India: In Tripura, Bengalis and Mizos have joined hands to thwart the resettlement of Bru refugees originally from Mizoram

 scroll.in

In Tripura, Bengalis and Mizos have joined hands to thwart the resettlement of Bru refugees

Brus cannot go back to their homes in Mizoram. And they are not welcome in Tripura, where they took shelter.

Piyangmoni Reang was 20 when she fled her home in 1997. | Arunabh Saikia

[Nov 24, 2020]

Arunabh Saikia

In January, Union Home Minister Amit Shah declared that the 23-year-old Bru refugee crisis, which has displaced tens of thousands of people from the community, was over. In what he called the “logical conclusion” to the crisis, Shah announced that around 34,000 displaced Brus, originally from Mizoram, would be settled in Tripura, where they had been living in camps since 1997.

Cut to November: residents of North Tripura, where the government intends to settle a bulk of the displaced Brus, are up in arms over the proposed rehabilitation plan. For over a week, the North Tripura sub-division of Kanchanpur has been shut down by locals opposed to the settlement of the refugees.

On November 21, two people was killed and at least 20 injured as protests turned violent when the police tried to forcibly clear a highway blockade at North Tripura’s Panisagar.

Protesters gathered in large numbers on Saturday (Credit: Special arrangement)

Ethnic tensions

The Brus were forced to leave their homes in Mizoram after a bout of ethnic violence in 1997, triggered by questions over the community’s voting rights in the state. Mizo pressure groups had demanded that the Brus be struck off the state’s electoral list on the grounds that the community was not “indigenous” to the state. This had already led to the formation of a Bru militant group, demanding a Bru Autonomous District Council, in 1996.

In 1997, a Mizo forest guard was allegedly killed by Bru militants – a flashpoint that led to a violent reaction by the Mizos, driving many Brus out of the Mizoram.

A ‘settlement’ finally

There have been several attempts since to get the Brus back home – but few families have gone back. The reason: Brus insist that they are not safe in Mizoram. Even when the Centre cut off rations to the camps, the Brus refused to move. They would rather die hungry than go to Mizoram, they averred.

Advertisement

Finally, in January 2020, after eight failed attempts at repatriation, Bru representatives, the Centre, and the states of Tripura and Mizoram, agreed upon settling the community permanently in Tripura.

In line with the agreement, the Tripura government has identified 15 locations across Tripura to set up resettlement colonies for the community. Six of them, including four major ones, are located in the North Tripura subdivision Kanchanpur, which also houses the Bru refugee camps.

Fresh troubles

But residents of Kanchanpur, most of them Bengalis, are opposed to the resettlement plan. “We will not allow more than 500 families in Kanchanpur and they should not be settled in areas close to villages of original permanent residents,” said Sushanta Bikash Barua, the general secretary of the Nagarik Suraksha Manch, a committee of local Bengali residents of Kanchanpur.

Officials said a decision was yet to be taken on the exact distribution of people area-wise. “The Central government wanted it to be a consultative process, so we have asked the Bru leaders to tell us who wants to settle where, but they are yet to get back to us,” said Chandni Chandran, the sub-divisional magistrate of Kanchanpur. “And we are aware of the issues, so the locations we have selected are at a considerable distance from any existing habitation.”

Advertisement

Old fissures

Barua said the local residents of the area were still wary as they feared being overwhelmed by the Brus. He claimed their fears stemmed from bad experiences in the past. “In the past, several Bengali people living close to the Bru camps have had to flee because of atrocities by the Brus,” he alleged.

In December last year, Barua alleged, members of the Bru community had attacked Bengali shops and establishments in the area while protesting against the Citizenship Amendment Act, which makes undocumented non-Muslim migrants from Bangladesh, Pakistan and Afghanistan eligible for Indian citizenship.

The Act had invoked mixed reactions in Tripura. The state’s majority Bengali-Hindu population, many of whom migrated to the state from erstwhile East Pakistan after Partition, had rejoiced. The state’s tribal residents protested against it. This had led to clashes resulting in the death of a tribal man.

In the North East, local communities fear the amended Act will lead to unabated migration from Bangladesh, altering the demography of the region. Critics of the Act often cite the example of Tripura to point out that their concerns are not imaginary: in 1948, tribal communities accounted for over 80% of the state’s population, now they are barely 30%.

Protesters blocking a highway on Saturday. (Credit: Special arrangement)

New alliances

Yet the current opposition to the settlement of Brus in Tripura moves beyond the binary of tribal and non-tribal and has seen some unlikely alliances. The Manch has made common cause with the Mizo Convention, a group that represents the interests of the Mizos living in Tripura’s Jampui hills, also part of the Kanchanpur sub-division. Together, they have formed the joint movement committee.

