Total Pageviews

Wednesday, June 24, 2015

Guwahati High Court stays Mizoram's controversial technical education rules

BREAKING NEWS:

The Guwahati High Court today stayed the controversial higher and technical education rules, titled Mizoram (Selection of Candidates for Higher Technical Courses) (Sixth Amendment) Rules, 2015, which was notified on 24 March this year amidst high drama. The 1999 principal Rules was amended after the Mizo Zirlai Pawl (Mizo Students body) protested against the selection of 38 Chakma students under Category I along with Mizo students for study of medical and engineering courses in colleges across the country under Mizoram quota.

The controversial 2015 Rules changed the definition of Category I to include only “indigenous” Zo people. Chakmas are placed under Category II which is for non-Zo. The Chakmas vehemently protested against this discrimination on the basis of race.

The Mizoram Chakma Students Union filed a writ petition in the Guwahati High Court against the Mizoram government’s illegal 2015 Rules and secured a stay order today.

The Guwahati High Court’s stay order is a significant development for Mizoram’s beleaguered minorities. In this long battle for rights and justice, the first round has gone to the Chakma students.


To read the background of this case, please visit, “Mizoram: creating unequal citizens and conflicts”

Tuesday, June 23, 2015

Chakma Law Forum President Replies To Laltanpuia Pachuau’s ‘OPEN LETTER’ on Indigenous Issue in Mizoram



By Dilip Chakma




Dear Laltanpuia Pachau,

I have read your ‘OPEN LETTER’ titled OPEN LETTER TO CHAKMA LAW FORUM ON INDIGENOUS ISSUE (published at Mizonews.Net, available at http://www.mizonews.net/op-ed/open-letter-to-chakma-law-forum-on-indigenous-issue/ )  with great interest.

Firstly let me applaud you for your courageous stand that Chakmas of Mizoram must get their full rights and protection due to them under the constitution of India. We need many more liberal Mizos like you to openly speak up for the rights of the minorities, given the highly polarized situation now prevailing. The jingoism which some Mizo organizations and political parties have adopted vis-à-vis Chakmas is as dangerous for Mizoram as the claim of the Hindutva forces in India that “India is a Hindu Rashtra” and “all Indians are Hindus”. In Mizoram, certain Mizo groups and political parties went a step further to announce that “Mizoram is for Mizos only”. This is dangerous for Indian democracy. We hope that the general public has the wisdom to reject and defeat such fundamentalist forces and restore the values of peaceful co-existence of all communities with mutual respect for each other.

Your ‘Open Letter’ has broadly raised two issues, which I am most happy to reply.

1. ‘Time immemorial’

The Chakmas have been living in present day western and southwestern parts of Mizoram bordering Chittagong Hill Tracts (CHT) from time immemorial. The Chakmas ruled over a territory named CHADIGANG, a part of which is now known as Chittagong Hill Tracts (now, in Bangladesh) for centuries.

The Chakmas established contacts with the Mughal administration for the purpose of trade in 1715. The Chakma King agreed to pay a tribute in cotton for enjoying trade privileges with Mughal territory. The Mughals did not claim territorial jurisdiction over the hills (Selections from the Records of the Bengal Government, No. XI, Calcutta, 1853, 77.)

Then came the mighty British. The Chittagong district had been ceded to the British East India Company under Lord Clive by Mir Kasim in 1760 and the cotton tribute was transferred to the British. But the British did not directly interfere into the administration of the Chakma Kingdom until 1860. The British fragmented the Chakma kingdom and reduced the Chakma king into a chief.

In 1763, Harry Verelst, the first chief of Chittagong, proclaimed the jurisdiction of then Chakma King to be “All the hills from the Pheni river to the Sangu and from the Nizampur Road to the hills of the Kuki Raja”. Now who was the Kuki raja and to what extent his territory was towards the Chakma kingdom in the year 1763 is a subject matter of further research. However the recorded history of Mizo/Lushai in the Lushai Hills is very recent compared to the Chakmas’ in CHT.

