A study of systematic repression
While statelessness has long been recognized as an important problem in international law, the desire of states to exercise control over stateless persons in their jurisdictions has prevented effective action. The 1954 Convention Relating to the Status of Stateless Persons has attracted only thirty-seven signatories, and a mere fifteen states have ratified the 1961 Convention on the Reduction of Statelessness. The indifference of national governments and the inaction of the international community has led to a large number of persons who are particularly vulnerable to oppression because they lack the protection afforded by rights of citizenship. The stateless are “denied the vehicle for access to fundamental rights, access to protection and access to expression as person[s] under the law”.
Nowhere is the problem of statelessness more acute than in South and South East Asia. Sri Lankan repatriates in India, Burmese refugees in Thailand, Vietnamese refugees in Cambodia, and many ethnic Chinese in all parts of South East Asia are currently stateless and thus especially vulnerable to the same types of human rights abuses as those suffered by the Chakmas and Hajongs of Arunachal Pradesh. Part I of this Report traces the history of international law on stateless persons. Part II examines the particular circumstances of the Chakmas and Hajongs of Arunachal Pradesh and assesses their claims to Indian citizenship under both international and Indian law. Finally, Part III documents the numerous human rights abuses suffered by the Chakmas and Hajongs of Arunachal Pradesh as a result of their stateless condition.
2. International Law and Stateless Persons
The State is not a private club which can induct or expel members arbitrarily. Rather, the development of customary international law has placed certain limitations upon states as regards the conferment of citizenship. The 1930 Hague Convention was one of the first documents to recognize these limitations. Article I of the Convention states;
It is for each State to determine under its own law who are its nationals. This law shall be recognized by other States in so far as it is consistent with international conventions, international custom, and the principles of law generally recognized with regard to nationality.
Therefore, decisions upon the acquisition or loss of nationality will be recognized only insofar as they are consistent with contemporary international legal norms. Currently, these norms are expressed in the 1954 Convention Relating to the Status of Stateless Persons (entered into force 1960) and the 1961 Convention on the Reduction of Statelessness (entered into force 1975).
Prior to the 1954 Convention Relating to the Status of Stateless Persons, statelessness was viewed merely as an indication of one’s status as a refugee. The mandate of the 1946 Intergovernmental Committee on Refugees did not mention statelessness at all, and thus the Committee “regard[ed] de jure and de facto statelessness merely as one of the criteria of eligibility [for refugee status] in conjunction with others, e.g. flight into another state as a result of racial, political or religious persecution”.
As the definition of “refugee” was being continually narrowed during the 1940’s, many stateless persons could no longer receive the protection afforded by the League of Nations High Commission for Refugees, the Intergovernmental Commission for Refugees, or the International Refugee Organization. This led the Commission on Human Rights to request that “early consideration be given by the United Nations to the legal status of persons who do not enjoy the protection of any Government, in particular pending the acquisition of nationality, as regards their legal and social protection and their documentation”.
Seven years were to pass, however, before the United Nations was to take action upon this recommendation. During the consideration of the 1951 Convention Relating to the Status of Refugees, the problem of statelessness was put aside for lack of time:
“In view of the urgency of the refugee problem and the responsibility of the United Nations in this field, the Committee decided to address itself first to the problem of refugees, whether stateless or not, and to leave to later stages of its deliberations the problems of stateless persons who are not refugees.”
This is a recurring theme in the development of statelessness rights in international law; the stateless have been neglected because their concerns have been viewed as ancillary to greater problems.
The 1954 Convention on the Status of Stateless Persons was one of the first attempts to deal with the problem of statelessness in its own right. The Convention requires states to grant stateless persons many of the same rights accorded to citizens under national law. It also protects stateless persons from expulsion in all but exceptional circumstances. However, through an apparent oversight, no provision was made for a supervisory body similar to the UN High Commission on Refugees. Additionally, the definition of a stateless person, “a person who is not considered as a national by any State under the operation of its law,” excludes large numbers of persons who have no effective nationality. For example, among the massive numbers of “boat people” from Vietnam were ethnic Chinese who had never set foot in either mainland China (PRC) or Taiwan (ROC). The People’s Republic does not recognize them at all, and the ROC grants them merely “overseas nationality.” Those granted overseas nationality have no necessary right of entry or residence in Taiwan. Thus, while these ethnic Chinese are technically considered nationals under Taiwanese law, they receive none of the benefits of citizenship and are effectively stateless. Nonetheless, they are not considered stateless persons under the 1954 Convention.
