Arunachal Pradesh
Kokila area in Papum Pare district; Borlangpher area of Karbi Anglong district, Assam; Changlang, Namsai and Papum Pare districts of Arunachal Pradesh
,
Bordumsa-Diyun
,
Changlang
Published :
Feb 2022
|
Updated :
September 17, 2024
Chakmas, Hajongs in Arunachal Pradesh Face 'Uncertain Future' as Government Plans Relocation
Reported by
East Street Journal Asia
Legal Review by
Anmol Gupta
Edited by
Anupa Kujur
Households affected
500000
People affected
1964
Year started
Land area affected
Households affected
500000
People Affected
1964
Year started
Land area affected
Key Insights
Sector
Land Use
Reason/Cause of conflict
Communal/Ethnic Conflict
Conflict Status
Ongoing
Ended
Legal Status
Region Classification
Rural
Ended
Sector
Land Use
Reason/Cause of conflict
Communal/Ethnic Conflict
Conflict Status
Ongoing
Ended
Legal Status
Region Classification
Rural
Ended
1
Summary

The Chakma and Hajong communities have expressed disappointment over the government’s bid to relocate them from Arunachal Pradesh, where the two communities have been settled for almost six decades.

On August 15, 2021, Chief Minister Pema Khandu announced in his speech that “all illegal immigrant Chakmas will be moved and settled out of Arunachal Pradesh with honour”.

Following this, the All Arunachal Pradesh Chakma Gaonburah Association and the Chakma Rights and Development Organisation (CRDO), in separate statements, stated that they will oppose any move to shift them outside the state and claimed that 90 per cent of the two communities are Indian citizens “by birth”.

Chakmas and Hajongs, who are Buddhists and Hindus, respectively, reportedly migrated to India between 1964 and 1966 from Chittagong Hills Tract of then East Pakistan (now Bangladesh). While the Chakmas were displaced by the Kaptai hyropower project, the Hajongs wanted to escape religious persecution.

CRDO President Mahendra Chakma argues that the two communities did not come to India on their own. “They were brought by the Government of India under a Centrally sponsored ‘definite plan of rehabilitation’”.

The two communities are mainly settled in Changlang, Namsai and Papum Pare districts. The withdrawal of basic amenities like employment opportunities, electoral rights, termination of trade licence and confiscation of ration cards have made it difficult for the settlers to survive.

In August 2021, the All Arunachal Pradesh Students’ Union (AAPSU) and the state unit of the Nationalist People Party (NPP) stated explicitly to the media that the ‘people of the state would never accept the Chakma and Hajong refugees’. Expressing concern over the growing population of the refugees, NPP President Mutchu Mithi told reporters: “Their population at present is between one and 1.5 lakh, which is much higher than some of the indigenous tribes of the state, and this is a serious issue. Granting them citizenship will create a drastic demographic as well as political change in Arunachal Pradesh.”

Following these developments, the CRDO said that the Chakmas now face an ‘uncertain and fragile future’ and that the government’s decision has shaken their ‘fundamental belief’ in the democratic legal system.  

In 2015, the Committee for Citizenship Rights of the Chakmas of Arunachal Pradesh had filed a petition with the National Human Rights Commission (NHRC) alleging persecution of Chakmas and Hajongs settled in the state. The committee stated in its petition that the two groups are tormented by poverty, illiteracy, unemployment and political identity crisis. The NHRC asked the state government and the home ministry to submit a report on the matter. In response, the state government assured that there was no threat to the lives and properties of the two communities in question and that an adequate police force was deployed to protect them. The home ministry, on its part, asked the state government to ensure normalcy in law and order as well as to supply essential commodities and medical facilities to the Chakma and Hajong refugees.

In September 2017, protests in the state against proposed citizenship to the Chakmas and Hajongs turned violent. During a statewide _bandh _called by the AAPSU, protesters damaged several vehicles, torching a state transport bus and a private vehicle.

