Justice A. S. Anand
Chairman
National Human Rights Commission
Sardar Patel Bhawan
Parliament Street
New Delhi-110001
Subject: Complaint for full
implementation of the of the Supreme Court judgement in
the case of NHRC Vs State of Arunachal Pradesh (CPW 720
of 1995) of 9 January 1996.
Dear Justice Anand,
The Asian Centre for Human
Rights (ACHR) has been approached by the Committee for
Citizenship Rights of the Chakmas of Arunachal Pradesh
(CCRCAP) about the quit notice issued by the Core Committee
and All Arunachal Pradesh Students Union (AAPSU) to the
Chakmas and Hajongs of Arunachal Pradesh to leave the
state by 31 July 2003. The ACHR has further been informed
that the CCRCAP has already approached your honour on
the issue.
As your honour is aware
the NHRC had approached the Supreme Court of India after
the State government failed to honour the directions of
the NHRC for protection of lives and liberties of the
Chakmas and Hajongs of Arunachal Pradesh. On 9 January
1996, the Supreme Court in its judgement in the case of
NHRC vs State of Arunachal Pradesh, issued the following
orders:
-
"the first respondent, the State of Arunachal
Pradesh, shall ensure that the life and personal liberty
of each and every Chakma residing within the State shall
be protected and any attempt to forcibly evict or drive
them out of the State by organised groups, such as the
AAPSU, shall be repelled, if necessary by requisitioning
the service of para-military or police force, and if additional
forces are considered necessary to carry out this direction,
the first respondent will request the second respondent,
the Union of India, to provide such additional force,
and the second respondent shall provide such additional
force as is necessary to protect the lives and liberty
of the Chakmas;
-
except in accordance with law, the Chakmas shall not
be evicted from their homes and shall not be denied domestic
life and comfort therein;
-
the quit notices and ultimatums issued by the AAPSU
and any other group which tantamount to threats to the
life and liberty of each and every Chakma should be dealt
with by the first respondent in accordance with law;
-
the application made for registration as citizen of
India by the Chakma or Chakmas under Section 5 of the
Act, shall be entered in the register maintained for the
purpose and shall be forwarded by the Collector or the
DC who receives them under the relevant rule, with or
without enquiry, as the case may be, to the Central Government
for its consideration in accordance with law; even returned
applications shall be called back or fresh ones shall
be obtained from the concerned persons and shall be processed
and forwarded to the Central Government;
-
while the application of any individual Chakma is
pending consideration, the first respondent shall not
evict or remove the concerned person from his occupation
on the ground that he is not a citizen of India until
the competent authority has taken a decision in that behalf;"
The quite notice issued
by the AAPSU and Core Committee and the support extended
by the State government violates the Supreme Court judgement
in letter and spirit.
As the NHRC was the main petitioner,
it is essential that NHRC consider taking measures for
full implementation of the Supreme Court order including
a serious consideration for filing a contempt of court
petition against the State government of Arunachal Pradesh
in the light of the quit notice issued by the AAPSU and
the Core Committee. Since the Central government is the
sole authority for granting citizenship, similar action
could also be taken by the Central government for non-processing
of the citizenship applications.
The Asian Centre for Human
Rights would like to raise three specific issues:
1. Increasing number
of displacement due to ethnic conflicts and violation
of the right to life.
In their memorandum to your
honour on 16 June 2003, the AAPSU and the Core Committee
stated that "The State pleaded time and again that
it is not opposed to citizenship rights of the Chakmas
and Hajongs. The state is opposed to their settlement
and residence in the territory of Arunachal Pradesh."
The demand for transfer
of the Chakmas and Hajongs outside of Arunachal Pradesh
after 39 years of their settlement to other States of
India is irrational. The NHRC has described it as "inhumane
and impractical."
Fearing such settlement
of the Chakmas and Hajongs in Assam, the State government
of Assam ordered "shoot at sight" on the fleeing
Chakmas and Hajongs in September 1994.
Given the federal structure
of India, the Centre under no circumstances can force
other State governments to accept the Chakmas and Hajongs
of Arunachal Pradesh - a problem created by the political
leaders of the State for their own benefits. As the NHRC
is aware the Centre has so far failed to convince the
State government of Mizoram to obey the directions of
the NHRC pertaining to the return of the Reangs sheltered
in Tripura since 1997.
In fact, AAPSU's demand
is flawed with dangerous implications for the security
of India. If the transfer of the Chakmas and Hajongs were
to be undertaken due to the threat to the existence of
indigenous peoples, other North Eastern States like Assam,
Meghalya and Tripura may indeed ask Aruanchal Pradesh
to take hundreds of thousands of migrants who settled
in their States from then east Pakistan and Undivided
India. Since Arunachal Pradesh has the lowest density
of 13 persons per sq. km in the country, it could well
be urged to accept more migrants to reduce the burden
of these States and save the identity of the indigenous
peoples such as the Tripuris.