In “Lushai Chrysalis” , Anthony Gilchrist MacCall, Superintendent of Lushai Hills, recorded that:

“In about the year 1780 the strong Sailo migration commenced moving from the south in a northerly direction driving before them the HRANG KHOL, BIATE, THADOR, and other kindred tribes of the Lushai Hills until the Sailos, with their Lushai clans, in 1810, chiefly under Lallula Sailo, had consolidated their internal position by occupying most of the country between Champai and Demagiri northwards up to the borders of Cachar and Sylhet. This migration was probably caused by the Zahaos and Burma clans such as HUALNGOS, TLANG TLANGS of FALAM, FANAIS, and others becoming so strong that the Lushais, under their Sailo overlords, were compelled to give way and establish themselves in the area known now as the North Lushai Hills.”  (Pp 35-36)

The Lushei Chiefs are descendents of one Thang-ura, who is believed to have lived early in the eighteenth century at Tlangkua, north of Falam. From him sprang six lines of Thang-ur chiefs: (1) Rokum, (2) Zadeng, (3) Thangluah, (4) Pallian, (5) Rivung, and (6) Sailo. Of them, the Thangluah went to the west of Lushai hills and penetrated as far as Demagri where Rothangpuia (Ruttonpoia) became known to the British. But his settlement near Demagiri could not have been earlier than year 1780 as the Lushais (New Kukis) were the last one to enter Mizoram amongst the Mizo tribes. It is clear from “Lushai Chrysalis” (quoted above) by Anthony Gilchrist MacCall, Superintendent of Lushai Hills from 1932-1942. The Mizoram government website also states, “The earliest Mizos who migrated to India were known as Kukis, the second batch of immigrants were called New Kukis. The Lushais were the last of the Mizo tribes to migrate to India.” See, http://mizoram.nic.in/about/history.htm

Therefore, since Ruttonpoia’s settlement near Demagiri dates back as far as only 1780 or even later, the territory of the Chakma King undoubtedly extended far beyond Demagiri in present day Mizoram as per the 1763 proclamation of Harry Verelst, the first chief of Chittagong.

Further even during the time of Captain Lewin, the borders between the Lushai Hills and CHT were undemarcated. In “A fly on the Wheel” while describing the area of the Chittagong Hill Tracts Lewin stated thus, “The district is bounded on the north by the independent state of Hill Tipra, on the south by the Akyab district, and on the west by the Regulation district of Chittagong. The eastern boundary was at that time undefined, but might be considered as extending just so far as British influence could make itself felt.”

But British made it clear that Demagiri (the name itself indicates chakma settlement) was not in Lushai hills. The provincial gazetteer of India Volume V at page 413 states that:

“The station of Demagiri is not situated within the present area of the South Lushai Hills. It is topographically within the area of the Chittagong Hill Tracts. But, under Sir Charles Eliott’s [Lieutenant-Governor of Bengal] orders, passed in 1892, it was declared that, for administrative purposes, Demagiri should be considered to be part and parcel of the South Lushai Hills”.

On 1 April 1898, the South Lushai Hills together with Demagiri areas of CHT in Bengal province was merged with the North Lushai Hills to form the Lushai Hills which was placed under the administration of Assam. Therefore, “The boundaries [of CHT] were revised, and a strip on the east, including Demagiri with a population of about 1,500, was transferred to the Lushai Hills.” (Sir Robert Reid, History of the Frontier Areas Bordering on Assam 1883-1941). So, the Lushai Hills (now, state of Mizoram) was formed by combination of South Lushai Hills, North Lushai Hills and Demagiri and other areas curbed out of Chakma chief’s territory and placed under Assam Province.

Further, in “Encyclopedia of North East India” Col. Ved Prakash writes: “Early history of their (Chakmas’) settlement on the bank of River Karnafulee, and around the confluence of Karnafulee, Tuichang and Thega can be traced to the year 1763 when the East India Company by a Proclamation demarcated the Chakma territory as spreading over “all the hills from Pheni River to the Sangoo and from Nizampur Road in Chittagong to the Hills of Kooki Raja” (Page 1812). Moreover, Mizos lived in the ‘higher ridges’ of the hills whereas the western part of Mizoram is more of river basins/valleys  ideal for Chakma settlement.

Therefore, there is no doubt that Chakmas lived in the western parts (region) of present day Mizoram from time immemorial (i.e. before the immigration of Lushais in the Lushai Hills and colonization by British). And, when a part of Chakma chief’s territory was transferred to the Lushai Hills in 1898, they became the natural citizens of Lushai Hills.