The 1961 Convention on the reduction of Statelessness defined stateless persons in the same manner as had the 1954 Convention. Additionally, unlike the 1951 Convention relating to the Status of Refugees, this Convention was not convened for the purpose of providing assistance to a specific group of people. The authors of the Convention tended to view their work as little more than codifying existing practice regarding the recognition of nationality judgements. Further, a proposal to create an independent tribunal in front of which a stateless person could press his nationality claims was quickly squashed. A document drafted under such conditions was not likely to greatly improve the condition of stateless persons, nor has it. However, article 11 of the Convention did provide for a relief agency to deal with the problems of the stateless. UNHCR was charged with the responsibilities of article 11, and thus the problem of statelessness was again connected to, and to some degree overshadowed by, the concerns of refugees.
For nearly thirty years following the 1961 Convention, the problem of statelessness was given little attention by the international community. The right of all persons to a nationality was reiterated in the International Convention on Civil and Political Rights and the Convention on the Rights of the Child, but again, no specific measures or procedures were mandated. And although the provisions of the 1985 Declaration on the Human Rights of Individuals who are not Nationals of the Country in which they Live applied to stateless persons and established the fundamental rights of aliens, the Declaration was addressed to aliens more generally (especially guest workers) and did not elaborate upon or even mention the fundamental right to a nationality established by article 15 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights.
The issue of citizenship has received greater attention recently in response to the nationality legislation of the newly created states of Central Asia and the former Yugoslavia. In response to the growing numbers of stateless persons, the Executive Committee of the High Commissioner’s Programme has recommended that UNHCR:
strengthen its efforts in this domain, including promoting accession to the Convention on the Reduction of Statelessness and the Convention relating to the Status of Stateless Persons, training for UNHCR staff and government officials, and a systematic gathering of information on the dimension of the problem, and to keep the Executive Committee informed of these activities.
Further, the Executive Committee has adopted a Conclusion on The Prevention of and Reduction of Statelessness and The Protection of Stateless Persons which reiterates the need for UNHCR to more actively promote the welfare of stateless persons. The United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees has also noted that UNHCR has a “special responsibility” for stateless persons and that his office: has been designated as an intermediary between States and stateless persons under the 1961 Convention on the Reduction of Statelessness. Most recently, UNHCR has been requested by its Executive Committee to place the matter of statelessness on its agenda this year. We will explore promotional and preventive activities to which UNHCR can contribute in collaboration with concerned States. There is an obvious link between the loss or denial of national protection and the loss or denial of nationality. On the plane of rights, the prevention and reduction of statelessness is an important aspect of securing minority rights.
3. The Stateless Chakmas and Hajongs in Indian State of Arunachal Pradesh
The Chakmas of Arunachal Pradesh belong to a tribal group which has for centuries inhabited the Chittagong Hill Tracts of Bangladesh. Despite the fact that most of the inhabitants of the CHT are either Buddhist or Hindu, the region became a part of Pakistan with the partition of India in 1947. Since this time, the Chakmas and other non-Muslim tribal groups of the CHT have faced extensive and well-documented oppression at the hands of the various Islamic governments. In 1964, communal violence and the construction of the Kaptai hydro-electric dam displaced nearly 100,000 Chakmas. A large number of these sought refuge in India.
