Latest news with #Chakmas
Time of India
07-07-2025
- Politics
- Time of India
Tripura rally seeks identification, deportation of illegal immigrants
Agartala: Civil Society Organisations and NGOs held a rally here on Monday, demanding the state govt identify and deport illegal migrants from Bangladesh and Myanmar. The demonstration, featuring a national flag, aimed to draw attention to the issue of illegal immigration in the state. Notable figures from various tribal bodies and community leaders attended the rally, including BJP's ally in the govt, TIPRA Motha MLA Ranjit Debbarma. Debbarma appealed to all political parties to unite in combating illegal immigration to ensure greater unity and secure the future for the next generation. The organisers alleged a significant influx of Chakma tribes from the Chittagong Hill Tracts into the state. In the hills, these migrants have constructed Buddhist monasteries and established settlements over the years. In Agartala, a Chakma colony emerged rapidly, housing individuals from Bangladesh with illegal documents, they added. A substantial number of Chakmas secured govt jobs, including executive positions, by managing illegal documents within the state. Most mango orchards in Gandacherra of Dhalai district are owned by Chakmas who reside in other Indian cities or Chittagong, enjoying dual citizenship. by Taboola by Taboola Sponsored Links Sponsored Links Promoted Links Promoted Links You May Like Il gioco di fattoria più rilassante del 2025. Nessuna installazione Taonga: la fattoria sull'isola Gioca Undo Areas such as Bamutia and Mohanpur near Agartala have multiple families of this nature, but no action has been taken, NGO leaders claimed. Addressing the gathering, Debbarma said that shortly after the creation of Bangladesh in 1971, the Centre issued orders to all states and territorial administrations to eliminate illegal immigrants, but these efforts failed in Tripura. Subsequent orders in 2017 and 2021 by the then Left Front and BJP govt, respectively were neither publicised nor executed. On May 19 this year, the MHA issued directives to all state govts following the Pahalgam incident to identify and deport illegal migrants to their respective countries. Consequently, Assam, Arunachal Pradesh, Meghalaya, Maharashtra, Gujarat, and Haryana began implementing the order. "Unfortunately, the Tripura govt sat on the direction, making the indigenous people angry. These people are infiltrating Tripura and managing forged documents, buying lands, creating imbalance to our employment opportunities and resources," Debbarma said. "We should not engage in vote-bank politics regarding infiltration. Everyone must unite against illegal immigration," he asserted, adding that his party does not support community-based politics.
The Hindu
07-07-2025
- Politics
- The Hindu
Arunachal Pradesh officials warned against violating Supreme Court judgment on Chakma-Hajong issue
GUWAHATI A rights activist and member of the core group of the National Human Rights Commission has warned officials in Arunachal Pradesh against violating the Supreme Court's 1996 judgment, seeking the protection of the rights of all Chakma and Hajong people living in the State since the 1960s. Senior officials and District Magistrates in Arunachal Pradesh could face contempt of court if they held a meeting with representatives of the All Arunachal Pradesh Students' Union (AAPSU) on the contentious Chakma-Hajong issue, Suhas Chakma, also director of the Delhi-based Rights and Risks Analysis Group, said. In a notification on July 3, the State's Home Department called for a meeting with the AAPSU on Tuesday (July 8, 2025) with a three-point agenda — deportation of illegal immigrants, review and rectification of the voter list/electoral roll, and land records and encroachment by Chakma-Hajong settlers. Also Read | Chakmas and Hajongs: The peoples without a state The apex court, in its judgment on January 9, 1996, directed the Arunachal Pradesh government to protect the life and personal liberty of each Chakma and Hajong person residing within the State from organised groups, Mr. Chakma said. The Supreme Court also said that quit notices issued by any group, 'which tantamount to threats to the life and liberty' of the communities concerned, 'should be dealt with in accordance with the law'. 'Instead of complying with this direction, the State government has made AAPSU a part of the government decision-making by inviting it to the official meeting to be held on July 8. A non-state actor being invited to the official meeting for decision-making is unheard of, and non est in law,' Mr. Chakma said. 'It amounts to making a non-state actor act as the complainant, judge, jury, and executioner. This is in absolute contravention of basic tenets of the rule of law, including Article 14 and Article 21 of the Constitution of India, and most importantly, in contempt of the Supreme Court's 1996 judgment. No court shall take such indiscretion lightly,' he said. The rights activist also reminded the State government of the apex court's ruling, which says that 'while the application of any individual Chakma is pending consideration', the Arunachal Pradesh government '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 on that behalf'. The Arunachal Pradesh government did not process a single citizenship application, as directed by the Supreme Court, Mr. Chakma said. 'Instead, the government is taking decisions to remove the Chakmas and Hajongs from their occupations, and evict them,' he added. Displaced by a dam and religious persecution in the erstwhile East Pakistan, the primarily Buddhist Chakmas, and the Hindu Hajongs were settled in a few pockets of Arunachal Pradesh between 1964 and 1969. The final count of the refugees was 14,888. In September 2015, the Supreme Court sought citizenship for the approximately 7,000 Chakma-Hajong people who were alive at the time.