It is believed that both Chakmas and Lushais/Mizos originally came from present day Burma at some point of time in history. As Lt-Colonel J. Shakespear (who was the first Superintendent of united Lushai Hills from 1898-1899) in The Lushei Kuki Clans (1912) writes, “Among inhabitants of the Lushai Hills are found a very considerable number of immigrants, or descendants of immigrants from the Chin Hills, who are found living among the Lushais under the Thangur Chiefs or in villages under their own chiefs.” Chakmas shaped Burmese history there in many ways. One such incident is described by Captain Lewin in “The Hill Tracts of Chittagong and the Dwellers Therein”, Page 65:

“Whatever opinion may be formed of the primal origin of the Thek, or Chukma tribe, no doubt can exist as to their having been at one time inhabitants of the province of Arracan, from whence they have migrated to these hills. The Radza-wong, or History of the Arracan Kings, gives the following account of them. It is there written that King Kaumysing, the son of the King of Baianathi, having been assigned by his father, as heritage, all the country inhabited by the Burman, Shan, and Malay races, came to Ramawati, the ancient capital of Arracan, near the modern town of Sandoway. He there collected men from the different countries of Western Hindoostan, having a variety of languages. They then asking for subsistence— to the first who so applied, he gave the name of Thek ; and their language being different from the rest, they lived separate. The Thek tribe appears afterwards to have played a part of some importance in the annals of the kingdom. King Nya-ming-nya-tain, with the help of the Tsaks, is said to have gained the throne in the year 356 of the Arracan Era. Again, in 656, King Mengdi is said to have undertaken an expedition against the Shans and Tsaks, who had become very troublesome (Phayre’s History of Arracan, J. A. S., 145 of 1844). The tribe is also mentioned by Buchanan in his paper on the religion and literature of the Burmese (Asiatic Researches, Vol. VI., p. 229).”

Lastly, you have stated that the first Chakmas to set foot in Lushai country were as coolies in the year 1872. I regret to say that your reading of Mizoram history is very limited to writings of Mizo historians or government of Mizoram who are often found to be biased and conveniently ignored/omitted facts.

The fact is that a combined force of Zadeng, Sailo, and  Chakmas attacked and destroyed the very big village of Purbura, a very powerful Pallian chief at Pukzing (now in Mamit district, west Mizoram) in 1830. Purbura rebuilt his village, but died soon after.  (Lt-Colonel J. Shakespear, The Lushei Kuki Clans, Macmillan And Co. Limited, St. Martin’s Street, London, 1912, P 5) “These Kukis were allies of the Chuckmahs”.  Further, as far back as 1777, Chakma King’s general revolted against the British by refusing cotton revenue and called in his aid “large bodies of Kookie men, who live far in the interior parts of the hills, who have not the use of fire-arms, and whose bodies go un-clothed.” (T H Lewin, “Wild Races of South-Eastern India”) Surely, Chakma and Lushai contacts were very old.

2. ‘Indigenous peoples’

The definition of “indigenous peoples” as “natives or first inhabitants” is extremely narrow understanding of the concept and meaning of “indigenous peoples”. First , there is no universal and unambiguous definition of the concept of ‘indigenous peoples’, but there are a number of criteria by which indigenous peoples globally can be identified and from which each group can be characterised. The most widespread approaches are those proposed in the International Labour Organization (ILO) Convention no.169 and in the Martinéz Cobo Report to the UN Sub-Commission on the Prevention of Discrimination of Minorities (1986). Furthermore an approach suggested by the Chairperson of the UN Working Group on Indigenous Populations Mme. Erica-Irene Daes is widely used.

The ILO Convention no. 169 states that a people are considered indigenous either:

- because they are descendants of those who lived in the area before colonization; or
- because they have maintained their own social, economic, cultural and political institutions since colonization and the establishment of new states.

Furthermore, the ILO Convention 169 says that self-identification is crucial for indigenous peoples.

