Chakmas – A brief History

The origin and history of the Chakmas varies on different views of different scholars. Due to the
lack of written literature on the history of the Chakmas, it is very difficult to trace the beginning
of the Chakmas. Therefore, the origin of the Chakmas is veiled in legends. But one popular view
among the Chakmas is that they came from a place called Champaknagar in the Kingdom of
Anga and descendants of one of the Princes of the kingdom – Bijoygiri. The Chakmas believe
that they belong to the ancient Sakya clan, in which the Great Buddha was born. However, the
modern Chakmas are the original inhabitants of the Chittagong Hill Tracts (CHT), who are
perhaps the least known people of Asia being the residents of a remote and backward area which
is of little political or economic consequence. This place has been the homeland of the Chakmas
particularly for centuries. It is argued that they had probably settled in the CHT at least as early
as the sixteenth century. However, it is learnt that from 1052 A.D onwards the Chakmas started
moving from Arakan into the bordering area of Bengal right down the plain areas of Chittagong
and made it their home (Talukdar, 1994). It is in this stratum, there is evidence of mentioning a
place known as “Chacomas” is found in central CHT, probably referring to the land inhabited by
the Chakmas in the 1550s, where a Burmese king claims himself to be the highest and most
powerful king of Arakan, Tippera (Tripura), of Chacomas and of Bengala.
The Chakmas are one of the important tribes in the Indian subcontinent residing mostly in the
CHT (Bangladesh) and in the North-Eastern Indian States like Tripura (North and South),
Arunachal Pradesh (Tirap, Changlang, Subansuri and Lohit districts), Assam (Langsilet area of
Karbi-Anglong and North Cachar Hills districts), Mizoram (Western Belts) and also in West
Bengal, where a few Chakma families are found. A commendable number is also found in the
Chin Province and Arakan Province of Myanmar. Chakmas are known differently to different
people. For example,Thek, Tsek, Chek or Kyoorcha by the Burmese; Tuithek (pronounced
Tuichek) by the Kukis; Takam (pronounced Chakam) by the modern Mizos. Capt. T.H. Lewin in
his book “The Hill Tracts of Chittagong and the Dwellers Therein” called them Chukma (Hoque,
2013). Today, even though the word “Chakma” has been framed as the name of the tribe, but
they never called them as Chakma, instead they call themselves as “Changma”. Similar to other
indigenous peoples of the world, the Chakma people were also independent on their own before
the British colonial period. They had powerful kings who had ruled the Chakma Kingdom for
several centuries. It is believed that the Chakma Kingdom was founded in Chittagong in around
1550s. It was only in the year 1860 that the British annexed their kingdom and separated it into
the two districts- Chittagong and the Chittagong Hill Tracts (CHT). Chittagong became a part of
the Bengal Province and was rapidly settled by Bengali people, where the British made CHT an
autonomous administrative district within the undivided British Bengal. In the CHT, the hill
tribes benefited from British Administration as they were considered as “British tributaries” and
not subjects and retained authority in their internal affairs as the British role was mainly limited
only to collection of annual tax in cotton or in cash. Subsequently they received protection under
the Chittagong Hill Tracts Manual Regulation of 1900 (the CHT Manual). Throughout the
British colonial period the 1900 Act functioned as a safeguard for the Jumma people, prohibited
land ownership and migrations of non-indigenous peoples in the CHT. Subsequently, provision
of the special status of the Chittagong Hill Tracts was further underlined with the Government of
India Act 1935 to designate the district as a “Totally Excluded Area” for the safeguards of
indigenous inhabitants and to restrict permanent settlement and acquisition of land by the
outsiders (Sahni, 2009).
Inception of Problem in Chittagong Hill Tract
The inauspicious British era came to an end with the tragic partition of the Indian sub-continent
but this was even more catastrophic for the ill-fated Chakmas. In 1947 when the country was to
be partitioned it was expected that the Chittagong Hill Tract with over 98% non-Muslim
population would be included in India, contemplating this, an Indian flag was hoisted by the
optimist Chakmas in Rangamati district for three days from 15th August 1947. But brushing
aside all the expectations Sir Cyril Radcliffe, chairman of the Punjab and Bengal Boundary
Commission, awarded the CHT to Pakistan on 17th August 1947 in contravention of the Indian
Independence Act 1947 for political ends (Prasad, 2006). The reason for this decision was
purportedly to provide a hinterland to the port at Chittagong including the Karnaphuli River,
which was of vital commercial and strategic interest to this port. Some people say that, this was
actually done to make up for denying the award of some Sikh-compact areas to Pakistan. The
Hill people of the CHT could not accept this (Chaudhury, 2003).