Hindustan Times
16-06-2025
- Politics
- Hindustan Times
Arunachal Pradesh students' union protests against illegal immigrants
The All Arunachal Pradesh Students' Union (AAPSU), the premier student organisation in the state, on Monday held a massive rally in the state capital of Itanagar, demanding immediate action against what they claim to be a demographic threat posed by illegal immigrants, particularly the Chakma and Hajong communities. Joined by scores of community-based organisations, district student unions and concerned citizens, the demonstration culminated in the submission of a 12-point memorandum to the Union Ministry of Home Affairs via the state chief secretary. AAPSU reiterated its longstanding demands for the identification and deportation of illegal immigrants and re-verification of the electoral rolls. Speaking at the rally, AAPSU president Dozi Tana Tara warned of a looming cultural and legal crisis. 'The presence of illegal immigrants, especially Chakma and Hajong, is not just a population issue — it's a direct threat to our constitutional rights, tribal land ownership, and cultural identity,' he said. 'The time for complacency is over. The government must act decisively.' The students' union alleged that while only 56 Chakma-Hajong families were settled in Arunachal in the 1960s, the population has since grown unchecked, with many allegedly gaining access to benefits reserved for Scheduled Tribes, encroaching on community land, and flouting forest norms. Referring to a recent land dispute in Tissing-Singpho village, where a tribal woman's property was reportedly seized by settlers, AAPSU said such alleged incidents underscore the urgent need for intervention. 'If deportation isn't feasible, relocation to other states must be considered,' Tara added. The memorandum also flagged violations of the Bengal Eastern Frontier Regulation (BEFR), 1873, law-and-order concerns and the undocumented status of many settlers. It also called for a review of all beneficiary schemes that may have been accessed by illegal immigrants. AAPSU termed Monday's rally as part of an 'intensified democratic struggle' and urged all CBOs to remain alert. 'This is not just our fight — it's about safeguarding the future of Arunachal's indigenous communities,' Tara said. The Chakmas and Hajongs, originally residents of the Chittagong Hill Tracts of the former East Pakistan (now Bangladesh), had to flee when their land was submerged due to the Kaptai dam project in the 1960s. The groups entered India through what was then the Lushai Hills district of Assam (today's Mizoram). While some stayed back with Chakmas already living in the Lushai Hills, the Indian government moved a majority of the refugees to present-day Arunachal Pradesh. Chakmas are predominantly Buddhists, while the Hajongs are Hindus.
News18
04-06-2025
- General
- News18
Bangladeshi Rebels Demanding Separate State Detained By Tripura Police
Last Updated: Police officials suspect the detainees are part of a Chakma outfit with past ties to a movement that wanted a separate state out of Bangladesh. Tripura Police on Tuesday night detained 13 injured members of a Bangladesh-based group, including two women, from a rented house near Agartala. The detainees, suspected to be part of a Chakma community organisation active in the Chittagong Hill Tracts, will be pushed back to Bangladesh soon, officials told news agency IANS. According to preliminary reports, the group crossed the international border illegally through Raishyabari in Dhalai district following a violent clash with a rival outfit in Bangladesh's Panchari region last week. Several members have visible injuries, with bandages on their legs and arms. Senior police officials interrogated the group throughout Wednesday before handing them over to the Mobile Task Force (MTF), which later transferred them to the Border Security Force (BSF). A joint repatriation effort is expected soon. The armed clash they fled from is believed to be part of the long-running tensions in the Chittagong Hill Tracts, a region historically affected by ethnic insurgency. The Shanti Bahini insurgency, driven by the Parbatya Chattagram Jana Samhati Samiti (PCJSS), ended formally with a peace accord signed with the Bangladesh government in 1997. The PCJSS, formed in 1972 under Manabendra Narayan Larma, initially pushed for autonomy for the indigenous Jumma peoples of the Chittagong Hill Tracts. Their demands included a separate legislative body for the Chittagong Hill Tracts, constitutional protection for tribal customs, and preservation of traditional leadership. Although the group officially sought autonomy within Bangladesh, elements of its armed wing, the Shanti Bahini, reportedly pursued full sovereignty. Larma had also protested the Bangladesh Constitution's draft, calling for complete separation. The insurgency waged by the Shanti Bahini ended with the 1997 CHT Peace Accord, which granted limited autonomy and led to the group's disarmament. The PCJSS has since operated as a political party, demanding full implementation of the agreement. However, reports of sporadic violence and tension have persisted, particularly following the fall of Sheikh Hasina's Awami League government in August 2024. Since then, there have been multiple allegations of attacks on indigenous communities in the CHT by security forces and illegal settlers. Many Chakmas continue to live under fear of reprisal and political marginalisation. The Chakma people, predominantly Buddhist, are native to the CHT in southeast Bangladesh, as well as Myanmar's Chin and Arakan regions, and several northeastern Indian states. Tripura, which shares an 856-kilometre border with Bangladesh, remains particularly vulnerable to such cross-border movements due to its porous terrain and the ongoing unrest just across the international boundary. First Published: June 04, 2025, 23:24 IST
Indian Express
20-05-2025
- Politics
- Indian Express