Approximately 35,000 of these Chakmas were given valid migration certificates and settled in what was then the North East Frontier Agency, today the Arunachalese districts of Lohit, Changlang, and Papumpare. These migration certificates indicated legal entry into India and the willingness of the Government to accept the Chakmas as future citizens, much like migrants from Pakistan following Partition. Nearly 1,000 members of the Hajong tribe, a Hindu group from the Mymensingh district of Bangladesh, were also settled in these areas and granted migration certificates. In the more than thirty years since their resettlement, the Chakmas and Hajongs have built villages, developed the land granted to them, and established strong ties to the region. Additionally, they have become integrated into the social fabric of the state of Arunachal Pradesh. They have voted in state elections and paid state taxes on their land. Many of these Chakmas and Hajongs, who now number about 65,000 persons, were born in India and know no other home. It is against this background that their claims for Indian citizenship are to be considered.
Section 5(1)(a) of the Indian Citizenship Act of 1955 as amended by Act No. 51 of 1986 states that:
“(a) persons of Indian origin who are ordinarily resident in India and have been resident for five years immediately before making an application for registration shall be eligible to be registered as citizens of India.
Also, Sections 3(1) and 3(1)a state that:
Except as provided in sub-section (2), every person born in India, —
(a) on or after the 26th day of January, 1950, but before the commencement of the Citizenship Amendment Act, 1986; ..shall be a citizen of India by birth.
There can be no question that the Chakmas and Hajongs are of Indian origin and have been residing in Arunachal Pradesh for more than thirty years. Under the Indira-Mujib Agreement of 1972, it was determined that India and not Bangladesh would be responsible for all migrants who entered India before 25 March 1971. Furthermore, the Central Government has often asserted that the Chakmas and Hajongs have a legitimate claim to Indian citizenship. In a letter dated 23 September 1992, Minister of State for Home and Parliamentary Affairs M M Jacob stated:
Being “new migrants”, viz., refugees from Bangladesh who came to India between 1964 and 1971, they are eligible to the grant of citizenship according to the policy of the Government on the subject and most of these migrants have already been granted citizenship.
More recently, in 1994, Minister of State P M Sayeed stated:
Under the Indira-Mujib Agreement of 1972, it was decided that the Chakma/Hajong refugees who came to India from the erstwhile East Pakistan (now Bangladesh) before 25.3.71 will be considered for grant of Indian Citizenship.
Further, a very large proportion of these refugees would have been born in India and, therefore, would be automatically entitled to the grant of citizenship.
But of even greater significance is the Supreme Court ruling in National Human Rights Commission v. State of Arunachal Pradesh, a case which bears close scrutiny. The case arose in response to allegations of human rights abuses suffered by the Chakmas and Hajongs at the hands of the State Government of Arunachal Pradesh in collaboration with private entities like All Arunachal Pradesh Students Union. In September and October of 1994 the Committee for Citizenship Rights of the Chakmas of Arunachal Pradesh (CCRCAP) made numerous appeals to the National Human Rights Commission (NHRC), alleging human rights abuses and imminent threats to the lives and property of the Chakmas and Hajongs. Upon inquiry, the NHRC determined that the Arunachal State Government was acting in concert with the All Arunachal Pradesh Students Union (AAPSU) to issue “quit notices” with a view to intimidating the Chakmas and Hajongs and expelling them from the State. In view of the State Government’s dilatory statements and inadequate responses to the inquiries and directions of the NHRC, the matter was brought before the Supreme Court.
The Supreme Court in its interim order on 2 November 1995, directed the State Government to “ensure that the Chakmas and Hajongs situated in its territory are not ousted by any coercive action, not in accordance with law.”
In its final order, after concluding that there was indeed an imminent threat to the lives and property of the Chakmas and Hajongs (an issue which will be dealt with below), the Supreme Court distinguished the case at bar from that of State of Arunachal Pradesh v. Khudiram Chakma. In State of Arunachal Pradesh Vs Khudiram Chakma, the Supreme Court ruled in favor of the State Government in a dispute over land rights between the State and 57 Chakma families. The question of the Chakmas’ citizenship was a salient feature of this dispute because only citizens were permitted to purchase land in protected areas under the Foreigners Order of 1948. As Arunachal Pradesh was declared a protected area under the Government of India Act, 1935, the Chakma families’ acquisition of lands outside the Chakma Allottment Areas would be valid only if they were found to be citizens of India. Under the Assam Accord, codified at Section 6-A of the Citizenship Act, the Chakmas were found to be noncitizens as they were not ordinarily resident in Assam, but rather in Arunachal Pradesh.
