How Chakmas and Hajongs settled in North East, why Arunachal worries about citizenship: 

How Chakmas and Hajongs settled in North East, why Arunachal worries about citizenship: 

Context:

Adhering to the Supreme Court verdict, the Centre on Wednesday decided to grant citizenship to all Chakma and Hajong refugees living in the Northeast for the past five decades.

Introduction:

• Arunachal Pradesh witnessed widespread protests against the Centre’s decision to grant citizenship
• Several organisations and civil society in Arunachal Pradesh have been opposing citizenship to the Chakma and Hajong refugees saying it would change the demography of the State.
• A Rajya Sabha committee led by Sushma Swaraj in 1997 first recommended that these refugees from Bangladesh be granted Indian citizenship.

Who are the Chakmas and Hajongs?

• They were originally inhabitants of the Chittagong Hill Tracts of erstwhile East Pakistan (now Bangladesh) who were forced out of that country.
• They were displaced from their original homesteads because of the Kaptai hydroelectric dam on the Karnaphuli river in the early 1960s, and there was no rehabilitation and compensation.
• Later, they became victims of religious persecution in East Pakistan, and fled to India.
• While the Chakmas are Buddhists, the Hajongs are Hindus.

Why were they sent to Arunachal Pradesh?

• They had initially crossed over to the then Lushai Hills district of Assam (now Mizoram). But fearing trouble between the Mizos and the Chakmas, the Assam government sent them to the Tirap division of North East Frontier Agency (NEFA, present-day Arunachal Pradesh).

Have they remained refugees?

• Although all of them were treated as refugees originally, the Government of India decided to grant them citizenship under Section 5(i)(a) of the Citizenship Act  in 1972.
• Arunachal Pradesh, which came into being the same year as a Union Territory, immediately opposed this and said that it could not permit “outsiders” to settle on its territory because that would adversely affect its demography and limited resources.

Why didn’t NEFA oppose it in the beginning?

• When the birth of Arunachal Pradesh coincided with the joint statement of the PMs of India and Bangladesh, political parties emerging in the new state immediately identified it as a potential threat to their demography.
• By the time Arunachal Pradesh attained full statehood in 1987, the All Arunachal Pradesh Students’ Union (AAPSU) had already built a strong movement against settling Chakmas and Hajongs there.

What are their numbers now?

• Only about 5,000 of the original 14,888 who were sent to the then NEFA are alive today.
• A white paper published by the state government in1996 said their numbers had increased more than 300% from the original 14,888 persons settled in 1964-69 to over 60,000 in 1995.
• According to the Supreme Court, all those born in India could invoke Section 5(i)(a) and apply for citizenship. So far, about 5,000 people have applied, but they are yet to be granted citizenship.
• In 2005, the Election Commission issued general guidelines to include the Chakmas and Hajongs in the state’s electoral rolls. Though the AAPSU contested this, Gauhati High Court dismissed its plea in March 2013.
• The names of about 3,200 Chakmas currently appear in Arunachal’s electoral rolls.

How do they sustain themselves?

• Though refugees, each of the 2,748 families was allotted five acres of land in Changlang district in eastern Arunachal Pradesh which they continue to use for cultivation.
• The younger generation has moved out for education and jobs, but face problems because of lack of citizenship status.
• The state government provides them basic amenities such as education, healthcare, sanitation and rations.

What about other political parties in Arunachal Pradesh?

• All parties in the state are unanimous in the view that granting citizenship to the Chakmas would seriously affect the demographic structure of the state where most of the tribes are less in number in comparison to the growing Chakma population.
• Political parties said granting citizenship would contravene various laws such as the Bengal Eastern Frontier Regulations, 1873, Scheduled District Act, 1874, Assam Frontier Tract Regulation, 1880, Assam Frontier Forest Regulation, 1891, Chin Hills Regulations, 1896, and Assam Frontier (Administration & Justice) Regulation, 1945 (1 of 1945).

What is the AAPSU’s current stance?

• Recently, the AAPSU said granting citizenship to the Chakma and Hajong refugees in Arunachal Pradesh would not only grant them political rights, but also have far-reaching ramifications to the state’s social fabric.
• It would dilute the constitutional safeguards for the indigenous communities, pose a threat to their identity and culture, and flare up social unrest unless the rights of the indigenous people are adequately protected and safeguarded.