Advertisement

The Jampui hills are home to around 7,000-10,000 Mizos, according to local estimates.

The Mizos’ concerns and demands are the same as the Bengalis. “Mizo families living close to the Bru camps had to suffer the same fate as the Bengalis,” said Zairemthiama Pachuau, general secretary of the Mizo Convention “So, we have joined hands for a common goal.”

Pachuau added the association was limited to “one specific particular issue”. “That is the Bru settlement issue,” he said.

Meanwhile, the Brus have also threatened to launch their own protests. “If the protests escalate, we also will not keep quiet,” said Charlie Molshoy, a secretary at the Bru Displaced People’s Forum.

To keep the peace, the district authorities have summoned the Assam Rifles. “They have taken charge now,” said Chandran on Sunday afternoon.

• Brus
• Tripura
• refugee crisis
• Mizoram

Majoritarian pressure in Mizoram

The Economic Times

An Undemocratic Demand in Mizoram

November 9, 2018, 10:35 pm IST ET Edit in ET Editorials 

 

An electoral dispute in Mizoram must be resolved on principle rather than guided by expedience. On November 28, Mizoram, the remotest state in India, will elect legislators for all 40 assembly seats.
With only one Lok Sabha seat, the state carries little weight in national politics, but recent events there are of pan-India importance. The state’s centrally appointed chief electoral officer (CEO) is at loggerheads with chief minister Lal Thanhawla and powerful organisations that swing opinion and policy.
The latter want CEO S B Shashank removed. The CEO wants members of a tribe called Bru in Mizoram and Reang elsewhere in the northeast, to vote in these elections, but Mizos will have none of that.
From the late 1990s, Vaishnavaite-animist Reangs, whose origins lie in Tripura, have fled Mizoram following persecution by a section of Christian Mizos. Christians happen to comprise nearly 90% of Mizoram’s population. The Reangs want to vote either from refugee camps in Tripura and Assam, or in poll booths on the Tripura-Mizoram border. They fear for their safety if forced to vote in booths within Mizoram. Mizos, who refuse to acknowledge Reangs or Brus as members of ‘their’ society, believe this is a conspiracy of New Delhi to undermine Mizos.
Things have come to such a pass that Lal Thanhawla was prevented from filing his nomination papers by agitators. All this goes against the grain of our Constitution that makes every Indian of any faith, caste or creed equal in the democratic process.
If Reangs or Brus are prevented from exercising their democratic right by majoritarian pressure in Mizoram, what is to prevent majority Hindus from snatching away voting rights from Muslims or other minorities in, say, Uttar Pradesh, Bihar or Assam? The rule of a majoritarian mob by brute force will wreck India’s claim to be the largest and most diverse democracy in the world.
It has the potential to damage democratic institutions in India just as the persecution of Rohingyas and Balochs has dented reputations in Yangon and Islamabad. The Centre must back the election commission, and uphold democracy.

India: where 95% marry within their caste, except for Mizoram

scroll.in - 13 May 2016

caste relations

Just 5% of marriages in India are inter-caste, says report

In a nation where 95% marry within their caste, Mizoram has the most inter-caste marriages.

Image credit:  Narinder Nanu/AFP

 

Prachi Salve and Saumya Tewari, IndiaSpend.com

Christian-dominated Mizoram – 87% of the population is Christian – has the most inter-caste marriages in India, a nation where 95% of Indians marry within their caste, according to this 2016 report from the National Council of Applied Economic Research, a New Delhi-based think-tank.
Meghalaya and Sikkim followed Mizoram, with 46% and 38%, respectively, of all marriages inter-caste, according to The Indian Human Development Survey, based on nationwide surveys conducted between 2011-'12.
The three north-eastern states were followed by Muslim-dominated Jammu and Kashmir (35%) and Gujarat (13%).

Source: Indian Human Development Survey 2011-12

These data belie the perception that with modernity and economic progress, traditional barriers of caste have broken down.
The caste system is an ancient relic of a social hierarchy once based on division of labour. People are born into their caste. They cannot change it.
The inter-caste marriage findings are from IHDS-2 (2011-'12), a data set put together by the University of Maryland and NCAER. A representative sample of 41,554 households contacted for the study was spread across 33 states and union territories, in rural and urban India.
How do people marry in the states of India?
As many as 95% women surveyed said their husbands’ caste was the same as their’s. This was the question NCAER used to determine the proportion of inter-caste marriages: “Is your husband’s family the same caste as your native family?”