The leadership of the Hill Tracts also wanted to join the Indian Union. The three tribal chiefs
demanded recognition as a “native state” from the British, the Congress, and the Muslim League.
Failing to obtain this, they proposed a confederation with Tripura, Kuchbihar, and Khasia states
that would be administered under central authority. But these attempts were not fruitful and in
August 1947 the Chittagong Hill Tracts became a part of Pakistan against the will of the local
people. (Syed and Chakma,1989).
The intensity of the problem has begun to increase with new industrialization and economic
policies for ‘resource appropriation’ for the benefit of the national economy with little or no
participation by the local tribal men (Zaman,1982). Since then, 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.
The first constitution of Pakistan in 1956 gave recognition to the special status of the CHT. This
was further strengthen in 1962 when CHT was recognized as a “Tribal Area” and provided with
relevant constitutional guarantees. But, in a dramatic turn from the previous status, in 1964, the
government revoked the special status of the CHT and henceforth the region ceased to be
provided with any specific legal or constitutional safeguards. At the same time, the Pakistan
government announced its intention to open up the area for economic development and
encouraged poor Bengali families to settle there (Amnesty International February, 2000).
Therefore, it becomes open to settlement by people from outside the area. This enabled non-
indigenous people to enter and acquire land in the CHT.
It was the Chakma elite who about a century ago brought Bengali cultivators as sharecroppers
into the Hill Tracts to plough and grow paddy on the flat lands. Thereafter, plough cultivation
was taken up by the Chakmas themselves, and also by Moghs, Tipperas, and Tontsongyas. Most
of the Bengali features of plough cultivation have been taken over by the Hillman, and the same
cropping cycle is followed as in the Chittagong plain. By the mid 1950's, out of 115,000 persons
living around the future reservoir area (that is, out of slightly less than half of the total district
population), 50,000 were classed as belonging to families supported primarily by plough
cultivation; of the 80,000 persons in the reservoir area, 5 per cent were in plough-cultivating
families. (Shopher, 1963). Together with the spread of plough cultivation among the Hillman,
there has been an increasing influx of Bengali plainsmen into the Hill Tracts. At first they were
merely sharecroppers, but many were subsequently permitted by the district authorities to
acquire their own land. Since partition this has become increasingly common. The plainsmen in
the Hill Tracts also operate the bazaars that are found along the waterways throughout the
district. The valley’s Hillman, particularly those in the plough-cultivating villages, have become
greatly dependent on the bazaars not only for staples but for minor conveniences and occasional
trifles as well. Pots, cloth, and metal ware, including their chief implement, the dao, or knife, are
among their most important purchases.
The origin of the problems in the Chittagong Hill Tracts is believed to be the completion of a
dam at Kaptai near Rangamati between 1957 and 1963 when the area was administered by
Pakistan. Compensation for lost land was inadequate. Cultivable land was unevenly distributed
in the blocks, and a number of people were obviously short of their quota. With not nearly
enough land ready for plowing, the Chakmas were naturally worried about having to feed so
many simply by jhum cultivation on the flat land. There was apprehension, justified as it turned
out, that land within the Rehabilitation Area would be submerged when the reservoir filled. The
official abhorrence of jhum resulted in whimsical restrictions on the clearing of slope land
allotted to the hillmen as their own. One official decreed that forested hills were not to be used
for jhum because the government intended them for fruit culture; how this was to be done
without clearing was not explained (......,1978).
Although the Karnafuli dam project was conceived as a multipurpose scheme as early as 1906
with the possibilities of having hydel power generation, the project received priority for
developmental schemes only after partition in 1947. Due to various political reasons the newly
established East Pakistan Government had to shift the original location of the project further
downstream to low elevations and taken up to the village of Kaptaimukh where the Karnafuli
was 220 yards wide, 10 feet above sea level and meandered widely. An earth dam 100 yards long
by 136 feet wide encompassed an area of 254 sq. miles (Hutchinson, 1978). As such the project
not only generated hydro-electric power but also tensions and discontentment among the local
inhabitants. Change in the original location of the dam resulted in a major population
displacement of both native tribes and settlers. Among these tribes who were already engaged in
settled (plough) cultivation, the Chakma alone constituted 25 per cent. Moreover, they were not
looked after by the government and without significant compensation particularly to them who
were jhum cultivators. The problem was further aggravated as the native Chakmas being
Buddhists, and the authorities/settlers, Muslims. Thus, there were tensions and disaffection
among the various tribes of the region against the government. (Kharat, 2003).