Martinéz Cobo’s working definition

According to the Martinéz Cobo’s Report to the UN Sub-Commission on the Prevention of Discrimination of Minorities (1986), indigenous peoples may be identified as follows:

“Indigenous communities, peoples and nations are those which, having a historical continuity with pre-invasion and pre-colonial societies that developed on their territories, consider themselves distinct from other sectors of the societies now prevailing in those territories, or parts of them. They form at present non-dominant sectors of society and are determined to preserve, develop and transmit to future generations their ancestral territories, and their ethnic identity, as the basis of their continued existence as peoples, in accordance with their own cultural patterns, social institutions and legal systems.”

This historical continuity may consist of the continuation, for an extended period reaching into the present, of one or more of the following factors:

- Occupation of ancestral lands, or at least of part of them;
- Common ancestry with the original occupants of these lands;
- Culture in general, or in specific manifestations (such as religion, living under a tribal system, membership of an indigenous community, dress, means of livelihood, lifestyle, etc.);
- Language (whether used as the only language, as mother-tongue, as the habitual means of communication at home or in the family, or as the main, preferred, habitual, general or normal language);
- Residence in certain parts of the country, or in certain regions of the world;
- Other relevant factors

Self-identification as indigenous is also regarded as a fundamental element in Martinéz Cobo’s working definition.

Mme. Erica-Irene Daes’ identification

The identification outlined by the Chairperson of the United Nations’ Working Group on Indigenous Populations, Mme. Erica-Irene Daes designates certain peoples as indigenous,

- because they are descendants of groups which were in the territory of the country at the time when other groups of different cultures or ethnic origins arrived there;
- because of their isolation from other segments of the country’s population they have preserved almost intact the customs and traditions of their ancestors which are similar to those characterised as indigenous; and
- because they are, even if only formally, placed under a State structure which incorporates national, social and cultural characteristics alien to theirs.

Therefore, Chakmas who have been living on the western and southwestern parts of the British Lushai Hills from time immemorial have “historical continuity” in present day Mizoram in independent India and does not lose their “indigenous” character just because their lands have been transferred in 1898 by the British from CHT to Lushai Hills under Assam province (now state of Mizoram) for administrative purpose.

To say that only the first people to arrive at a certain territory is indigenous to that territory, and all other groups are non-indigenous, is a total misunderstanding of the concept of indigenous peoples. More than one indigenous community can exist in a particular territory or country. That is why, the CHT (Bangladesh) has 12 “indigenous” communities, namely Chakma, Marma, Tripura, Tanchangya, Chak, Pankho, Mru, Murung, Bawm, Lushai, Khyang, and Khumi. Please note that Lushai, Pankho, Bawm who are part of Zo are also indigenous communities in CHT where Chakmas are the majority. So, it is ludicrous to say that because Chakmas are indigenous in CHT, they cannot be indigenous in Mizoram!

I hope this will suffice to dispel your doubts. If you have anything more, kindly let me know.

Yours sincerely,

Dilip Kanti Chakma


CHAKMA LAW FORUM

Saturday, June 13, 2015

Mizoram’s pathetic education policy on Chakmas

By Paritosh Chakma

It is a fact which no one can deny: Mizoram’s Chakma community’s educational condition has hit rock bottom despite Mizoram emerging as one of the outstanding performers. Mizoram's literacy rate rose rapidly after independence: from 31.14% in 1951 to 88.8% in 2001 to 91.33% in 2011. But as of 2001 Chakmas’ literacy rate stood at lowly 45.3%. The Census 2001 recorded, “Chakma has registered the lowest literacy of 45.3 per cent, with male and female literacy at 56.2 per cent and 33.6 per cent respectively.” If this was shameful, the results in 2011 were worst. Though a compact data for Chakma is not yet available, the Census 2011 identified Lawngtlai as the district having the lowest (59.87 percent) literacy rate in the state. To put into perspective, Lawngtlai district comprises of the areas inhabited by two minority tribes who govern themselves – the Chakma Autonomous District Council (CADC) and Lai Autonomous District Council (LADC). Not only this; the literacy rate of Lawngtlai district in fact decreased by 0.75 percent point in 2011 over 2001. This clearly proves the total failure of the Sarva Shiksha Abhiyan in these minority dominated areas.