Source: Indian Human Development Survey 2011-12

In Madhya Pradesh, almost all (99%) people were married in their own caste, followed by Himachal Pradesh and Chhattisgarh, both at 98%.
Indians are legally allowed to marry outside their caste. A law on inter-caste marriage was passed more than 50 years ago, but those who do are still threatened or attacked, often by their own families.
Change is slow, but it is coming
As many as 27% of respondents said they knew people in their communities who married outside their caste. In cities, this number was 36%.
IHDS-II surveyors asked respondents: “Do you know anyone in your community who has had an inter-caste marriage?”
People are more forthcoming with perception of others than information about themselves, the researchers found.
“Think of a village pradhan (chief) whom everyone knows… there is only one pradhan in a village. Knowing someone, particularly someone who has engaged in “unusual” behavior, like inter-caste marriage, is always going to be higher than one doing it oneself,” Sonalde Desai, a demographer, senior fellow at NCAER and Professor of Sociology at University of Maryland, told IndiaSpend. “I am surprised that only one in four individuals knows someone [in an] inter-caste marriage.”
This article first appeared on Indiaspend, a data-driven and public-interest journalism non-profit.

India: Repatriation Storm Brews Over Brus in Mizoram and Tripura (Maitreyee Handique, 8 June 2015)

THE QUINT

Repatriation Storm Brews Over Brus in Mizoram and Tripura
Maitreyee Handique
First Published: June 8, 2015, 3:19 pm


The Bru refugees camping on the edge of Tripura in India’s northeast should be packing their bags today, as the Mizoram government makes elaborate preparations to receive them back from across the border.

But this repatriation plan, involving a staggering 20,700 people, one of the biggest state-sponsored population movements, has hit a last-minute hitch.

No Bru wants to go back home.
The Predicament

This is deeply puzzling. It’s also turning out to be an embarrassing turn of events for Mizoram, which faces a legal predicament. Earlier this year, the Supreme Court had ordered the state to accept the refugees as its own and repatriate them under a time-bound “roadmap” starting June 8.

Many meetings were held between the Home Ministry, Tripura and Mizoram officials, as well as, the Mizoram Bru’s Displaced People’s Forum (MBDPF), which represents the refugees, to work out a Rs 68-crore rehab strategy. Minister of State for Home Kiren Rijiju recently flew to Aizawl, Mizoram’s capital, to get a hands-on update.

Last week, following court directives, Mizoram officials went to Kaskaopara – one of six refugee camps in Tripura – to verify returnees and facilitate a smooth transit. For the whole time, the officials simply sat and waited. No one came.
File image of Members Bru community inside a make-shift bamboo hut in Kanchanpur village, 210 km (130 miles) from Agartala, Tripura. (Photo: Reuters)
File image of Members Bru community inside a make-shift bamboo hut in Kanchanpur village, 210 km (130 miles) from Agartala, Tripura. (Photo: Reuters)
What Went Wrong?

In the late 90s, the minority Brus fled Mizoram to seek refuge in neigbouring Tripura following violent clashes with the Mizo majority. After decades of seeking justice, the Brus are now on the verge of getting it.

One of India’s most impoverished tribal communities, the Brus, 60% of them Hindus, got into trouble in 1997 when they raised demands to secure greater political and financial rights within the Mizoram legislature – under the constitutionally-backed Autonomous Development Council (ADC).

This demand led to open confrontation with strident Christian majority Mizo youth groups that have traditionally wielded immense power in the state. First came threats, then villages were burnt, and women allegedly raped, prompting the country’s highest court to take action after 17 years.

In the mass exodus that followed, old people died and women gave birth on the way, the cycle of life hardly stopping for a moment even at their worst, desperate times. Huddled in shanties, over 200 died for lack of medicines in the first year.
A Bru tribal refugee woman sits in her makeshift shop as a child watches, inside a refugee camp in Kanchanpur, about 221 km north of Agartala, Tripura. (Photo: Reuters)
A Bru tribal refugee woman sits in her makeshift shop as a child watches, inside a refugee camp in Kanchanpur, about 221 km north of Agartala, Tripura. (Photo: Reuters)
What’s Keeping the Brus From Returning?

According to MBDPF, lack of transparency is scaring away refugees. Mizoram has given no indication where the refugees will stay, or if they will return to their original homes. Most of their former land is “occupied” – either by the forest department or by Mizos, alleges A Sawibunga, its president.