In the NHRC Vs State of Arunachal Pradesh, the Supreme Court stated that the question of citizenship by registration under Section 5(1)a of the Act was based upon considerations which were “entirely different” from those operative in State of Arunachal Pradesh Vs Khudiram Chakma. While the terms of the Assam Accord limited its application to a small number of persons, Section 5(1)a was found to be a provision with general application. As the Chakmas and Hajongs clearly met the requirements of the Act, the Court affirmed their right to apply for citizenship under Section 5(1)a and ordered the State Government to take steps to facilitate their registration.
The Citizenship Rules of 1956 define the process by which an individual may become a citizen of India under Section 5(1)a of the Act. The Rules describe the form that any citizenship application must take as well as creating the office of the Collector, who is responsible for collecting and transmitting citizenship applications to the Central Government. Rule 8 reads, in its entirety: “The authority to register a person as a citizen of India under these rules shall be the Central Government.” In Shamin Bano v. Union of India, the Supreme Court indicated that questions of citizenship are the exclusive domain of the Central Government and that no other body, not even the Court itself, could constitutionally interfere with the Government’s determinations in this area. Reiterating this position and clarifying the role of the Collector in NHRC Vs State of Arunachal Pradesh, the Supreme Court stated:
On a conjoint reading of Rules 8 and 9 it becomes clear that the Collector has merely to receive the application and forward it to the Central Government. It is only the authority constituted under Rule 8 which is empowered to register a person as a citizen of India. It follows that only that authority can refuse to entertain an application made under Section 5 of the Act.
This explanation was necessary because of the dilatory and dishonest behavior of the State Government of Arunachal Pradesh. The District Collector (DC) was refusing to forward the citizenship applications of the Chakmas and Hajongs to the Central Government for a judgement. According to the State Government the DC had the power to make initial determinations as to the merits of a citizenship application. Further, these determinations had already been made: “It is submitted that the applications, if any, made in this regard have already been disposed of after necessary enquiry. There is no application pending before the DC.”
The Supreme Court noted that this position was in direct contradiction to the stance taken by the State before the NHRC in 1995. The Court then proceeded to instruct the State Government and the DC to forward the citizenship applications of the Chakmas and Hajongs as was required by the Act.
Despite this clear and unambiguous ruling of the Supreme Court, the Chakmas and Hajongs could not apply their citizenship due to fear created by the state Government of Arunachal Pradesh and the All Arunachal Pradesh Students Union. The Chakmas and Hajongs submitted their applications directly to the Central Government in February 1997. The Union Home Ministry forwarded the citizenship applications to the District Collectors for necessary verification. At the time of publishing this report, no verification was conducted by the District Collectors. The State Government continues to defy the Supreme Court, the Central Government, and the rule of law. For this reason, the Chakmas and Hajongs continue to be denied the citizenship rights and constitutional protections that they so desperately need and justly deserve. After more than 30 years of statelessness, the Chakmas and Hajongs of Arunachal Pradesh remain a people without a country.
The Committee on Petitions of the Rajya Sabha, the upper house of Indian Parliament after on the spot investigation, interviewing the victims and the State Government of Arunachal Pradesh recommended on 14 August 1997 that:
“41.The Committee feels that the spirit of the Indira-Mujib Accord as well as the Judgement of the Supreme Court in the matter may be made applicable to all the affected States for the solution of the problem. As per the Accord, all those Chakmas who came to India prior to 25.03.1971 are to be granted Indian citizenship.