A school for Chakma students in rural Mizoram. Photo source: Seven Sisters Project, http://sevensistersproject.com/the-chakmas-of-mizoram/
But the Mizoram state is neither ashamed nor moved. Instead of improving the minorities’ lot, the officials resort to telling lies. When asked by the Comptroller and Auditor General of India (CAG) to explain the high number of Out of School Children (OoSC) (which stood at 4,146) in the age group of 6-14 years during 2010-2011, the State Project Director of Sarva Shiksha Abhiyan told the CAG  that “number of OoSC is fluctuating year by year mainly due to the repatriation of Bru and Chakma communities from neighbouring States and Countries and landless labourers of Kolasib district, who were not permanently settled in the State.” (see Audit Report for the year ended 31 March 2011 (Civil, Revenue & Commercial) for the state of Mizoram, Chapter I Performance Review, Page 17). The question is when was any Chakma repatriated “from neighbouring States and Countries”? Yet, the SSA State Project Director of Mizoram had the audacity to mislead the CAG, a constitutional body.

“Majority of the children who are not attending schools belonged to Chakma and Bru as the two communities are nomadic tribes. It is hard to bring their children to schools due to their shifting from one village to another often.”

To call the Chakmas “nomads” is plainly racist and easiest way to evade responsibility towards these communities.

And, why did the education officials resort to telling lies?

The answer to this query may be found in the step motherly treatment meted out by the state government of Mizoram to the minorities, chiefly the Chakmas. In March 2015, the Mizoram government changed the rules of selection of candidates for medical and engineering courses only to deprive the Chakma students of seat under Mizoram state quota. The Mizoram (Selection of Candidates for Higher Technical Courses) (Sixth Amendment) Rules, 2015, notified on 24th March, 2015, removed the Chakmas from Category I which is now reserved exclusively for Mizo students. This was done after 38 brilliant Chakma students qualified, through a competitive examination, for selection for medical and engineering courses from the pool of Mizoram state seats reserved in colleges across India. (For details, read my earlier blog, Mizoram: creating unequal citizens and conflicts)


The policy is: first deprive the Chakmas, then deny the act of deprivation, and if still that does not work in your favour, snatch the opportunities from Chakmas through arbitrary use of law. The worst thing is that this forms the State Policy on Chakmas in the state.  

Thursday, June 11, 2015

No cooperation to target Chakmas only; Yes, to detect all illegal immigrants from Bangladesh irrespective of their identity based on race, says CYCA

By Paritosh Chakma

Reacting to this news report titled “YMA U-turn on census of Chakmas” appearing in The Times of India, Guwahati, dated 8th June 2015, the Central Young Chakma Association (CYCA), the largest voluntary organization of the minority Chakma community of Mizoram has strongly asserted that no agreement was signed with its counterpart, the Central Young Mizo Association to identify ONLY Chakma illegal foreigners from Bangladesh but that an agreement was signed between CYCA and CYMA to “cooperate with the State Government in the execution of the orders from the home ministry, Govt of India to set up special task force to detect illegal immigrants from Bangladesh irrespective of their identity based on race.”

The Special Task Force must identify any illegals from Bangladesh - whether they be Chakma, Mizo/Lushai, Bawm, Pankhua, Lai, Mara, Bru, Hmar or of any denomination, who may have entered Mizoram illegally. The government in this process has to follow ALL rules and regulations as laid down by MHA and the NHRC (in the case of Chakmas). The governmental efforts to detect foreigners must also include the illegal Myanmarese migrants in Mizoram. The law does not allow any communal activity to target any particular community based on ethnicity, race or religion.

The Central Young Chakma Association has also demolished the claims made by the Central Young Mizo Association on "abnormal" increase in Chakma population and other issues by citing government of Mizoram's own data on population growth which stands totally opposite of Mizo NGOs' allegations.

So, stop spreading anti-Chakma rumours. Know yourself about the Chakmas' growth rate in Mizoram.  Read this news report of The Mizoram post, 11 June 2015.



