humanitarian crisiswith many indigenous peoples inthese villages starving as a result ofbamboo flowering. The flowering ofthe bamboo has been accompaniedby an unusual increase in rodentpopulation which ate up all sourcesof food, including crops and storedfood items leading to acute foodshortage in the affected area. Therehas been no assistance from thegovernment of Bangladesh to assistthe affected indigenous peoples andwith the burning down of the villages–everything has been destroyed.The Jumma villagers continued tohide in the forests due to fear of furtherattacks from the settlers or arrestby the Bangladesh security forces.Taking advantage of this situation,the Bangladesh security forces havebeen helping the illegal settlers tobuild houses on the Jummas’ land.On 23 April 2008, the commanderof Baghaihat army zone, Lt. Col.Sajid Md. Imtiaz reportedly took agroup of Bengali settlers to the BanaVihar (Buddhist temple) area lyingbetween Dane Baibachara village andRetkaba village and ordered them toconstruct houses on burned land ofthe Jummas.On 24 April 2008, Mr Imtiaz held ameeting at his zonal headquarters atBaghaihat in which representativesfrom both the indigenous peoplesand the illegal settlers were invited.At the meeting Mr Imtiaz warned theJummas that “if anything happens tothe Bengalis in the future, I will killall of you in brushfire. You have noneed to live in this country”. 2On 29 April 2008, the Army Chief GenMoeen U Ahmed while distributingrelief materials to the victims ofthe arson attack at Gangaram Mukvillage blamed the “terrorists” forattack which he said was pre-plannedand orchestrated to bring instabilityin CHTs. 3The innocent indigenous villagershave been illegally arrested by thearmy in connection with the attacks.On 28 April 2008, the army arrestedfour innocent Jummas identified asas Sushil Chakma (26) (son of AsomiChandra Chakma), Ratna BikashChakma (22) (son of GunodharChakma), Sangram Chakma (22)(son of Ashok Kumar Chakma) andRabindra Chakma (23) (son of ShashiMohan Chakma) from Simanacharavillage on the charge of setting fireto the house of one Nasir, an illegalsettler. AITPN has learnt that Nasirhad set fire to his own house at BameBaibachara village at around 10pm on 28 April 2008 and these fourJumma villagers had gone at the spotto see whether another attack wastaking place when army personnelarrested them. AITPN has also beeninformed that the burned houseof the settler was built with barelyfour small wooden poles, thatch andbamboo splits and it would not costmore than Taka 400 (or US $ 6). Buthe would receive a few thousandTaka as compensation from thegovernment. 4III. The issue of compensation:Discrimination against the JummasOn 29 April 2008, the Army Chief GenMoeen U Ahmed visited GangaramMukh village and distributed reliefmaterials such as rice, potato, daland Tk 500 to each of the victimisedfamilies. He also announced that hewould contribute Tk 10,000 and someclothes to the compensation fund. 5While some Bengali settler familieswere also affected in the conflict,the damaged suffered by them wasvery minimal in comparison to thedamages suffered by the indigenouspeoples during the attack by thesettlers. It was the Bengali settlers whorazed the houses of the indigenouspeoples to the ground and hence, theindigenous peoples lost everything.The grant of equal compensationto both the settlers (who are theperpetrators) and the indigenousvillagers (the victims who losteverything in the attacks) isdiscriminatory.Many of the victims belonging to theindigenous peoples could not receivecompensation provided by theCommanding Officer of BaghaihatZone Lt. Col. Sajid Imtiaz. It hasbeen reported that two membersof the Rangamati Hill DistrictCouncil, Deputy Commissionerof Rangamati Mohammad NurulAmin, Police Superintendent ofthe district Abdul Baten visited thespot and provided Taka 100,000 (US1600) to the Commanding Officer ofBaghaihat Zone Lt. Col. Sajid Imtiazto be distributed to the victims. Butonly 10 indigenous victims includingtwo women came to Baghaihat bazarto receive the compensation moneywhile others refused to come fearing