In 1964, communal violence and the construction of the Kaptai hydroelectric dam displaced
nearly 100,000 Chakmas. A large number of them sought as refugees in India (Prasad, 2006). As
for the Chakmas, riot started from the days of the late Sheikh Mujibur Rahman who in his ill
advice attempted to impose ‘Bengali’ nationalism on them and urged to forget ethnic identity and
merge with the Bengalis. His successor, Ziaur Rahman, followed this up by settling Bengalis
from the plains to the hill tract, thus creating further distrust and fear among the Chakma, who
apprehended that they would be swamped by the outsider and reduce to minority in their own
homeland (Letter to Editor, 1992). As a response to this large scale ruthless oppression, the tribal
people organised a political platform of their own, called as ‘Parbottya Chattagram Jana Sanghati
Samity (PCJSS)’, headed by Manobendra Larma, then Member of the Parliament from the CHT
and his younger brother Santu Larma, a school teacher.
Faced with the threat of losing their identities and traditional tribal rights, tribes began to respond
to government's policies of 'detribalisation' through increased armed resistance. The PCJSS soon
launched its armed wing called Gana Mukti Fouj (People's Liberation Army), popularly known
as the 'Shanti Bahini'. The Shanti Bahini is dominated by members of the Chakma community
who were the worst sufferers by the construction of the dam. The response of the Pakistani
government to this resistance was increasingly repressive and the tendency seemed most often to
be, to see the resistance as a 'communist-inspired' guerrilla activity spilling over the border from
neighbouring hostile Indian and Burmese territories (Zaman,1982).
Flight or displacement is a time-tested coping strategy for escaping the effects of conflict. When
people do not feel safe in their communities and when other coping strategies (such as hiding or
negotiating with warring groups) do not work, they flee, (Ferris and Winthrop, 2010). It is true
that each individual needs a comfortable life and security and these desires of human being tend
to move them in another place. Chakmas could not live a regular life in their traditional way due
to the construction of Kaptai dam, which submerged their villages and cultivable land, and
subsequently failure of East Pakistan to pay compensation. It was further aggravated by the
insecurity of life due to growing incidents of communal riots between the new non-tribe settlers,
who were in majority and the indigenous Chakma tribe. These are two main reasons, which led
to migration of Chakmas into India.
Chakmas in India
The Chakma population constitute a commendable population in East and North-Eastern Indian
states like Tripura (Northern and Southern part), Assam (Langsilet area of Karbi –Aglong and
north Chachar Hill district), Mizoram (western belt bordering Tripura and Chttagong Hills of
Bangladesh), Meghalaya, Arunachal Pradesh (Changlang, Lohit and Papum pare districts) and
also in West Bengal where a few Chakma families are found (Nandy, 2012).
However, except for Arunachal Pradesh, in rest of the Indian states Chakmas have got
citizenship rights. Presence of Chakmas in North Eastern States like Tripura, Mizoram can be
found during the post independent period also. The Chakma refugees of Arunachal Pradesh hail
from Chittagong Hill Tract erstwhile East Pakistan, now Bangladesh. These refugees came to
India during 1964-1969 partly to escape the religious persecution of repressive Government of
erstwhile East Pakistan and partly due to the forced displacement as result of the construction of
Kaptai Dam in that country. They were and are the responsibility of erstwhile East Pakistan, now
Bangladesh. (Govt. of Arunachal Pradesh, (1996). When they reached India in 1964, Shri.
Mahavir Tyagi, the then union relief and rehabilitation minister, tried to settle them in Bihar by
offering cash doles. But the majority of the Chakmas refused to move to Bihar on the plea that
the climate of that state would not suit them.
At that critical juncture, the government of India contemplated a plan of settling these refugees in
North East Frontier Agency (NEFA) presently Arunachal Pradesh. Thereafter, the history of
settlement of Chakma refugees in NEFA began.
SETTLEMENT PROCESS IN INDIA
The Chakmas are amongst the first victims of development-induced displacement in modern
South Asia. Due to the religious persecution and the malevolence led by the construction of
Kaptai Dam by the East Pakistan, they have no choice left behind them but to flee from their
native homeland to a new place of unknown. Some estimates say that around a hundred thousand
of Chakmas who were the victims of these worse consequences fled into India in the 1960’s. The
Indian government had nothing to do but to accept them as refugees on humanitarian grounds, as
the government was well aware that they were betrayed during the partition of India too. A large
number of these displaced Chakmas were then settled in Arunachal Pradesh (the then NEFA)
after due consultation with the local leaders. The Government of India relocated them in the
districts of Lohit, Changlang, and Papumpare under a “Definite Plan of Rehabilitation” with five
acres of land per family. For proper establishment of their shattered life the Government of India
extended all possible kind of helps including financial aids, employment, trade, license,
migration certificates etc.