The Committee, therefore, recommends that the Chakmas of Arunachal Pradesh who came there prior to 25.03.1971 be granted Indian citizenship. The Committee also recommends that those Chakmas who have been born in India should also be considered for Indian citizenship. The Committee further recommends that the fate of those Chakmas who came to the State after 25.3.1971 be discussed and decided by the Central Government and State Government jointly. The Committee also recommends that all the old applications of Chakmas for citizenship which have either been rejected or withheld by Deputy Commissioners or the State Government continue to block the forwarding of such applications to Central Government, the Central Government may consider to incorporate necessary provisions in the Rules (or the Act if so required) whereby it could directly receive, consider and decide the application for citizenship in the case of Chakmas of Arunachal Pradesh. The Commiitte also recommends that Chakmas be also considered for granting them the status of Scheduled Tribes at the time of granting the citizenship. The Committee would like to earnestly urge upon the Central Government and State Government to ensure that until amicable solution is arrived at, the Chakmas are allowed to stay in Arunachal Pradesh with full protection and safety, honour and dignity.”
4. Human Rights Abuses on the Chakmas and Hajongs of Arunachal Pradesh
The failure of the Indian Government to extend the protections of Indian citizenship to the Chakmas and Hajongs is not only a violation of Indian municipal law, but of international law as well. The Universal Declaration of Human Rights provides that “everyone has the right to a nationality.” India has acceded to two conventions which create an obligation to abide by the Declaration in this area. The International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights declares that “every child has the right to acquire a nationality” Further, the Convention on the Rights of the Child, article 7(1) reads: “The child shall be registered immediately after birth and shall have the right from birth to a name, the right to acquire a nationality, and as far as possible, the right to know and be cared for by his or her parents.” Clearly, India has not fulfilled these obligations in the cases of the thousands of Chakma and Hajong children born in Arunachal Pradesh since 1964. Many further violations of international law have resulted from this initial failure, and it is to these issues that this Report now turns.
The list of human rights abuses which follows is a direct result of the fact that the Chakmas and Hajongs of Arunachal Pradesh have been without the protection of the laws of any state for the past thirty years. The indifference of the Centre to the plight of these people and the inability of the Chakmas and Hajongs to receive redress flow directly from their stateless condition.
Additionally, the statelessness of the Chakmas and Hajongs made them more susceptible to oppression at the hands of the State Government and the local populace. Had the Chakmas and Hajongs been granted Indian citizenship nearly thirty years ago as promised, they would have been more fully integrated into the social fabric of the state of Arunachal Pradesh and, released from the obligation to remain in allotment areas, would not have been vulnerable to the blockades, state sponsored attacks, and mass evictions which are examined in detail below. It should also be noted that the statements of the NHRC and the Supreme Court which attest to the reality of these abuses have come only in the last three years. Without proper access to the court system, the Chakmas and Hajongs had to wait more than three decades to receive even the protections of article 21, the right to life. The list of abuses which follows gives a graphic illustration of how statelessness can lead to oppression, indifference, and suffering.
India has acceded to several international human rights conventions including the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR), the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights (ICESCR), and the Convention on the Rights of the Child (CRC). By so acceding, India has signalled her intention to abide by international norms regarding the health, security, education and property of all persons within her borders. By turning a blind eye to the actions of the State Government of Arunachal Pradesh, the Centre has failed to live up to its obligations to protect the Chakmas and Hajongs under international humanitarian law in almost every particular.
Discrimination:
Under article 26 of the ICCPR:
“All persons are equal before the law and are entitled without any discrimination to the equal protection of the law. In this respect, the law shall prohibit any discrimination and guarantee to all persons equal and effective protection against discrimination on any ground such as race, colour, sex, language, religion, political or other opinion, national or social origin, property, birth or other status”.
In March of 1996 the Arunachal Pradesh State Government issued a White Paper on the issue of the Chakma and Hajong migrants. On page four of the White Paper appears this statement:
“The Chakmas worship evil spirits. They also believe in and perform witchcraft.”
The paper goes on to note the Chakmas’ “propensity towards crimes and other anti-social activities.” This is the official position of the State Government regarding the Chakma people within its borders. It was approved by the Cabinet after “careful thought and deliberations.” Clearly, the Chakmas and Hajongs cannot expect equitable treatment under such a regime, nor have they received it.