Readers interested to know more about this subject, may also read my earlier post, 

Debunking the Theory of Abnormal Chakma population growth in Mizoram






Sunday, May 17, 2015

Debunking the Theory of Abnormal Chakma population growth in Mizoram

By Paritosh Chakma

Mizoram’s largest circulated daily, Vanglaini on 11th May 2015 reported that the Central Young Mizo Association (CYMA)- Mizoram’s largest voluntary organization – has decided to go ahead with its proposal to conduct a census on Chakma minority community of the state. Earlier the CYMA had to shelve this illegal “Chakma Census” because the Union Home Ministry reportedly ticked off the Mizoram government after a high level delegation of Chakma National Council of India led by Tarun Vijay, senior BJP leader and Member of Parliament met the Union Minister of State for Home Shri Kiren Rijiju in New Delhi.  

In this regard, the Mizoram government took a logical stand with Home Minister R. Lalzirliana categorically telling CYMA leaders that “ it would be against the Constitution to conduct a census for one particular community within Mizoram”. But it appears that the YMA leadership is not impressed.

Last month (April, 2015), the Mizo Zirlai Pawl submitted a memorandum to BJP national president Amit Shah during his visit to Aizawl. The memorandum pointed out to alleged “abnormal increase” of Chakma population in Mizoram “due to immigrants from the neighbouring Bangladesh”.

Such allegations of Chakma influx are not new. Such allegations were investigated and rejected by the Government as early as 1955.

Shri S. Barkataki, the last Superintendent of Lushai Hills, in his letter vide D.O No. II-7/50/56-8 dated Aijal 11th October 1950 to R.V. Subrahmanian, Secretary to the Government of Assam for Tribal Affairs brought to the notice of the Government about alleged Chakma influx from Chittagong Hill Tracts in then East Pakistan. His Inspection Note on Lunglei SDO’s office dated 21st November 1949 stated that new passes were being issued to Chakmas and Tripuras. He contended that “These peoples are foreigners and I do not see any reason why they should not pay at the foreigners’ rate of Rs 5/- each. Taxes must be realized at this rate from 1950-51.” But Mr Barkataki himself admitted that prior to writing this Lunglei Inspection Note it was not known to him that his predecessor Mr A. Macdonald, Superintendent of Lushai Hills, in his Order No. 734-47G of 29 April 1946 had declared the Chakmas to be natives of Lushai Hills just like the “Lushais” or Mizos and with effect from 1946-47, Chakmas were needed to pay house tax equal to what Lushais paid, that is Rs 2/- and not Rs 5/- which was what the foreigners paid.

The order of Mr A.  Macdonald, Superintendent Lushai Hills is worth producing here below:

Order No. 734-47G of 29-4-1946
With effect from 1946-47, the following races will be deemed to be a “Lushais” for the purpose of House Tax assessment under Notification 4973 of 16-7-1934.
PAWI, PAIHTE, HMAR, LAKHER, CHAKMA, RIANG (Tuikuk), MATU, CHAWRAI, HRANGKHAWL, LANGRAWNG.
This order does not affect any restriction on immigration into Lushai Hills District from other areas.
------
Copy to S.D.O., with reference to your 273/D.C.VII.4 of 15-4-1946.
Copy in Lushai to all Rahsis. The race will still be named in the House Tax Registers, but all the races above named will pay House Tax at the same rate as if they were Lushais.

Sd/- A.Macdonald, 29-4-1946
Superintendent, Lushai Hills”

But Mr Barkataki totally misinterpreted Mr Macdonald’s order. Mr Barkataki wondered “on what principle Mr Macdonald included the Chakmas with Lushais. The Chakmas are an entirely different race having little in common with the tribes of Lushai Hills.” If only Mr Barkataki utilized a bit of his brain and senses he would have known that Mr Macdonald did not identify Chakmas as an ethnic group belonging to Lushais but only notified that with regard to payment of House Tax Chakmas and other tribes such as PAWI, PAIHTE, HMAR, LAKHER, RIANG (Tuikuk), MATU, CHAWRAI, HRANGKHAWL, LANGRAWNG will pay as much house tax as the Lushais paid at that time. (Clear this from Macdonald’s order “The race will still be named in the House Tax Registers, but all the races above named will pay House Tax at the same rate as if they were Lushais.”) In effect, Chakmas and other tribes such as PAWI, PAIHTE, HMAR, LAKHER, RIANG (Tuikuk), MATU, CHAWRAI, HRANGKHAWL, LANGRAWNG were not to be considered as foreigners (who are required to pay tax at the rate of Rs 5/- while Lushais paid Rs 2/-) but natives of Lushai Hills.