Meanwhile, the All Arunachal Pradesh Chakma Gaonburha Association issued a press release stating, “More than 90 per cent of these people were born here and are citizens by birth. They will live and die here with dignity and honour and cannot suffer through another mass migration to start life afresh outside Arunachal Pradesh.”

Kanki Darang, joint secretary to the chief minister, told LCW in November 2021 that the government has constituted a high-powered committee to look into the issue and is expected to submit a report. 

In April 2024, a controversy in Assam emerged over Union Minister Kiren Rijiju's statement regarding the relocation of Chakma and Hajong refugees from Arunachal Pradesh to Assam, based on the Citizenship (Amendment) Act, 2019. While Rijiju claimed discussions with high-level officials, Assam's Chief Minister denied any such plans, sparking opposition from various political parties and organisations. The situation intensified concerns about the impact on Assam, with local leaders accusing the government of neglecting the state's interests and transparency issues regarding the Act's implementation. Contradictions by Assam's Chief Minister, led to political unrest and opposition from local groups.

Assam Jatiya Parishad leader Lurinjyoti Gogoi cited Rijiju's statement and warned of the CAA's harmful effects on indigenous rights, blaming both state and central governments. Meanwhile, Assam Congress president Bhupen Kumar Borah accused Chief Minister Himanta Biswa Sarma of conspiring against the state.

A month later, concerns were raised by the Autonomous State Demand Committee (ASDC) in Karbi Anglong district over reports of the potential relocation of Chakma and Hajong refugees from Arunachal Pradesh to Assam. ASDC leaders expressed worries about the socio-political implications of such a move on Assam's indigenous communities and demanded transparency and consultation before any decisions are made. The committee fears that the relocation could exacerbate ethnic tensions and undermine local rights. The ASDC cited potential demographic shifts in Karbi Anglong district of Assam if the Chakma-Hajong refugees in Arunachal Pradesh are relocated to Assam, as proposed.

Jotson Bey, general secretary of the ASDC told media, “We firmly believe that the Sixth Schedule district of Karbi Anglong, reserved for scheduled tribes, should not accommodate new settlers from outside, and existing illegal settlers should be removed.” Bey expressed concerns over potential ramifications if five lakh Chakma-Hajong refugees were sheltered in Assam.

2
Fact Sheet

Demand/Contention of the Affected Community

Complaint against procedural violations

Demand to retain/protect access to common land/resources

Demand for legal recognition of land rights

Other Demand/Contention of the Affected Community

1. The indigenous tribes and local political parties of Arunachal have demanded the relocation of the Chakmas and Hajongs, while the latter have demanded the government to recognise their rights to continue to stay in the state. 2. Local organisations and political parties of Assam have demanded not to resettle the communities in Assam.

Region Classification

Rural

Type of Land

Common and Private

Forest, Forest and Non-Forest

What was the action taken by the police?

How many people did the police detain or arrest?

What is the current status of the detained/accused persons?

Did the person face any violence while in police custody?

If any arrests took place, were the accused persons produced before a judge within 24 hours of the arrest?

If the accused was not produced before a magistrate within 24 hours, or not produced at all, what were the reasons?

Legislation under which the accused was charged

Was the accused person informed of their right to legal representation? Did the accused person have access to legal aid?

In cases where the accused person approached the court for bail, was bail granted?

Why was bail granted or rejected? If granted, what were the bail conditions and quantum of bail?

Were there any other notable irregularities that took place, or other significant details?

Details of sources (names of accused, names and numbers of any lawyers, names of any police officers contacted)

Status of Project

Original Project Deadline

Whether the Project has been Delayed

Significance of Land to Land Owners/Users

Residential area, Other Natural Resource extraction/dependence

Whether the project was stalled due to land conflict

Source/Reference

Total investment involved (in Crores):

Type of investment:

Year of Estimation

Page Number In Investment Document:

Has the Conflict Ended?

No

When did it end?