The constitutional case for protecting Rohingya refugees
Last Friday, a division bench of the Supreme Court of India, consisting of justices Surya Kant and N Kotiswar Singh, refused to stay the alleged deportation of 43 Rohingya refugees. The petition alleged that the Delhi Police had transported the refugees to the Andaman and Nicobar Islands and dropped them off in international waters for deportation to Myanmar. The Bench refused to intervene or take cognisance of the telephonic evidence or the UN inquiry report presented to it. The Bench reasoned that the relief sought in this case had been referred to a three-judge Bench and cited the orders of the Chief Justice of India. The case was then scheduled for a hearing before the three-judge Bench on July 31, 2025. Against this backdrop, larger questions emerge regarding the Indian government's outlook on the proliferation of refugee crises worldwide, particularly in India's neighbourhood. The Indian government views Rohingya refugees as a threat to national security, labelling them 'illegal immigrants' and advocating for their deportation. This stance infringes on constitutional guarantees under Articles 14 and 21, read with Article 51(c) of the Constitution. Articles 14 and 21 guarantee the right to equality and the right to life and personal liberty to all persons, including non-citizens, rendering these rights universally applicable and non-excludable. Article 51(c) requires fostering respect for international law and treaty obligations. Therefore, India's ratification of international conventions such as the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR) and the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR) prohibits the deportation of refugees when there is a serious risk of human rights violations. Constitutional provisions must be interpreted in a manner that aligns with the global human rights regime. This principle, known as non-refoulement, prohibits countries from sending individuals to a territory where they face a threat to their life. It is widely recognised as a fundamental tenet of international law and is accepted by most states as legally binding and non-derogable. The Indian judiciary's stance on refugee rights has been inconsistent. Three cases are most relevant to note. In NHRC vs Arunachal Pradesh, concerning the deportation of the Chakmas (who had migrated from Bangladesh in 1964 and first settled in Assam before settling in Arunachal Pradesh), the Supreme Court ruled that Article 21 of the Indian Constitution applies to all individuals, regardless of citizenship. The Court directed the Arunachal Pradesh government to protect the refugees, fulfil its legal obligations to safeguard the lives of Chakmas in the state, and ensure they were not forcibly evicted. The Court also emphasised the protection of refugees' rights. In Ktaer Abbas Habib Al Qutaifi vs Union of India, the Gujarat High Court recognised that the principle of non-refoulement is included in Article 21 of the Constitution and underscored India's responsibility to respect international treaties and conventions concerning humanitarian law. The Delhi High Court took a similar stance in Dongh Lian Kham vs Union of India, recognising the principle of non-refoulement as integral to Article 21 of the Constitution. However, this approach seems to have faded as the Supreme Court has now taken a contrary stance on the deportation of the Rohingyas, ruling that the government's right to expel a foreigner is unlimited and absolute. India claims that it is not bound by the 1951 Convention relating to the Status of Refugees ('1951 Convention') or the 1967 Protocol relating to the Status of Refugees ('1967 Protocol') and therefore is not obligated to adhere to Article 33(1) of the 1951 Convention regarding the principle of non refoulement. However, it is imperative to note that this principle applies not only to recognised refugees but also to individuals whose refugee status has not been formally recognised. Refugee status determination is declaratory in nature; a person is recognised as a refugee because they are one, not because of recognition. In the context of Rohingyas in India, India's refusal to recognise them formally should not negate their inherent rights under international humanitarian principles or the fundamental rights guaranteed by the Constitution. Currently, India's treatment of different refugee populations is based on non-uniform assessments and the nation's geopolitical interests. This approach has resulted in different standards of treatment, protection and assistance for different refugee groups. For example, Tibetan refugees have received a more favourable response, including residence permits, access to education, and government-supported settlement. In contrast, Sri Lankan refugees were housed in camps and faced numerous restrictions. This discretionary approach stems from the absence of a standardised national framework, leaving refugees and their rights at the mercy of those in positions of power. The world order appears to be shifting towards intolerance, with a surge in military conflict, the detrimental impacts of climate change, and geopolitical shifts leading to xenophobic tendencies. In this ever-shifting landscape, the traditional understanding of a 'refugee' — someone fleeing persecution, conflict or violence in their home country — is changing. This is due to the emergence of 'nouveau refugees', such as stateless persons and climate refugees, who do not conform to the traditional understanding of a 'refugee' from the old world order. To extend a non-discriminatory humanitarian hand would pave the way for India's leadership in kindness to forge a new world order of peace. Yanappa leads the Karnataka team at Vidhi Centre for Legal Policy, where she works on urban governance, education, and data and technology regulations. Ullal is a research fellow at Vidhi, where she works on issues concerning urban governance, education and the environment