The problems don’t end here. It’s alleged that many names have been struck off from the 1995 electoral list – the basis of repatriation selection. The MBPDF is also contesting the 20,700 displaced person’s figure; it should be 35,000. Mizoram only needs to compare it with the refugee list available in Tripura’s official records, Sawibunga said.

So, even if there are court-forced overtures now, the once uprooted have many questions. The MBDPF says the new sites are either in “Mizo-dominated” areas, or in “extremely steep cliffs”.

Lalbiakzama, the state’s additional secretary, however, dismissed these concerns. “Everything is on the road map,” he said. “We are in the process of identifying people for repatriation.”
Is There a Conspiracy in Relocation Plan?

MBPDF is not so sure. It sees a pattern in the relocation plan, by not allowing the community to live together.

Villages have been identified in three districts: 48 villages in northern Mamit to house 2,594 families, eight in Kolasib for 628 families, and 233 families will move to southern Lunglei.

The new sites have been selected according to “available space” and unspecified “issues”, said two state officials who did not want to be named. The returnees will be “allotted” a new address only after their arrival at Kaiskau, a base set up to ease transit at the border.

The Congress government led by Chief Minister Lal Thanhawla has called these claims as “false propaganda” prompted by a Hindu organisation. During last year’s general election, Lal Thanhawla tried to stop the refugees from exercising postal voting from Tripura camps.

In contrast, CPM-ruled Tripura is gracious. Despite a stretch on its resources, Jitendra Choudhury, MP representing East Tripura – where the camps are based – said that the people want to return to their homestead and get their agriculture land back. “But the repatriation will not succeed unless a congenial atmosphere is created (in Mizoram).”

“From our side, we’re not in a hurry. We will never give them an ultimatum to go,” said Choudhury. “It’s a humanitarian issue.”

(Maitreyee Handique writes on India’s northeast and keeps a watch on labour, industrial safety and human rights issues)

India: Thousands of Bru tribals fled Mizoram in 1997 following ethnic violence, and lived in camps in Trupura, they are to be repatrated now

The Indian Express

Bru repatriation: Cloud over process intensifies as none turn
No Bru has turned up for the verification process even on the third day of the ongoing last and final repatriation process for the community, a senior official said Thursday.

The repatriation process of Bru tibals is likely to be completed by September.
Aizawl | Published on:June 4, 2015 4:04 pm

No Bru has turned up for the verification process even on the third day of the ongoing last and final repatriation process for the community, a senior official said Thursday.

Mamit Deputy Commissioner Vanlalngaihsaka said over phone there has been “nil” verification because inmates of the Kaskau relief camp in North Tripura did not turn up at the government set-up counters over the past three days.

Inmates at Kaskau has meanwhile submitted a memorandum to the government saying they will not return to Mizoram unless their demands of being resettled in the same villages they once lived in within Mizoram and enhanced compensation packages are given. They also complained that the timing of the repatriation is not conducive for their farming season.

The officials deputed for the verification process at the camp are scheduled to move towards Khakchangpara relief camp next, but authorities are not hopeful that results will be any different there or in the four other camps they will go to afterwards.

If anyone who passes the verification process is willing to return to Mizoram, the state government would privide transportation for them to return to the state from Tripura and resettle them in selected villages where they will be allotted land and given compensation packages.

Tens of thousands of Bru tribals fled Mizoram in 1997 following ethnic violence between them and the majority Mizos following the murder of a Mizo official by Bru militants.

They made their way to Tripura where the neighbouring state put them in designated relief camps where they have been lodged ever since. Tripura has repeatedly said Mizoram should take back the tribals.

Six phases of the repatriation process has been organised since 2010 but these have met with limited success, partly because relief camp leaders have rejected the compensation package saying it is too less.

The Ministry of Home Affairs and the Mizoram and Tripura governments have agreed and told the Supreme Court, which is monitoring the repatrartion process, that this would be the last time an effort is made to repatriate the tribals.

Anyone who does not take part would be removed from Mizoram’s electoral rolls (where they have continued to remain after a generation in absentia) and the relief camps disbanded, the sides had agreed.

Kaskau camp has 1100-odd people registered in Mizoram’s electoral rolls, while more than ten times that number are spread over all the six camps taken as a whole. In all, about 30,000 people remain in the camps.