In a circular dated September 1980, the Government instructed its various organs that “no appointment be given to Chakmas/Hajongs/ Yobins and Tibetan refugees . . . Those who are already in govt. services may continue, but should not be permanent.”. In October of 1991 the Government issued a circular directing its officers to discontinue the issuance of ration cards to all refugees, including the Chakmas and Hajongs. These ration cards are funded by the Central Government for distribution to all persons legally resident in India whose income is lower than a specified amount. Some Chakmas and Hajongs had been receiving ration cards since the 1960s. Obviously, the illegal suspension of their ration cards has caused significant hardship for the Chakmas and Hajongs, many of whom were already living in extreme poverty. This most egregious and harmful act of discrimination has gone unremedied for nearly six years. The Government has also stopped issuing trade licenses to the Chakmas and Hajongs and has taken steps to close down Chakma and Hajong businesses and confine them to their settlement areas. The Chakmas and Hajongs are denied the equal protection of the laws not only because they are not recognized as citizens, but also because they are largely confined to allotment areas and thus unable to seek redress through the court system.
Further, article 20(2) of the ICCPR states that “any advocacy of national, racial or religious hatred that constitutes incitement to discrimination, hostility or violence shall be prohibited by law.” In 1994 nearly 2,000 Chakmas were forced to flee the town of Kokila in the wake of a “Direct Action” rally openly supported by the Chief Minister of Arunachal Pradesh. Similar rallies have been held in the last several years, often precipitating intimidation and violence against the Chakmas and Hajongs. In 1995 the NHRC concluded that the State Government had been engaged in various forms of intimidation against the Chakmas and Hajongs, including acting in concert with the AAPSU to issue “quit notices.”
Additionally, by removing police forces from Chakma and Hajong inhabited areas, the State Government has facilitated attacks upon the Chakmas and Hajongs by the activists of the All Arunachal Pradesh Students Union. Despite this, the State Government has continually stated that it has acted in good faith in providing for the protection of the Chakmas and Hajongs. The Central Government, the NHRC, and the Supreme Court have treated this claim as the bald-faced lie that it is. In 1995, the Central Government deployed two battalions of the Central Reserve Police Force to ensure the safety of the Chakmas and Hajongs. The conclusions of the NHRC have been recounted above. Additionally, when the NHRC brought the State Government to trial, the Supreme Court held that the State had not taken adequate steps to protect the lives and liberty of the Chakmas and Hajongs.
Security of person
Numerous allegations of illegal detention, torture, and state supported violence have been levelled against the State Government of Arunachal Pradesh. In light of the Government’s prejudicial attitude and obvious dishonesty, these allegations appear quite believable. Under article 9 of the ICESCR, India has declared that “everyone has the right to liberty and security of person. No one shall be subjected to arbitrary arrest or detention. No one shall be deprived of his liberty except on such grounds and in accordance with such procedure as are established by law.”
Further, “anyone who is arrested shall be informed, at the time of arrest, of the reasons for his arrest and shall be promptly informed of any charges against him.” And under article seven of the ICCPR, “No one shall be subjected to torture or to cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment.”
On 28 January 1996, Phularam Chakma was beaten to death at the Medo Bazaar in Lohit, allegedly by members of the All Arunachal Pradesh Students Union and the Arunachal Police. Regardless of the exact identity of the culprits, no investigation of this crime was ever undertaken by the state authorities.
On 7 April 1996, according to the CCRCAP, several Chakma goanburas (village elders) were kidnapped by Arunachal Police for the ostensible purpose of dialogue. This “dialogue” was rather one-sided, consisting of rough treatment and threats not to apply for citizenship in the wake of the Supreme Court’s ruling.
In November 1996, Chakma and Hajong representatives met with members of the Rajya Sabha Committee on Petitions in Calcutta. Upon returning from Calcutta, the Chakma and Hajong representatives were arrested at Mudhoimukh, Diyun by the Arunachal Police, according to the CCRCAP. No warrant for their arrest was ever issued, and they were given no reason for their detention. They were questioned about their meeting with Rajya Sabha officials and physically abused. Allegedly, the Chakma and Hajong leaders were beaten intermittently for nearly five hours and relieved of all their money and official documents. They have signed an affidavit to this effect.