Finally, it was under the Indira-Mujib Agreement of 1972, which determined that it would be the
responsibility of India and not Bangladesh for all migrants who entered India before 25 March
1971. Hence, in the agreement it was decided that the refugees who came to India from the
erstwhile East Pakistan (now Bangladesh) before 25 March 1971 will be considered for grant of
Indian Citizenship (SAHRDC, 1997). The total population of the Chakmas in Arunachal Pradesh
stood at 65,000 according to the 2001 census (Dutta, 2002).
The Chakmas of Arunachal Pradesh and the Basis of Their Immigration into India
The Chakmas of Arunachal Pradesh originally belonged to the total Chakma population of the
Chittagong Hill Tracts (CHT) of present Bangladesh. They migrated to India because of (i) their
displacement from their original homesteads in the aftermath of construction of the Kaptai
hydroelectric dam on the Karnafulli River in the early 1960s, (ii) inadequate response from the
Pakistani State in respect of their rehabilitation and compensation (Kabir 1998: 16, Shelley 1992:
31, Islam 1978: 31-32) and (iii) treatment as ‘rejected people’ within the laws of the Pakistani
State (Mohsin 1997: 33-77).
These Chakmas migrated to India because (i) as Nilaratan Chakma1 argued, unlike Pakistan,
India was a secular and democratic country with multi-cultural diversity, (ii) presence of their
ethno cultural proximity with many ethnic groups of the Northeastern India and (iii) presence of
sizable number of Chakma population in many of the Indian states such as Tripura, Mizo hill
district, Assam and West Bengal. According to Nilaratan Chakma, the intention of their
1
Interview with Nilaratan Chakma of Dumpader of Arunachal Pradesh on 18/10/2010
migration was preeminent and it was aimed at living in India permanently as Indian citizens and
they had never thought of going back to the CHT as they lost everything there.
What was the basis of their settlement in NEFA? Several explanations are available about the
basis of the Chakma settlement in NEFA. One of such explanations states that the Chakma
settlement in NEFA was done on the basis of a casual decision of the then Governor of Assam,
Vishnu Sahay, who in a letter on 10 April 1964 to Sri B. P. Chaliha, the then Chief Minister of
Assam opined:
”It occurs to me that we may trouble between the Mizos and the Chakmas in the Mizo district.
The Chakmas would be quite suitable to go into Tirap division of NEFA, where there is easily
found vacant land in the area about which you and I have often spoken (Mukherji 2000: 87).”
Once, the present Mizoram state was under the administrative jurisdiction of the Governor of
Assam. Therefore, looking at the factor of given historical enmity and estranged relations
between the Mizos and the Chakmas, Governor Sahay did not want to see trouble to occur in the
Mizo hills. However, according to Ajay Sen Chakma2, the Chakma settlement in NEFA was
sought for other reasons. In the first place, the Chakma settlement areas were non-populated
remaining almost as no-man’s lands. Secondly, the agencies of the Government of India
considered the existence of religion and cultural proximity between the Chakmas and other
ethnic groups like Singphos and Khamtis, who live in closer adjacent to the Chakma settlement
areas. Finally, it was also partially motivated by the Indian government to guard the Indian
territory from illegal encroachment by the Chinese armed forces in the Eastern Sector. Whatever
might have been the motive behind Chakma settlement in NEFA, it was true that the issue of
their settlement was done and monitored officially by the Government of India. They were
jubilant and saw their dream was coming true, as Mr. Chakma argued, when they were given
settlement in NEFA with valid migration certificates. These helped many of them to get
government jobs and obtain ration cards, which further assisted them to avail the rationing
facility under the Public Distribution System. Each family was also allotted with 5 acres of land
(Mukherji 2000: 87-88). The Chakma children got educational access to the schools located
there. They could avail health care facilities without any discrimination. The state government
issued trade licenses to those who were encouraged to do business. There was good
neighborliness between the local tribes and the Chakmas. Therefore, the Chakmas thought that
they had become citizens of India like other East Pakistani immigrants who migrated to India
during that period in other parts of India.
Chakma Settlement in Arunachal Pradesh: An Issue of Centre-State Conflict and Human Rights
Violation against the Chakmas
The euphoria and their jubilation were short lived. The local tribes such as Khamtis and
Singphos, the immediate neighbors to the Chakma localities share a different acrimonious story.
It argues that initially the local tribe did not show strong protest, but they expressed their
resentment against settlement of these refugees in their locality (ibid). Therefore, ethnic tension
between the Chakmas and the local tribes cropped up openly in the later years. The problem

2
Interview with Ajay Sen Chakma on 15/09/2010 in New Delhi.
became a hot debated issue in the politics of Arunachal Pradesh in 1980s and emerged an issue
of Centre-State conflict in the Northeast India. The Arunachal Pradesh Legislative Assembly in a
private member’s resolution on 23 September 1980 urged the state government to take some
effective steps regarding expulsion of the Chakma refugees from Arunachal Pradesh.3
The situation warranted the Government of India to send a central delegation in 1982 to study the
situation of the Chakmas of Arunachal Pradesh. The team in its facts finding report
recommended for grant of Indian citizenship to the Chakmas and commented that such a move
could provide a „responsible social behavior’ to these refugees.5 The favourable attitude of the
Central Government towards the cause of suffering of the Chakmas invited strong protest in
Arunachal Pradesh. In protest, the Arunachal government took various discriminatory measures
that included immediate withdrawal of scholarship, book grants and denial hostel facilities and
admission access to the Chakma students in schools located outside the Chakma inhabited areas.