It is evident that Mr Barkataki’s concern was more of losing revenue due to Mr Macdonald’s order. He writes, “If the Chakmas are treated as non-Lushais they will be liable to pay house tax at the rate of Rs 5/- and also other taxes such as Court and Stamp duties which will bring in an additional revenue of over ten thousand annually. I am in favour of adopting this course.”

The government of Assam shot down Mr Barkataki’s absurd suggestion.

An investigation into Mr Barkataki’s allegations about illegal Chakma influx into Lushai Hills was also found to be incorrect. Mr Barkataki’s successor Mr KGR Iyer, IAS, Deputy Commissioner, Mizo District personally investigated the matter and submitted his report to the Government of Assam vide No. GP.21/55/56 dated Aijal the 27th October 1955. Relevant points of his findings are as follows:

“In order to ascertain whether there has been any increase in the Chakma population of 11435 in 1951 an informal census was held by me in 1954 and 1955 and it was found that there has not been any increase as shown below:-
Lunglei Subdivision                Population of Chakmas
(1954)
Circle XII ..                                         1664
” XV                                                   36
” XVI                                                  173
” XVII                                                 8615
________________
Total 10488
Aijal Subdivision (1955)
Circle X                                              840
” XI                                                     47
_________
Total 887
Grand Total for whole District, 11375 against 11435 in 1951”

So in fact the Chakma population decreased by 60 souls from 1951 to 1956.

Mr Iyer, Deputy Commissioner of Mizo District further stated that “The report of the Chief Executive Member [of Lushai Hills District Council] about unauthorized influx of Chakmas from East Pakistan is not correct.” He further added that the District Council was “trying to blame the Government for the presence of the Chakmas instead of tackling the real problem facing the District Council. The view taken by the Chief Executive Member, District Council, Mizo District, is in my opinion, not sound as Government is sought to be blamed for the shortcomings in the administration established by the Council.”

The Chief Executive Member of Pawi-Lakher Regional Council, Lungleh, also rejected the contention of the CEM of Lushai Hills District Council on abnormal rise of Chakma population within the Pawi-Lakher Regional Council. In his letter dated 11 April 1955 to the Chief Minister of Assam, Regional Council CEM stated “First, the Chief Executive Member’s figure of Chakma and Riang families living in our area as stated by the Chief Executive Member is not correct. There are not “more than 1344 families” as the Chief Executive Member would have it, but only 831 families.”

The Lushai Hills District Council was always at loggerheads with the Chakmas and wanted to expel them forcefully. When on 26 July 1954, Executive Secretary of the Lushai Hills District Council wanted to know from the Deputy Commissioner of Lushai Hills whether there was any order from the Government to expel to Pakistan any Riang or Chakma residing without possessing passes after 15-7-1954, Deputy Commissioner KGR Iyer returned a stern letter stating that there was no such order from the Government and that “unnecessary correspondence may pleased be avoided.” (No.GP.21/54/58 dated 31.7.1954.)

Chakmas’ unique place in Lushai Hills

The Chakmas of British Chittagong Hill Tracts happened to be included within the British Lushai Hills when an eastern part of the Chakma chief’s (king) territory were transferred from Bengal province to Lushai Hills under Assam province in 1898. As the Chief Commissioner of Assam Mr W E Ward in his letter No. 149-P dated the 17th July 1897 written to the Government of India stated, “The station of Demagiri is not situated within the present area of the South Lushai Hills. It is topographically within the area of the Chittagong Hill Tracts. But, under Sir Charles Eliott’s [Lieutenant-Governor of Bengal] orders, passed in 1892, it was declared that, for administrative purposes, Demagiri should be considered to be part and parcel of the South Lushai Hills” This proposal of the Chief Commissioner of Assam was accepted by the Government of India on 27th January 1898 and finally, the South Lushai Hills together with Demagiri sliced off from CHT was placed under the administration of Assam by a proclamation of the Government dated 1st April 1898. “The boundaries [of CHT] were revised, and a strip on the east, including Demagiri with a population of about 1,500, was transferred to the Lushai Hills.” (See, Sir Robert Reid, History of the Frontier Areas Bordering on Assam 1883-1941)

Prior to such transfer of Demagiri areas from CHT to Lushai Hills, wide consultations were held with the then Chakma Raja Bhuban Mohan Roy. Indeed, in a letter dated 19 October 1898 to the Chakma Raja, Sir Henry John Stedman Cotton, then Chief Commissioner of Assam stated that “We cannot prohibit your people from entering the Lushai Hills but have no wish to offer them any inducement to do so.” However, several Chakma families gradually migrated to Lushai Hills from CHT due to a number of factors, chief of them being availability of virgin forests for Jhum cultivation, extraction of wood etc which attracted them. But these settlements were neither illegal nor unauthorized.