Health
Article 12 of the ICESCR reads, in relevant part:
1. The States Parties to the present Covenant recognize the right of everyone to the enjoyment of the highest attainable standards of physical and mental health.
2. The steps to be taken by the States Parties to the present Covenant to achieve the full realization of this right shall include those necessary for: . . . . (c) The prevention, treatment and control of epidemic . . . diseases. (d) The creation of conditions which would assure to all medical service and medical attention in the event of sickness.
In 1994 a malaria epidemic swept through the Chakma camps at Dharmapur and Vijoypur. During this time, the AAPSU effected an economic blockade of the Chakma refugee camps, preventing the delivery of medical supplies and rations. The epidemic claimed the lives of 144 people.
Though the State Government denied that the blockade ever existed, an inquiry by the NHRC provided copious evidence of the AAPSU’s culpability in this matter as well as the State Government’s complicity. The Supreme Court has stated, “The fact that the Chakmas were dying on account of the blockade for want of medicines is an established fact.” A list of those who died as a result of the blockade is available with SAHRDC.
Education
Upon ratification of the ICESCR, India asserted that it recognized the right of everyone to education. Further, it bound itself to the proposition that “with a view to achieving the full realization of this right:
a. Primary education shall be compulsory and available free to all; b. Secondary education in its different forms, . . . shall be made generally available and accessible to all by every appropriate means, and in particular by the progressive introduction of free education: … e. The development of a system of schools at all levels shall be actively pursued . . . .
Under article 28 of the Convention on the Rights of the Child:
States Parties recognize the right of the child to education, and with a view to achieving this right progressively and on the basis of equal opportunity, they shall, in particular:
a. make primary education compulsory and available free to all.
India has not only failed to ensure that the State Government of Arunachal Pradesh take positive measures to fulfill these requirements, but has sat idle while the State Government has systematically eliminated all educational opportunities available to the Chakmas and Hajongs. In September 1994 the Government began a campaign of school closings, burnings, and relocations which has effectively denied the Chakmas and Hajongs their right to education under international law.
In Arunachal’s Lohit district, primary schools have been closed and Chakma students are denied access to all of the area’s secondary schools. At Chakma Basti, a school serving more than 350 students was abruptly closed and its teachers transferred to other districts in September 1994. Also during this month, the Chakma students studying at the Chowkham Government Higher Secondary School and the Namasai Government Higher Secondary School were arbitrarily expelled from these institutions. The Chakmas of this area now lack all access to educational facilities.
In the district of Changlang (formerly known as Tirap), more violent means were employed in order to deprive the Chakmas and Hajongs of their right to education. The Diyun Secondary School, a school constructed by the Chakmas themselves on a self-help basis, was burned to the ground in November 1994. This was the only school serving a student population of more than 1,200. Naturally, there has been no governmental effort to rebuild the school or hire more teachers. Currently, there is a single teacher who is working amid the ashes in one of the less damaged rooms.
In Miao, the only secondary school available to the Chakmas is the Miao Higher Secondary School. On 29 September 1994, the 80 Chakma students attending the school were forcibly assembled and physically abused, according to the CCRCAP. A Class XI student named Bhaskar Chakma subsequently died from the beatings which he received at the hands of the school officials. The next day, a primary school, the Chakma Boys Hostel, was burned to the ground.
It should further be noted that the Chakma students were compelled to travel to Miao because there is no secondary school in the Chakma area, despite the fact that the Chakma population is nearly 40,000 persons. A nearby Deori village of 400 persons is served by a fully equipped secondary school.
Also in the Changlang district was the Bijoypur Middle School. Like the school at Diyun, the Bijoypur school was constructed by the Chakmas through contributions of money and labor by the local community. Nonetheless, this school was closed and locked up by the State authorities, and more than 600 Chakma students are now denied access to the very buildings which their parents constructed.