If the Chakmas and Hajongs
were to be uprooted 39 years after their settlement on
fictitious grounds given by AAPSU, India will face gigantic
problem of population transfers from Andaman Nicobar Island
to Jammu and Kashmir. All the people who had migrated
after the partition of India could be asked to be resettled
elsewhere. Indigenous Jarwas of Andaman and Nicobar who
are indeed facing extinction can demand relocation of
all the settlers from the islands. The Bodos and many
other groups can ask withdrawal of the Adivasis who have
settled in various parts of Assam more than a century
ago. A Pandora's box will be opened, as the boundaries
of the present states of North East were not drawn until
the British colonisation
Honourable Chairman, such
ethnocentrism in the North East India led to the conflict
between Nagas and Kukis in Manipur between 1992-98, between
the Kukis and Peities in Manipur in 1997-98, between Bodos
and Adivasis in Assam from 1996 to present and recently
between the Dimachas and Hmars of Assam. These conflicts
led to violations of the right of life of hundreds of
people and displacement of tens of thousands of people.
It is precisely for these
kinds of ethnocentrism and fundamentalism that the majority
of the Kashmiri Pandits had to seek shelter in Jammu and
Delhi and live an abnormal and miserable life.
Unless the NHRC intervenes
to uphold the rule of law and principles of natural justice,
the illegal actions of the States and private entities
such as the All Arunachal Pradesh Students Union (AAPSU)
and the armed opposition groups in Jammu and Kashmir such
as Laskar E-Toiba will cause flagrant violation of violation
of right to life for expulsion of the most vulnerable
people on frivolous grounds. The NHRC must create a sense
of security by ensuring respect for the rule of law.
2. Discrimination in
the grant of citizenship
In 2002, the State government
of Arunachal Pradesh granted citizenship to the 90 odd
Tibetan families of Shyo village living in Tawang district
bordering China. The Tibetans had fled to Arunachal Pradesh
in 1960s.
The State government cites
the East Bengal Regulation Act of 1873 for forcible deportation
of the Chakmas and Hajongs. The 1873 Act requires taking
of prior permission (Inner Line Permit) before entering
into Aruanchal Pradesh. However, the Chakmas and Hajongs
who fled from then East Bengal (now Bangladesh) did not
go to Arunachal Pradesh on their own. They were taken
to North East Frontier Agency (NEFA, present Arunachal
Pradesh) by the Central government with a view to permanently
settle there.
The question is if the Tibetans
who fled to Arunachal Pradesh on their own can be given
India citizenship, why cann't the Chakmas and Hajongs,
who had migrated from undivided India, be granted citizenship.
More so when the Chakmas and Hajongs had been settled
in the State by the Central government. It is a clear
case of discrimination for political gains of a few AAPSU
and Core Committee leaders.
The fact that none of the
citizenship applications of the Chakmas and Hajongs pursuant
to the Supreme Court judgement has yet been processed
until today is a fit case of contempt of the Supreme Court
both by the Central government and state government. The
amended citizenship rules require processing citizenship
applications within six months. Non-processing of citizenship
applications of the Chakmas and Hajongs after six years
is a denial of justice by any yardstick.
3. Upholding rule of
law
The credibility of institutions
such as the NHRC depends on its ability to implement its
directions and judgements it obtains from the court. The
NHRC must acts as a vanguard for upholding the rule of
law. Unless, NHRC can stop such flagrant human rights
violations by the State entities and non-state entities
by making appropriate interventions, its credibility will
be questioned at national and international level.
Mr Chair, the denial of
citizenship rights to the Chakmas and Hajongs denies them
the vehicle to be considered as person[s] before national
and international law. It is precisely for these reason
that the Chakmas and Hajongs are deprived of basic human
rights such as the right to education, health care, employment,
the right to use forests, water, land and other essential
natural resources in a sustainable manner, the right to
participate in development activities, the right to access
to government facilities and services, the right to freedom
of movement etc.
The fact that after 39 years
of migration, the Chakmas and Hajongs are yet to be accorded
is a mockery of justice in India. NHRC therefore should
intervene to bring an end to the injustices.
Therefore, we fervently
appeal to the NHRC to urgently intervene by taking following
measures:
1. Approach the Supreme
Court of India for contempt by the State Government of
Arunachal Pradesh and Central government of India for
non-implementation of the of the Supreme Court judgement
(NHRC Vs State of Arunachal Pradesh & Anr);
2. Direct the State of Arunachal
Pradesh, to "ensure that the life and personal liberty
of each and every Chakma residing within the State shall
be protected and any attempt to forcibly evict or drive
them out of the State by organised groups, such as the
AAPSU, shall be repelled, if necessary by requisitioning
the service of para-military or police force, and if additional
forces are considered necessary to carry out this direction,
the Union of India will provide such additional force,
and the second respondent shall provide such additional
force as is necessary to protect the lives and liberty
of the Chakmas (para 1 of the Supreme Court oder);
3. Direct the State government
to ensure that "except in accordance with law, the
Chakmas shall not be evicted from their homes and shall
not be denied domestic life and comfort therein"
(para 2 of the Supreme Court oder);
4. Direct the State government
of Arunachal Pradesh to deal "the quit notices and
ultimatums issued by the AAPSU and any other group which
tantamount to threats to the life and liberty of each
and every Chakma" (para 3 of the Supreme Court oder);
5. Direct the Central government
of India to inform the NHRC about the status of processing
of the citizenship applications ((para 4 of the Supreme
Court oder);
6. Take any other measures
that NHRC deems fit
If you need any further
information or clarifications, please do let us know.
With kind regards,
Yours sincerely
Suhas Chakma
Director