Indigenous Rights Quarterly Vol. III : No. 2-3 • April-September 200832 articleretaliation from the settlers andharassment from the army.IV. The pattern of attacks againstindigenous jumma peoplesThere is a systematic pattern in theattacks against the indigenous jummapeoples of Bangladesh, in particularin the CHTs. Asian Indigenous andTribal Peoples has been highlightingthe systematic action of theBangladesh army to forcibly evictindigenous Jumma people from theirlands and the deliberate and illegalimplantation of the plain settlers ontheir lands. Since the imposition ofthe State of Emergency on 11 January2007, the army has renewed its effortsto settle Muslim plain settlers onthe lands of the indigenous peoplein the CHTs. In March 2007, twohundred families of Bengali settlerswere settled down on the lands ofthe indigenous people at Dantkupyamouza under Khagrachari sadarupazila. A new army camp was alsoset up there to provide security to thesettlers. 6A survey conducted by the JatiyaAdivasi Parishad which was releasedin Dhaka on 10 May 2008 stated thataround 1,983 indigenous families in10 districts of Bangladesh have sofar lost 1,748 acres of their ancestralland. Of the 1,983 indigenousfamilies, 521 lost their land throughforged documents whereas the forestdepartment acquired over 1,185 acresof land belonging to 466 indigenousfamilies in the name of socialforestry. 7In the CHTs, the illegal settlers and thearmy attack the indigenous peoplesprimarily to capture their land andre-settlement of the illegal settlersfrom plain districts. In August 2007,illegal settlers and the Bangladesharmy personnel tried to take over thelands of the Sadhana Tila Buddhisttemple at Babuchara under Dighinalaupazila in Khagrachari district. Animpending riot between the Jummasand the illegal settler was narrowlyprevented after the Army ChiefGeneral Moeen U Ahmed visitedDighinala on 28 August 2007. Themotivation for taking land of theSadhana Tila Buddhist temple andits surrounding areas is simple:further illegal settlement. The armyhas been directly involved in theforcible acquisition of the landsbelonging to the indigenous peoples.AITPN is in possession of a letterdated 19 November 2007 issued byMd. Sulut Zaman, Deputy Secretaryof the Ministry of ChittagongHill Tracts Affairs (MoCHTA). Itorders the Deputy Commissionerof Khagrachari district to illegallysettle 812 families into the lands ofthe indigenous Jummas at Babucharaarea, Baghaichari mouza underDighinala upazila (sub- district) inKhagrachari district.Again on 7 February 2008, Dui Tilaarmy camp commander SubedarMohammad Malek reportedly calleda meeting with five Jumma eldersand three Bengali setters at his camp.In the meeting, Subedar Malek toldthe Jumma elders that they mustallow settlement of about 50 illegalBengali settler families at Tin Tilaarea under Baghaichari Upazilla ofRangamati district, and warned theJummas with dire consequences ifthey did not allow settlement of theillegal settlers.During March -November 2007, atotal of 399.22 acres of land belongingto 133 Jumma individuals and aprimary school in 14 villages underfour Unions of Mahalchari policestation and Khagrachari Sadar policestation under Kagrachari district havebeen illegally and forcibly grabbedby the illegal plain settlers with directhelp from the army. 8At a press conference in Dhaka on19 January 2008, representativesof the Committee for Protection ofLand in Bandarban called upon thegovernment to cancel the ongoingprocess of acquiring 9,560 acres ofland for the purpose of expansion ofRuma Garrison. The government ispresently at the final stage of acquiring9,560 acres of land for the purposeof expansion of Ruma Garrison inthree Mouzas of Galenga, Pantolaand Sengum under Ruma Upazilla inBandarban. Out of the total land to beacquired, 1,569.06 acres belong to theindigenous peoples and 4,000 acresbelong to the Forest Department. Theproject will lead to displacement of4,315 indigenous persons from 644families. Way back in 1988, a jointstudy team of Bandarban DistrictAdministration and the BangladeshMilitary stated that the project wouldbe disastrous for the local indigenouspeoples. 9Endnotes1. Baghaichhari arson pre-planned, The DailyStar, 6 May 20082. Sajek settler attack: victims holds pressconference in Dhaka, chtnews.com, NewsNo. 70/2008, April 27, 20083. Baghaihat arson pre-planned, orchestrated- Says army chief, The Daily Star, 30 April20084. Sajek news update: army arrests 4 Jummason charge of setting fire to settler house,Chtnews.com, News No. 72/2008, May 1,20085. Baghaihat arson pre-planned, orchestrated- Says army chief, The Daily Star, 30 April20086. Update Report on Indigenous Jummavillages burnt down by Bengali settlers inSajek in CHT, Kapaeeng Watch, 23 April20087. Indigenous families lose 1748 acres of land,The Daily Star, 11 May 20088. This was revealed by Dhaka-based humanrights group, the Hill Watch Human RightsForum after conducting a fact-findinginvestigation in November 20079. Press conference held against landacquisition in Bandarban, CHTnews.com,News No. 01/2008, 19 January 2008

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