- See more at: http://indianexpress.com/article/india/india-others/bru-repatriation-cloud-over-process-intensifies-as-none-turn/

India: Quit Mizoram Notices - Fear of the Other | N William Singh

Economic and Political Weekly, Vol - XLIX No. 25, June 21, 2014 - Web Exclusive

Quit Mizoram Notices: Fear of the Other

by N William Singh

Considered an island of peace in the conflict-ridden region of north-east India, the discrimination and harassment of the non-Mizos in Mizoram borders on xenophobia. Time and again, quit Mizoram notices have been served by non-state actors to minorities, creating an atmosphere of fear and persecution

On 24 March 2014, five major non-governmental organisations (NGOs) in Mizoram staged a rally in Aizawl to protest against the Election Commission of India’s decision to allow the Bru tribals to exercise their franchise through postal ballots in the 2014 parliamentary elections from their relief camps in northern Tripura.

The Young Mizo Association (YMA), Mizo Zirlai Pawl (MZP), Mizoram Students Union (MSU), Mizoram Upa Pawl (Senior Citizens Association) and Mizoram Hmeichhe Insuihkhawm Pawl–Mizo Women’s Organisation (MHIP) broadcasted the following statement on All India Radio Aizawl on 25 March 2014:

We sent a memorandum to the Election Commission of India in our opposition against Bru to cast their vote from relief camps in north Tripura. The joint NGOs demand that Bru should repatriate back to Mizoram before the Lok Sabha poll and those who refuse should be deleted from the electoral roll. The Bru relief camps are breeding grounds for armed goons indulging in series of abduction, kidnapping and extortion to disturb the peaceful nature of Mizoram.

Bru leaders accused these NGOs of attempting to deprive them of their electoral rights and urged the Election Commission of India to ignore their demands.

The Brus and the majority Mizo community have been embroiled in a long standing ethnic conflict. Following ethnic violence in 1997 [i] and then again in 2009,[ii] thousands of Brus fled their homes in Mizoram to the adjoining state of Tripura. Approximately 35,000 Brus continue to languish in six relief camps at Kanchanpur in northern Tripura till this day.[iii]

The Anti Non-Mizo Sentiment

Vai is the terminology used to refer to any non-Mizo residing in Mizoram. The Mizo community has shared a troubled relationship with Vai’s (non-Mizo people). For decades, Vai’s have worked and lived in Mizoram in constant fear due to a series of quit Mizoram notices issued by non-state actors over the last few decades. Quit notices are a common phenomena prevalent among the tribes of north-east India (See Laithangbam: 2012 and Goswami: 2014). Its history can be traced back to Nagaland, where they facilitated extortion through intimidation by Naga militants.

Between 1966 and 2014, several quit Mizoram notices have been issued to tribal minorities and people from other parts of India residing in Mizoram (the author could identify seven during fieldwork); four by the erstwhile militant Mizo National Front (MNF) before they signed the peace accord with India in 1986[iv] and three by NGOs after Mizoram gained statehood in 1987.[v] These notices served as instruments of intimidation and were unconstitutional. The state government’s response to quit Mizoram notices has so far been inadequate, and it has not taken it any steps to stop these xenophobic actions.

In 1958, Pu Laldenga, secretary of the erstwhile Mizo Cultural Society, in several of his public speeches repeatedly stated, “Mizoram is for Mizos only” (Nibedon:1980). He later went on to establish the Mizo National Front in 1961, with the aim of establishing a sovereign independent state for the Mizos. On 28 February 1966, the MNF spearheaded an uprising against the Indian government, and in an operation codenamed Jericho, government offices and security installations were simultaneously attacked. To supress the armed insurrection, the Indian government carried out air strikes in its own territory, and the Indian Air Force fighter planes bombed Aizwal and several villages in Mizo district of Assam.

The Mizo insurgency continued over the next two decades. In 1986, the Mizo Peace Accord was signed between the Indian government and the MNF, and the latter became a legitimate political party. The union territory of Mizoram was granted statehood in 1987, and it became the 23rd state of the Indian union, and Laldenga became its first the chief minister in 1988. After becoming a mainstream political party in 1986, the MNF never served quit Mizoram notices again.

However, the deeply entrenched anxiety against non-Mizos and other minority tribes surfaced time and again in the form of quit Mizoram notices, served in the last few years by influential NGOs–YMA, MZP, MHIP, MSU and MUP. Even village councils, which have the powers to exercise power to mandate codes of conduct for areas under their jurisdiction under the Sixth Schedule of the Indian constitution, issued a quit Mizoram notice on November 14, 2010.

Quit Mizoram Notices by MNF

March 1966 -– In March 1966, armed MNF men, in the dead of night, entered houses of non-Mizos in Vairengte (a small township close to the Assam–Mizoram border) and served them a quit Mizoram notice (Chatterjee 1994: 190). Oral threats were issued and pamphlets to quit Mizoram were circulated by the MNF cadres in other parts of Mizo Hills district.