The Government also stopped completely providing employment facility and did not make
permanent to those were already employed before creation of Arunachal Pradesh. It did not issue
permit or license for trade and commerce, and cancelled up those trade licenses issued to them
earlier.6
Having seen the failure of the state government to attain its objective even with the help of such
discriminatory measures, in the beginning of 1990s, All Arunachal Pradesh Students‟ Union
(AAPSU) spearheaded a strong anti Chakma movement mounting more pressure on the state
government to take drastic action against the Chakmas. The Arunachal Pradesh Legislative
Assembly passed resolutions in December 1992 and September 1994 demanding immediate
deportation of the Chakmas from Arunachal Pradesh. On the contrary, the Government of India
ruled out the possibility of their deportation from Arunachal Pradesh reiterating that the
Chakmas of Arunachal Pradesh were eligible for grant of citizenship under Section V of the
Indian Citizenship Act of 1955 (Mukherji 2000: 93).
The most significant milestone in the history of citizenship right movement of the Chakmas of
Arunachal was the judgment of the Supreme Court of India on 9th January 1996 that called upon
the Union Government of India to expedite the process of conferring Indian citizenship right to

3
Chief Secretary, Arunachal Pradesh, to M. Kumar, Deputy Secretary, Home Affairs, Government
of India, no. 236/72, 9 December 1976, White Paper, Annexure VIII, p. 56.
these Chakmas and instructed both the Union and the state governments to protect and secure the
lives and properties of the Chakmas of Arunachal Pradesh.
From the beginning of 2000, the Election Commission of India expanded its constitutional role
in the Chakma localities of Arunachal Pradesh. It instructed the state electorate officials to revise
the voter list with inclusion of eligible Chakmas, as a result of which, 1497 Chakmas could
exercise their right to vote for the first time in the Assembly Election of 2004 (Singh 2010:
xv)..During the Assembly Election of 2009, 14000 applications were submitted to the State
Electorate Department, and out of which 1740 Chakmas were included in the revised state
electoral list.7 The AAPSU opposed the decision and demanded immediate resignation of the
Chief Electoral Officer (CEO), MK Parida. It called for boycotting election process and
threatened to close down Central Government establishments in the state.8
The institutional access at the time of their migration and constitutional role played by some
constitutional bodies such the Election Commission of India and the Supreme Court of India
created some hope for better political life but continuous opposition of the government of
Arunachal Pradesh and AAPSU against their permanent settlement right within Arunachal
Pradesh in total violation of the constitutional role of the Election Commission of India and the
judgment of the Supreme Court created agony for them.

Dilemma in Human Rights based on cultural relativity in AP

In an important turn over the literature review while exploring knowledge about this tribe, is as
much as simple as turning for
field survey and as complicated as visiting historical facts and pages. Similarly, a cleavage of
colonial legacy and its contradiction
with the cultural relativity has left a wide trajectory of unruly question marks into subsistence of
life of the Chakmas lacking
behind a setting around political arrangement. Further, in psychoanalysis, history has been
stopped at a certain point because
Chakmas were then under foreign ruler and are still foreigner or alien in its own motherland or
say still trapped between nationstate
building and made the burden of history. Whereas the common understanding is that it’s
repeating itself only; then they were
under colonial ruler and now under their policies under the patronage of the state. Surprisingly,
by chance of timing no one could
be directly held responsible for their deteriorating conditions of life but making the colonial
master alive by sustaining such laws
and regulations; the Chakmas will continue to live status-quo so far till master alive. Whereas, in
another perspective, the
inclusion of the Chakmas in AP was nothing less than imposition of Human Rights over the
tribal Rights on the other hand
because they are more compromised and pressurized by the international community and alleged
that the Chakmas are exploring
more ways and sources from humanitarian organization like Amnesty International, Red Cross
Society, Asian Centre for Human
rights, NHRC etc. Both Tribals and Chakmas are helpless in human rights and thereby needed to
compromise because if the
former are innocent then the later are no less than victims. Therefore, a sharp distinction of
understand is to be postulated here to
go beyond the existing syllabus of human rights education to understand more comprehensively
the social cleavage between the
cultural relativity and homogeneity and the degree of accepting of it. Nevertheless, there is not a
kind of doubt or dilemma that
the human rights till its fifth generations are political in nature and bear cultural relativity having
a broad economic base and in
the case of the Chakmas it could be speculated that someday their question for social upliftment
and political emancipation may
not be recovered, get equilibrium or could be compensated by the policy of reservation, as
demanded by every ethnic community
in the northeast. However, the way the volatile political situations making sense and