Why did the conflict end?

4
Additional Information

Government Departments Involved in the Conflict:

Ministry of Home Affairs, Chief Minister's Secretariat

PSUs Involved in the Conflict:

Did LCW Approach Government Authorities for Comments?

Yes

Name, Designation and Comment of the Government Authorities Approached

Corporate Parties Involved in the Conflict:

Did LCW Approach Corporate Parties for Comments?

Communities/Local Organisations in the Conflict:

All Arunachal Pradesh Students' Union, Chakma Development Foundation of India, All Arunachal Pradesh Chakma Gaonburha Association, All Mishmi Students’ Union, Chakma National Council of India, Karbi Nimso Chingthur Asong (KNCA), KSA, Autonomous State Demand Committee (ASDC), Rashtriya Chakma Tribal Sangh, All India Chakma Students’ Union

5
Information on the use of criminal law

What was the action taken by the police?

How many people did the police detain or arrest?

What is the current status of the detained/accused persons?

Did the person face any violence while in police custody?

If any arrests took place, were the accused persons produced before a judge within 24 hours of the arrest?

If the accused was not produced before a magistrate within 24 hours, or not produced at all, what were the reasons?

Legislation under which the accused was charged

Was the accused person informed of their right to legal representation? Did the accused person have access to legal aid?

In cases where the accused person approached the court for bail, was bail granted?

Why was bail granted or rejected? If granted, what were the bail conditions and quantum of bail?

Were there any other notable irregularities that took place, or other significant details?

Legal Supporting Documents

JOIN
THE LCW COMMUNITY
Exclusive monthly policy briefs, stories from the ground, Quarterly Analytics report, Curated Expert talks, merchandise and much more.


Support our work.
Sign Up Today
Author
Reported by
East Street Journal Asia

East Street Journal Asia is a multilingual, Web-based news journal. It is an independent media organisation whose goal is to make transparent, unbiased and data-driven journalism accessible to all.

Show more work
Latest updates
East Jaintia Hills
Meghalaya

Violent protest during public hearing for cement plant expansion in Meghalaya's East Jaintia Hills

Narela
Delhi

Residents of Narela's Bajitpur Thakran oppose demolition of temples for defence institute, demand sports complex

Surguja
Chhattisgarh

Adivasis in Chhattisgarh's Hasdeo protest relentlessly against mining project in forest

Kamrup Metropolitan
Assam

Lawyer bodies protest against Assam government’s decision to relocate Gauhati High Court

Faizabad
Uttar Pradesh

Demands for Ram Temple, Babri Mosque at same site divides Ayodhya

Mumbai
Maharashtra

Supreme Court Allows Land Reclamation for Mumbai Coastal Road Project

Pune
Maharashtra

Farmers Refuse Land for Pune Outer Ring Road Project in Maharashtra

Surat
Gujarat

Slum Dwellers in Gujarat's Surat Stage Protest against Demolition, Forced Eviction

Fact sheet

Demand/Contention of the Affected Community

Complaint against procedural violations

Demand to retain/protect access to common land/resources

Demand for legal recognition of land rights

If any arrests took place, were the accused persons produced before a judge within 24 hours of the arrest?

Was the accused person informed of their right to legal representation? Did the accused person have access to legal aid?

In cases where the accused person approached the court for bail, was bail granted?

Why was bail granted or rejected? If granted, what were the bail conditions and quantum of bail?

Were there any other notable irregularities that took place, or other significant details?

Status of Project

Original Project Deadline

Whether the Project has been Delayed

Significance of Land to Land Owners/Users

Residential area, Other Natural Resource extraction/dependence

Whether the project was stalled due to land conflict

Source/Reference

JOIN
THE LCW COMMUNITY
Exclusive monthly policy briefs, stories from the ground, Quarterly Analytics report, Curated Expert talks, merchandise and much more.


Support our work.
Sign Up Today
Conflicts Map
Conflict Database
About Us