Days before Operation Jericho was launched, many non-Mizos fled from Mizo Hills district to the plains of Assam. A confrontation between the MNF and the Indian military intelligence left sixteen persons (mainly informants and Indian intelligence personnel) wounded.

R V Pillai, a sub divisional officer based in Lunglei, was abducted during Operation Jericho. He was confined by the MNF for few days but was later set free. Pillai was abducted because he was a Vai and a government official. No killings of non-Mizos were recorded in the aftermath of this quit Mizoram notice. (Nunthara:1994).

December 1974 -- On 6 December 1974, the rebel town commander of the MNF distributed handbills in Aizwal asking the non-Mizos to quit the Mizo hills by 31 December 1974. The MNF tried to intimidate non-Mizos and made it clear that those who flout the notice would have to face the consequences (Nibedon: 1980).

The aftermath of 1974 quit Mizoram notice was harsh. On 13 January 1975, a jeep drove straight into the Mizoram Police headquarters, and Captain Lalheia of the MNF along with three other gunmen sprayed bullets inside the conference room. The casualties were none other than three senior police officials–Inspector General of Police G H Arya, Deputy Inspector General of Police L B Sewa, and Superintendent of Police P Panchpagesan. The message that the MNF was trying to convey was that no non-Mizo, however powerful, would be spared.

June 1979 — Another quit Mizoram notice was served by the MNF on 3 June 1979. This was the only notice which was openly challenged by a chief minister of Mizoram. Brigadier (retd.) Thenphunga Sailo, the chief minister, issued a strong warning to the MNF activists in his speech, which was broadcasted by All India Radio Aizwal on 4 June.

Some misguided elements have issued a notice under the caption “Non-Mizo’s” to quit Mizoram before 1st July, 1979; threatening them with dire consequences if they fail to do so. This is politically motivated by self-centred motives and is to prevent peace and prosperity from coming to Mizoram and therefore is not in the interest of Mizoram. I may sound a note of warning to those who either out of mischief or for imaginary political gains indulges in rumour mongering and false propaganda. It is the duty of all right thinking people to ensure the safety of their non-Mizo brethrens. People belonging to Christian faith having true faith in God will not allow such rancour to prevail (Sharma: 2006, 127-128).

Laldenga, who was trying to resolve the Mizo issue peacefully with India at that time, found it extremely difficult to handle the repercussions of the 1979 quit Mizoram notice. In June 1980, Laldenga unequivocally repudiated the terror tactics employed by the MNF, which he felt were counterproductive to the advancement of the Mizo cause (Chatterjee:1994, 298). He disapproved the quit Mizoram notice issued by the MNF, because it disrupted the unity of Mizoram. He went further to suggest that the quit Mizoram idea was a stale and outdated one, borrowed from discredited outfits, and its application was disastrous for the integrity of the Mizo society.

May 1982 — From the MNF headquarters in the Arakan Hills of Burma, a quit notice was issued in May 1982. The order was signed by Zoramthanga,[vi] vice-president of the MNF who a few years later went on to become a minister in the government headed by chief minister Laldenga in Mizoram. In 1998, he became the chief minister of the state himself.

All non-Mizos, including government officials from other parts of India, were advised to leave Mizoram by 21 June 1982. The quit order, however, came with relaxations for the first time. Gorkhalis who were settled and were born prior to 1966 in Mizoram, Christians who went to church and people from the mongoloid race could stay back in Mizoram.

Unlike government employees, non-Mizo teachers, mostly from Assam and Bengal, teaching in far flung villages in the hills had no security and felt very vulnerable when these quit Mizoram notices were served by the MNF. College teachers in Aizwal and Lunglei were also largely non-Mizos. A retired academic (name withheld) once revealed to me the nightmares he experienced when these notices were issued:

When the first quit Mizoram notice was served in 1966, I was not in Mizoram. I came to Aizawl in 1973 as a college lecturer to teach economics. When the subsequent quit notices were served in 1974, 1979 and 1982, I still remember the horrible threats which were issued. At one point in time, I was about to give up my job and leave for Jorhat, Assam. But, our Mizo colleagues stood by us. They invited us to stay and reside in their house during those difficult times.[vii]

Quit Order Notices after Mizoram Attained Statehood

November 2010 — Chin migrants from Myanmar were served a quit Mizoram notice on 14 November 2010 by a joint committee of the village councils of Aizawl South-III assembly constituency following the gruesome rape and murder of a minor Mizo girl by a Chin. The village councils, constituted under the Sixth Schedule, are empowered to make laws based on customary practices benefitting the local community, and these laws have to be approved by the governor of the state. Issuing threats or making laws to intimidate people is against their mandate.