subsequently the recent instability in
government says that the issue will go green as a major electoral exercising platform from
Chakmas as well as indigenous tribal
because the Election Commission of India (ECI) knows well that the fair 4685 Chakma-
Hajongs7 voters in four Assembly Constituencies by January 2018 (ceoarunachalpradesh.nic.in)
which may bring twist in the story and history. This power is not
earned overnight that demands responsibility to make fate and history8 . Therefore, coming over
to a number of opinions shared
by the young informants, a common parlance found is saying “All what I’m not a Refugee by the
right given by Section 5 of Birth
and Death registration Act (from three to two generation at least) , order 1996 of Supreme Court,
by having voter cards (not
assembly election and Panchayat election as subjects under state list so far)”. There is seen a
deep sentiment to a genuine feeling
of attachment towards this land along with consciousness towards empowerment and
emancipation from the term ‘refugee’,
which aggressively in a psychological sense alienate their essence of being equal human and
more toward at its best acceptance,
equity and suitability.
The chakmas everywhere other than AP are not so called refugee but yet it is observed that there
is a space which makes
them even in other state not liberated from the narrow meaning (non-indigenous or not the son of
the soil) of the concept of
‘refugee’, and felt exploited with this term if not etymologically and somewhere this space is
occupied by the tag of being
refugee in AP supported by the reason that it is the last resort the same family resettled or left out
in separate states in the
Northeast since Diaspora Scattered and they are provided with a constitutional category of Hilly
Schedule Tribe and duly
recognized autonomy. For instance, Chakma Autonomous District Council in Mizoram (CADC).
Nevertheless, whatever be the
reason behind and days in future the chakmas in India in general and Arunachal Pradesh in
Particular will be historically a good
example of peaceful tribe and then refugee . The Chakmas of AP has really been positively a
hardcore contribution to the study
of Human Rights studies and deepen study of non-violence and Peace studies. It is the time for
the state to resolve the same
peacefully and at the earliest make it not complicated and pro-sensitive within a bracket
understanding and blanket policy. Over
the time, it is continuously very much detrimental to the cost of life giving acute effect to the
cause of worst of life to the chakmas
in AP. It is already a lapse a three more generations of time , where there are over less than 5000
of the 14,888 original migrants
of chakmas that are alive now in AP and the harsh and bitter plight of the situation is not only to
entertain those of equal political
rights and economic rights or bunch of pitiful Human rights ( because it’s an open fact that rights
cannot be eaten) but about the
space for non-traditional security like poverty, inequality in (re)distribution, illiteracy,
unemployment, agrarian livelihood etc.
which are basics for all the above. If all the former rights are attained one day but there is
absence of the later then it may automatically bring them to social exclusion. unless we adopt the
fact that the there are always possibility of some alternative to
it, then we can say that there is also a need for a space to develop ‘social acceptability’ with the
people in vicinity, so that a
culture of amalgamation (not interference) and open society based on rationalism upheld along
with human rights and the state is
duty bound to establish that even though they are late migrants or so called refugee in the state
and in fact, resettled there for more
than half a century under their knowledge of the state. Somewhat, the whole machinery of the
state is responsible for dividing
their heart and then home (Indian Government not keeping the promises made to the chakma
political leaders to assimilate
Chakmas in India during partition), making refugee and then a persuasive mechanism to resettle
them. Therefore, state as a
supreme political entity is more detaching these people to the kind of development that we call
and or desire to, far from what
eminent economist Prof. Amartya Sen propagated for human development. Since days before
partition to till date the state is
failed reconcile between its various set of policies regarding refugees problems and therefore
need to build a uniform refugee law
in true sense of the terms with international norms led by Refugee Conventions 1951 and others.
Whereas there seems no logic to
maintain status-quo to the chakmas in AP for another half a century and since it is the problem of
demographic security now then
it is very obvious for the policy makers that the chakmas, with a mere 3.9% of total state
population (13,83727) is not avoidable
nor desirable to be repatriated or deport those 54,203 Population of chakmas ( Census by
CCRCHAP in March 2012 but
strategically its total population of 65,000 as reported to have said by General Secretary).
Precisely saying there is not a
question of Voluntary return since after they fulfilled the definition of Refugee in 1960s as
provided by Refugee Convention 1951
but until it gets amicable solutions there may be end number of questions seeking for a organic
state. To make it a little
generalized, it is migration which is very natural and in fact India has been the place of highest
refugee in the entire South Asia.