The position of the Government of India with regard to Chakmas in the Lushai Hills is clear from this statement dated 27 October 1955 of Shri KGR Iyer, then Deputy Commissioner of Mizo District: “As the Chakmas are treated as Scheduled Tribe just like any Lushai or Mizo tribe they were allowed free entry into this District without passes before the introduction of Indo-Pakistan Passport system but they were not, however, allowed to settle without a pass. Since the introduction of the passport system no entry of Chakmas from Pakistan is allowed without Valid passport and visa and from July 1954 no new influx of Chakmas is allowed without the prior permission in writing of the Deputy Commissioner, Mizo District and a standing order to this effect has been passed.”

Therefore, entry of Chakmas from CHT into the Lushai Hills was never prohibited or sought to be made prohibitory during the British rule. Only rules were imposed if they wanted to settle down permanently. The Chakmas being tribals like the Lushais required no permit to enter the Lushai Hills, but to settle down they had to get written permission from the SDO and follow the rule of the Lushai Chief of the area.

Anti-Chakma campaign based on lies and rumours

The basis of anti-Chakma campaign by YMA, MZP or some political parties is based on lies, half-truths and rumours about abnormal growth of Chakma population and illegal infiltration from Bangladesh. These malicious campaigns can be easily debunked or exposed with facts that are already available in official records.

With regard to the MZP’s memorandum to Amit Shah, the CNCI has this logical response:

“This also bears significance to the memorandum submitted recently to Amit Shah, President, BJP by the MZPs wherein facts have been misrepresented deliberately regarding the growth of Chakma population in Mizoram with inflated figures about the Chakma population as has been learnt from a press report of the thenortheasttoday dated 17/4/2015. For instance it was claimed that Chakma population have jumped to 80,000 in 1991 against the fact that Chakmas were only 54,194 (as per census data)…. It was also conjured that the population of the Chakmas could be around 1,50,000. Whereas, the population of the Chakmas is only 71,283 by 2001 Census figure (http://censusindia.gov.in/Tables_Published/SCST/dh_st_mizoram.pdf) and as per a report of the Vanglaini issue dated 2/3/2015 the population of the Chakmas as of 2011 is only 96,972 (http://www.vanglaini.org/tualchhung/32034).”

Therefore, MZP’s claim is highly distorted and does not tally with official census figures. It is ridiculous that the CYMA wants to go ahead with its socalled Chakma Census based on such false and distorted figures on Chakma population submitted by MZP. The Chakma population data available at Mizoram at a Glance 2001 published by Directorate of Economics & Statistics, Mizoram government makes the picture pretty clear:
YEAR
TOTAL POPULATION OF MIZORAM
CHAKMA POPULATION
REST POPULATION(2-3=4)
DECADAL GROWTH (CHAKMA)
DECADAL GROWTH (REST POPULATION)
(1)
(2)
(3)
(4)
(5)
(6)
1951
1,96,202
15,297
1,80,905
-
-
1951-1961
2,66,063
19,337
2,46,726
26.41
36.38
1961-1971
3,32,390
22,393
3,09,997
15.80
25.64
1971-1981
4,93,757
39,905
4,53,852
78.20
46.41
1981-1991
6,89,756
54,194
6,35,562
35.80
40.04
1991-2001
8,88,573
71,283
8,17,290
31.53
28.59
Average
37.55
35.41


Therefore, it is up to the leadership of CYMA which is a celebrated organization and has won national awards for its community service, to choose between facts and fictions, and to decide whether it can risk its credibility by engaging itself in an unconstitutional act like headcounting members of a minority community which is actually unnecessary.