Justifying its order, the committee said that eviction notice was issued to prevent such terrible incidents from occurring in the constituency in the future. Fearing retaliation, many Chins from Myanmar fled the area and few even went back to Myanmar.

The Chins were welcomed in Mizoram after the Burmese army crackdown against Chin militants in 1988. They were seen as ethnic cousins and were given food, shelter and options for livelihood. Currently, the Chin National Front guerrillas are active in eastern flanks of the state. The Chin community, who have sought asylum in Mizoram, is often blamed for smuggling of drugs and alcohol in the state.

Though the Chins do not need a passport[viii] to enter India, they are permitted free movement in Indian territory within 16 kms of the India-Myanmar border.[ix] But most Chins hardly follow this rule, and many of them can be found in Aizawl, which is more than 200 kms from the border. Only a few abide by the law, obtain permits, pay permit fees, and deposit identification cards at border check points.

August 2011 – The YMA, the largest and the most influential NGO in Mizoram, issued a quit Mizoram notice to non-Mizo traders in Mizoram on 11 August 2011. The YMA urged all non-tribal businessmen engaged in illegal trade practices to leave the state by the end of August. In an interview, Central YMA (YMA Headquarter, Aizawl) President Lalbiakzuala said:

There is section of non-Mizo traders who are practising unregistered trade. There are traders indulging in benami transactions, which are illegal on every count. Since the state has not taken any actions against such non-Mizo traders, the YMA took action against them. Further, non-tribal’s doing business with valid permits will not be touched, but illegal traders will not be spared. There are cases where trade is being conducted by non-tribals under Mizo names and that is harmful for the Mizo community and the state of Mizoram. Inner Line Permit (ILP) holders were engaged in businesses which they are not permitted to engage in by Indian law.[x]

April 2013 — The YMA again issued a quit Mizoram notice to Chin settlers in the two villages of Phunchawng and Rangvamual which are on the outskirts of Aizawl on 15 April 2013. 85% of the households in these two villages are inhabited by Chins from Myanmar. Out of the total 884 households in these two villages, 241 households were engaged in brewing liquor, which is illegal in Mizoram.[xi] The YMA set May 15 as the deadline for these illegal brewers to quit Mizoram.

There was outrage against the YMA since it took the law in its own hands. The YMA were criticised for allegedly taking away the livelihood of poor people and migrants from Myanmar. But the YMA asserted that “there are other ways of earning and living”.

The government of Mizoram has failed on two counts. Firstly, it has failed to counter non-state agencies issuing quit Mizoram notices. Secondly, it has failed to enact and execute laws to curtail illegal activities taking place in Mizoram, forcing NGOs and other non-state actors to take action against what they deem illegal. Until the state adopts a firm stance against intimidatory tactics used by these organisations, the non-Mizos will live in a perpetual state of anxiety and fear.

(N William Singh (williamsnongmaithem06@gmail.com) teaches sociology at the Pachhunga University College in Aizawl, Mizoram.)


Notes:

[i] For Bru crisis in Mizoram, See Indian Human Rights Reports: 2008 (New Delhi: Asian Center for Human Rights).

[ii] Also see Khangchin, Veronica: (2014), “India: Continuing Irritants in Mizoram – Analysis”, Eurasia Review, South Asia Terrorism Portal, available at www.eurasiareview.com/19032014; accessed on 26 March, 2014

[iii] ibid

[iv] Mizoram Peace Accord was signed between the MNF and government of India on June 30, 1986 in New Delhi. It ended 20 years of militancy and killings in Mizoram. The signatories of the Peace Accord were eader Laldenga, the MNF leader, R D Pradhan, home secretary government of India, and Lalkhama, chief secretary, government of Mizoram.

[v] Mizoram became the 23rd state of Indian Union on 20 February, 1987.

[vi] Zoramthanga was the vice-president of the MNF. He was a trusted associate of Laldenga. After the Peace Accord was signed and when Laldenga became the Chief Minister; Zoramthanga served as the finance and education minister. In 1998; Zoramthanga became the fifth chief minister of Mizoram, when the MNF won a landslide victory over the Congress.

[vii] Personal interview given to the author; 23 June, 2012.