The chakmas, Within a very structured framework of life carried out by the state not only felt
them simply ‘stateless’ but
also may create and develop a sense of being ‘orphan-abandoned child’ in them in the near
future. and this simply not because it
animates humanity or alive the feelings of being not non-social animal but because its basic
reliability co-exist after
acknowledging the very essence of existence of human rationality and this makes us easiest way
to know that the chakmas are
having mere human rights with a mere protection by Article 21, Right to life and liberty of the
constitution only after Gauhati
High court judgment and Supreme Court judgment 1996. As such a long term historical
movement for the ‘rights against the
rights’ has actually driven and fomented various minds for a common legal battle in being
legally more conscious and informed,
which not only has been perceived as burdened over the limited resources of the state but
actually a Burden of History and the
fact is that we are witnessing a major problem over human rights arrangement, although it is also
a product of west. a become
essentially an inextricable part of their life and struggle and still continuing with pro-sensitive
facets of changes.
While examining the unrest perceptions and volatile conceptions among various mindsets in two
different people i,e
chakma and indigenous tribal living adjacent are Singphos, Khampti, Naga, Nocte, Mishings,
Mishmi etc then it is very much
similar in the growth of political consciousness in the region, where the first two tribal populace
are more conscious towards
articulation of the problems against chakmas, but it seem sharply a bias into the exploration of
knowledge and information, when
all state owned mechanism is controlled and fourth pillar like media manipulated in constructing
knowledge and manufacturing
consent against these so called ‘unsuitable people’ and in exchange reproduced more
consciousness in overcoming mindsets.
While comparing with Tibetan refugee, the chakmas are bitter more submerged and subjected
towards external conditions and
internally facing paucity of integrity, inter-mingle attitude, commitment and connectivity.
Whereas the chakmas are more
struggling towards acute plights like internal health, market and political economy, water and
sanitation, mighty Dihing river
and homeless situation, land alienation and scarcity of resources against population,
unemployment , inter-state and intra-state
migration and human trafficking, internal migration, education , Christianization etc. which force
them to not only for social
exclusion but losing self-respect and subjected to be labour worker, waiter in restaurants,
salesman and security guards in malls,
tutor, contractual teachers, driver etc based on prerequisite skills in metropolitan city like Delhi,
Mumbai, Bangalore, Gujarat etc. and very often reported to have been harassed, molested, sexual
abuse, beaten in the work or rented place because this is the
structural system engineered by the state that push indirectly for violence or say not facilitate
moral growth because no chakma
entertain government service and not paid nor rehabilitate them when natural disaster or calamity
hazards them. Therefore, it is
surprisingly a very pathetic condition to learn about their sustenance and submission towards life
and struggle.
SOCIO- ECONOMIC CONDITIONS
Chakmas are classically divided into three main groups: Anokya Chakma, Tongchangya Chakma
and Doinakya Chakma. However, there is another group of Chakmas found in Arakan in the
Roang province who are less known even to the common Chakmas. They are known as Roangya
Chakmas according to the name of their dwelling place (Jahirul Hoque, 2013). Traditionally,
Chakmas are Buddhist and officially follow Theravada form of the Buddhism. Chakmas are
divided into clans (gojas), which are further subdivided into sub-clans (guttis). The social
condition of the Chakmas is very rich. They do not have caste system or any type of division we
see in other religions. Socially, they live and eat together, and participate in all the occasions
without any differences. They marry freely without any restriction based on rich, poor etc.
The Chakmas in Arunachal Pradesh are economically poor and it is difficult to believe that even
after sixty years of Independence vast sections of the society are living under such abject
poverty. The government does not have any plan for these marginalized sections of the society.
Not a single scheme of Government of India is being attempted by the Government of Arunachal
Pradesh as well as any civil society to bring some necessary economic changes to improve the
conditions of the poor Chakmas in all the three districts of the state (Prasad, 2010). At present,
nearly 50,000 Chakma are living under difficult economic conditions in Arunachal Pradesh
without any public infrastructure and supply. About 55% of the Chakma are illiterate; they enjoy
only little or no medical care at all. Roads do not exist and there are only very few schools, most
of them provide up to 4 or 5 class-level education only. The majority of the Chakma are farmers
who earn the livelihood for their families from rice cultivation under difficult conditions. The
educational opportunities in the region are totally inadequate. 50% of the Chakma never went to
school. If children are enrolled at a school parents have to pay roughly 70% of their total
household income. Health care services are a tremendous problem in many remote villages, not
even mentioning the lack of clean drinking water5.
