Khasi children in traditional attire. Picture by S.H. Patgiri

To promote the movements of indigenous and tribal people, democratisation in representation is necessary

Guwahati recently hosted a very important meet, the Asian Indigenous and Tribal Peoples? Consultation on Education and Empowerment for Self-rule.

This was in preparation for the fourth session of the United Nations Permanent Forum on Indigenous Peoples, to be held in New York later this year.

This meeting has come at a time when efforts are being made to hold peace talks with the insurgent outfits of the Northeast and the Assam government has signed agreements with the Deoris and the Sonowal Kacharis on the issue of autonomy.

Against such a backdrop, this consultation draws attention to various indigenous and tribal problems pertaining to this region and also raises questions regarding the relevance and interaction of these issues and struggles at a global level.

In such a context, this consultation should have had a compelling effect on rethinking the ?indigenous? question and that of their representation. However, the term ?indigenous? still eludes a legal definition.

Even the United Nations has not yet adopted a definition of the term despite its involvement with indigenous peoples and secretary-general Kofi Annan?s pledge to tackle indigenous issues head-on at the Permanent Forum in 2004.

Even more trickier than the term is the question of which community is indigenous and their representation in parleys and consultations on indigenous issues.

To talk of the Northeast alone, one sees very little representation of tribal and indigenous peoples at most consultations. Since most indigenous groups and movements are not represented, such consultations present a picture of chosen representation rather than democratic participation and decision-making on issues pertaining to the communities.

Definitive issue

To begin with the definition, the closest one can come to it is Article I of the 1989 International Labour Organisation?s convention 169 on Indigenous Peoples in Independent Countries.

It applies to ?peoples in independent countries who are regarded as indigenous on account of their descent from the populations which inhabited the country, or a geographical region to which the country belongs, at the time of conquest or colonisation or the establishment of present state boundaries and who, irrespective of their legal status, retain some or all of their own social, economic, cultural and political institutions?.

While acknowledging the difficulties in defining the term, institutions like the Asian Development Bank have given a definition akin to the ILO 169. The World Bank uses ?tribal? and ?indigenous? together to refrain from exclusion and many accept it. Despite acceptance of this provisional definition, the process of recognition of ethnic groups as indigenous communities has not been smooth. Even Norway, a country known for its efforts towards highlighting indigenous issues, did not initially recognise the Sami as indigenous despite their claims of being the earliest inhabitants of the country.

One problem in defining the indigenous status is chronology, which has to be based on historicity. And it is well known that history is neither apolitical nor free from ideological biases. Many in India, too, speak of chronology, but who defines it and on what basis? The rulers have refused to recognise the existence of indigenous peoples in the country and that has placed a huge question mark on the demands for autonomy on the basis of an indigenous status.

More importantly, it has divided opinion among the indigenous groups and movements, creating a major obstacle to a larger struggle on their rights to self-determination and self-rule. Representation and participation in the recent consultations reflect this divide. The year 2004 saw the formulation of the draft tribal policy and the many meetings that followed.

There was selective representation at the Northeast regional consultation on the draft in Assam. Going by the definition in ILO 169, most of the 400-plus ethnic groups in the region are indigenous but very few of them are invited to these consultations. That has serious implications for the movements they are associated with.

Agreed, it is not easy to ensure complete representation of all the indigenous groups in the region. But a mandate on indigenous and tribal issues, without proper representation, is neither possible nor ethical.

The representation at the consultation of the Asian region did not vary much from the earlier ones. There were several international representatives, including one from the World Bank, but one saw very little regional and national representation. Apart from the states of the Northeast, at least eight other states of India have large tribal populations. Indigenous movements exist in most of them.

However, going by the list of participants, most representatives were from Jharkhand, some from Manipur, a few from Orissa and from a couple of other states. Despite the presence of a few from Arunachal Pradesh and Nagaland, one did not see any representation from the major indigenous groups and movements.

Tripura did not seem to have any representative, though the indigenous movement in that state is getting more and more visible by the day. Most ethnic groups in Assam involved in autonomy movements were conspicuous by their absence.

Lack of representation can make issues stale and slacken struggles. Consensus that impacts on policies does not arise from a hundred signatures on a declaration. These signatures have to reflect and represent the voices of those concerned. Such discrepancies point a finger at the relevance of such consultations.

It is a serious matter as these factors determine the course of the larger movement and chart out their route and the impact they make.

For example, despite the existence of the high profile UN Draft Declaration on Indigenous Peoples, only a few countries have agreed on most of its clauses. This does not include India despite being a signatory to the United Nations Declaration on Human Rights. It is not surprising, given Delhi?s abysmal human rights record. Why is it that despite the existence of a visible indigenous rights movement in India, the government could not be influenced to agree to the draft? Why are no issues, events and incidents of indigenous or tribal peoples highlighted at the UN?

Is it because the indigenous movement here has not been able to assert itself? And does this lack of assertion come from limited representation that is a consequence of a hazy concept of the indigenous? A movement needs articulation and strategising.

Someone mentioned at the recent consultation that one has to formulate and present petitions to the UN ?point by point?. This ?point-by-point? strategy seems to be missing from a collective and strong movement on those rights of indigenous and tribal peoples. Lack of representation makes it worse.