In Papumpare, the local Chakmas are denied access to the Government Middle School at Kokila and the Higher Secondary School at Balizan. No Chakma student has been admitted to either of these institutions in the past six years, and there are no other schools available.
Additionally, many Chakma villages of substantial size lack primary schools. In the Changlang district, for example, Udaipur (500 families), Bijoypur-II (180 families), and Bijoypur-III (240 families) are all without primary schools.
In its crusade against the Chakmas and Hajongs the State Government has gone so far as to defy the Central Government. Under the Pre-Primary Education and Maturity Development Scheme, the Centre provides funding for pre-primary schools called Anganwadi Centres. In an action reminiscent of its handling of the Chakma ration cards, the State Government has closed down all 35 of these Centres in the Chakma areas of Arunachal Pradesh. Seventy teachers are now unemployed and 1,400 children are denied even pre-primary education. It is unclear what has become of the funds provided by the Centre for the operation of these schools.
Property
Article 17 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights declares that “[n]o one shall be arbitrarily deprived of his property.” Article 11 of the ICESCR elaborates upon the Declaration by providing that “[t]he States Parties to the present Covenant recognize the right of everyone to an adequate standard of living for himself and his family, including adequate food, clothing and housing, and to the continuous improvement of living conditions.”
According to the Peoples’ Rights Organization, the Chakmas have been suffering forcible eviction and arson since the early 1970s. Reports of Chakma houses burned or demolished at the behest of the State Government have also appeared in the press and in the reports of other non-governmental organizations. One village in the district of Changlang, Vijoypur, has reportedly been reduced to rubble on three occasions, in 1989, 1994, and 1995. A list of victims of the 1994 demolitions and the estimated value of their lost property is available with SAHRDC.
But the best documented and most flagrant violation of Indian and international law occurred in January 1997. On 8 January 1997, the Arunachal Pradesh Forest Corporation Ltd. issued eviction notices to more than 150 Chakma families living in Mpen, a village in Changlang. These notices, back-dated to 31 December 1996, ordered the Chakmas to abandon their houses by 15 January 1997 at which time the State Government would demolish their houses and sell their properties at a public auction. These notices were issued on the basis of “illegal acts” alleged to have been committed by the Chakmas as well as an October 1995 report of the Mpen Range Manager. Even if this report exists (it has never been made public), neither it nor the commission of “illegal acts” provide a legal basis for the demolition of the Chakmas’ NHRC issued directive No. 2/12/96 LD on January 15. This directive reminded the State Government that under the Supreme Court ruling in NHRC Vs State of Arunachal Pradesh, “except in accordance with law, the Chakmas shall not be evicted from their homes and shall not be denied domestic life and comfort therein.”
In defiance of both the Supreme Court and the NHRC, on 16 and 17 January 1997, the Forest Corporation destroyed sixteen Chakma houses under the supervision of the Range Manager and the Miao Police Chief. The properties contained in these sixteen houses were sold at public auction at Miao on 21 January 1997. When three Chakma families attempted to rebuild their houses, the Forest Corporation again evicted them and demolished the structures on 21 January. On 2 February 1997, the Forest Corporation planted trees in the area formerly occupied by the Chakma houses and farms. The Chakma families thus evicted had been living on this land since the 1960s.
5. Conclusion
The State Government of Arunachal Pradesh has lied to the Central Government, to the National Human Rights Commission, and before the Supreme Court. It has defied the orders of all three of these bodies, orders it was constitutionally bound to follow. It is also a Government which displays clear ethnic and religious biases against the Chakmas and Hajongs. It is to this Government that the Centre, the NHRC, and the Supreme Court have abandoned the Chakmas and Hajongs of Arunachal Pradesh. As the Chakmas and Hajongs are not citizens of any country, such abandonment has been politically costless. Lacking the protection of any country’s law, the ability to participate in political processes, and the other rights and privileges conferred by citizenship, stateless peoples throughout Asia are vulnerable to the same types of abuses as those suffered by the Chakmas and Hajong of Arunachal Pradesh.