POLITICS OF IDENTIY
The Chakmas have been sheltered by the Government of India and are residing in the state of
Arunachal Pradesh since the calamitous Great Exodus (Bar Parang) that took place in the
1960‟s. The Government‟s policy on these refugees was to grant citizenship as they are
originated from areas that were part of Undivided India. However, the story of the Chakmas in
Arunachal Pradesh is still different even after fifty years as they are not yet granted Indian
Citizenship despite the fact that they were issued valid migration certificates at the time of their
arrival in India and repeated assurances from the central government to grant them 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 they are compelled to continue as
stateless people.
Chakmas in Arunachal Pradesh who came to India before fifty years have been fighting for their
basic fundamental rights, i.e., right to life to survive and their waiting for the grant of citizenship
and scheduled tribe status, even though their brethren on the other side in Mizoram, Tripura,
West Bengal, Assam and Meghalaya and some other migrants (tribes) were granted citizenship
along with other rights as accorded under Article 342 of the Constitution (Karat, 2003). Hence,
the Chakmas in Arunachal Pradesh had to form a Committee known as the Committee for
Citizenship Rights of the Chakmas of Arunachal Pradesh (CCRCAP) in 1991. Nevertheless, in
response to that the State Government of Arunachal Pradesh became more hostile and started
inciting sectarian violence against the Chakmas. Hence, the Supreme Court of India had to
intervene in the internal affairs of Arunachal Pradesh and in its interim order on 2 November
1995 directed the State Government to “ensure that the Chakmas situated in its territory are not
ousted by any coercive action, not in accordance with law” (SAHRDC, 1997). Further, the
National Human Rights Commission had moved the Supreme Court in 1996 pleading for
protection of lives and properties of the Chakma refugees in view of the All Arunachal Pradesh
Students‟ Union (AAPSU) movement. The Supreme Court in its judgment on 9 January 1996 on
this petition directed the Arunachal Pradesh government to ensure life and personal liberty of
every Chakma residing within the state. The Apex Court also directed the state government to
enter the applications for Indian citizenships submitted by the Chakmas under Section 5 of the
Citizenship Act in the register maintained for the purpose. In this regard, M.M. Jacob, Governor
of Arunachal Pradesh for a while in 1996 and former Union Minister of State for Home Affairs,
while expressing the view of the Central Government stated that,
"The presence of these Chakmas in the area has also not resulted so far in any major law and
order problems though some isolated instances of friction between locals and these Chakmas
have come to our notice…. That the Central Team which visited Arunachal Pradesh to study the
problems of these refugees expressed the view that the grant of citizenship would introduce an
element of responsible social behaviour in these refugees" (Singh, 1996a).
He further added,
"Refugees from Bangladesh who came to India between 1964 and March 25, 1971 are eligible to
the grant of citizenship according to the policy of the Government, as most of the migrants have
already been granted citizenship". Therefore, "Keeping the above in view there is no question of
deporting these refugees from the state of Arunachal Pradesh. The general public in the state will
have to be convinced that the burden of rehabilitation of the refugees will have to be shared by
the country as a whole including Arunachal Pradesh" (Singh, 2001).
Notwithstanding the clear and unambiguous order of the Supreme Court, the State Government
of Arunachal Pradesh has not taken any measure to implement the court‟s directions. Rather, the
State Government has undertaken various measures to undermine and violate the Supreme Court
judgment. The government is yet to take a decision on 4,677 applications for grant of citizenship,
submitted by the Chakma and other refugees (such as Hajongs) through CCRCAP. However,
with the intervention of the Election Commission of India, names of 1,497 Chakma and Hajong
youths born in Arunachal Pradesh between 1964 and 1987 were included in the electoral roll for
the first time and allowed to exercise their franchise during the 2004 Lok Sabha polls (Talukdar,
2008).
Today, Chakmas are the largest refugee group and second largest population group in the
Arunachal Pradesh. The fact is that the Chakmas is a majority group and if granted citizenship
and concurrent political rights, the Arunachalees fear that the political equation can easily change
in favour of the refugees (Goswami, 2007). In view of countering the citizenship drive of the
Chakmas the State Government has been making the conditions of the Chakmas untenable by
denying them fundamental rights such as right to education and other basic facilities such as
health care, employment facilities. Other measures included a complete halt to any development
activities, refusal to provide trade licenses, refusal to deploy teachers in the schools located in the
Chakma areas3. During all these years, the Chakmas are facing hostility from the natives of
Arunachal Pradesh too. While the central government has expressed its firm determination to
grant citizenship to the Chakmas, the state government does not view citizenship to be an issue at
all4. However, time has changed, the world is changing; now time has come for the people of
Arunachal Pradesh has to understand that the legal part of the Constitution which provide certain
rights to the Chakma refugees to settle in the state.