[viii] Gazette of India, Part II, Dated 1st July, 1968 stated: “Passport Entry Rules will be exempted to every member of the hill tribes, who is either a citizen of India or a Citizen of the Union of Burma and who is ordinarily resident in any area within 40 Kms on either side of the Indo-Burma frontier entering into India across the said frontier”. (The Mizoram Gazette 2003)

[ix] July 21, 2010 notification by Ministry of Home Affairs, Government of India reduced 40 Kms benchmark to 16 Kms. The Gazette of India, Part II laid the following changes: “A permit issued by the Government of India or State government may specify for the purpose and he/she shall not on the basis of that permit move into the area in India which is beyond Sixteen Kms from the aforesaid frontier”. (The Gazette of India 2010)

[x] Personal Interview given to the author; February 14, 2014

[xi] Mizoram Liquor Total Prohibition (MLTP) Act, 1995

References:

Bakshi, P M (2009): The Constitution of India, 9th Edition (Delhi: Universal Law Publishing).

Chatterjee, Suhas (1994): Making of Mizoram: Role of Laldenga, Vol I & II (New Delhi: MD Publishers).

Goswami, Namrata (2014): “Naga Identity - Ideals, Parallels, and Reality”, The Hindu Centre for Politics and Public Policy, 16 June, available at http://www.thehinducentre.com/the-arena/current-issues/article6114531.ece, accessed on 19 June, 2014.

Hluna, John V & Rini Tochhawng (2012): The Mizo Uprising: Assam Assembly Debates on the Mizo Movement 1966-71 (London: Cambridge Scholars Press).

Indian Human Rights Reports (2008): Bru Crisis in Mizoram (New Delhi: Asian Center for Human Rights).

Khangchin, Veronica (2014): “India: Continuing Irritants in Mizoram – Analysis”, Eurasia Review, South Asia Terrorism Portal, http://www.eurasiareview.com/19032014-india-continuing-irritants-mizoram... www.eurasiareview.com/19032014; accessed on 26 March, 2014.

Laithangbam, Iboyaima (2012): “Rebels’ quit notice to migrants in Manipur”, The Hindu, 6 September, available at http://www.thehindu.com/news/national/other-states/rebels-quit-notice-to-migrants-in-manipur/article3865515.ece, accessed on 19 June, 2014.

Manchanda, Rita & Tapan Bose (1997): States, Citizens & Outsiders: The Uprooted peoples of South Asia (Kathmandu: South Asia Forum for Human Rights).

Nibedon, Nirmal (1980): The Daggers Brigade (New Delhi: Lancers Publishers).

Nunthara, C (1996): Mizoram: Society & Polity (New Delhi: Indus Publishers).

Sammadar, Ranabir (2006): Refugee & the State: Practice of Asylum & Care in India (New Delhi: Sage publications).

Sharma, Suresh K (2006): Documents on North-east India: Mizoram (New Delhi: Mittal Publications).

Singh, N William (2014): “Tethered Ethnics: Chins across the borders of Mizoram and Myanmar”, Paper presented in Indian Council of Historical Research (ICHR), Aizawl.

The Gazette of India (2010): Extraordinary, Part II, No.403, New Delhi.

The Mizoram Gazette (2003): Extraordinary, Vol. 32, Aizawl.

Fatwa from Mizoram church bans soccer on Sundays

From: The Times of India
TNN | Sep 21, 2012, 03.47AM IST


AIZAWL: Youth of Christian-dominated Mizoram are at a crossroads between passion and religion. The dilemma follows a recent appeal on a ban on playing football on Sundays by the Synod, the highest decision-making body of the powerful Mizoram Presbyterian Church.

A statement signed by Synod moderator Rev Thangzauva and Synod secretary "Upa" (elder) DP Biakkhuma says, "The Presbyterian Church Synod appeals to all people of Mizoram to refrain from any sporting activities on Sundays as Mizoram is a Christian state and Sunday is a sacred and important day for Christians." It, however, expressed happiness over the success of Mizo youth in sports. The statement added, "The church appeals to all people to respect our sacred day."

Jonathan L Hnamte, a member of the Seventh Day Adventists Church, criticized the statement of the Presbyterian Church saying it clearly exposes the apathetic attitude of Mizoram's biggest church towards other Christian denominations. "Members of the Seventh Day Adventists and also some other denominations, observe Saturday as the Sabbath just like the Catholics, the Presbyterians and the Baptists observe Sunday as the holy day," said Hnamte.

He added that they had tolerated people playing football or other games near their places of worship on Sabbath, while having church service, for years. He said the Presbyterian Church was powerful enough to dictate terms to the state government. Accusing its leaders of acting like religious bigots, he added that issuing restrictions to the people of Mizoram revealed their arrogant attitude.

He said liquor was prohibited since the past 15 years as successive governments could not defy the church's "appeal" despite the state losing revenue.