I received your
Tribalzone e-newsletter some days ago. It is high time that such a means of
communication is fully made use of when a person like you is handling it.
Perhaps, if I see myself to be, lets say 2446th person having excess
to this newsletter, on the one hand I see myself being one among a few Adivasis
who have access to the communication technology such as web site and familiar
with English as a language. Yet on the other hand, I think that any thing big
has to start from some thing small. I appreciate the initiative you have taken
up with your team in using this means to voice the concerns of the Adivasi
people.
Why am I writing to you!
The very basic themes
in you e-news seem to be centered on Adivasi identity where the issue of
self-hood, language, festivals and the cultural practices have been touched upon
and made appealing. In this regard I would like to comment on the issue of
identity itself and the name given to it and vice-so-versa. It is with the hope
that the comments I am making would open an avenue for further thought and
discussions on larger issues that concern us as Adivasis. As a larger Adivasi
community and us being part of the indigenous peoples elsewhere in the world
there are a number of serious issues too that need attention of the Adivasis who
are willing to make positive changes in the lives of our own people. On such
issues I would be willing to contribute at a later stage if there is a need felt
for it.
Speaking of Names
Stigma in accepting our name?
You had raised the
issue of identity in your January newsletter and the issue of name in your
newsletter that followed. I am trying to reiterate on both the issues of
identity and its name giving here which I see it to be related. And to start
with I would like to talk about names and its relation to identity. Why are we
called what you are called today? Have we ever questioned it? Who has named us,
‘baptised’, or with -the ‘kanchadi’, ‘chathi’ or ‘namkarn’
ceremony given us this name?
For many of us it is
a stigma to be called by the name we have been given, depending on how it is
understood and taken. Unfortunately for most of us our name and our identity
itself is a stigma. A stigma of one’s own actual being and being called who
you actually are, stigma in speaking our own language, stigma in honouring and
observing our own customary and cultural practices. Lets be aware that this
stigma has been consciously created among a people or section of people to be
subjugated by another, who consider them-selves to be ‘superiority’ and
‘fairer’, and thus those ‘inferior’ and ‘unfair’ or ‘weak’ are
to be subjected and dominated. It is that feeling of guilt for us and therefore
should be shameful of our identity, and the stigma we carry takes away our
self-esteem and makes you to submit to those who consider themselves to be
superior to us.
The feeling of
inferiority has been injected to the Adivasis ever since the time of Madra Munda
(in the Hindu era) who was ‘disqualified’ for being the king not being as
sophisticated or ‘sabhya’ in mannerism of behaviour as and appearance
as Phani Mukut Rai, a non-adivasi
(who was adopted by Madra’s father as a child, but taught by a Pandit).
The stigma of being recognized as an ‘inferior’ was not only limited for
Adivasi during fifth and eighth century, but it was added with impact with
different names we were called with in the colonial era. The names Adivasis in
central India were identified with including in the Chotanagpur’s District
Courts of East Indian Company in 1807 and referred as “wild ‘tribes’”,
“pastoral ‘tribes’”, “agricultural ‘tribes’” or “mixed or
imperfect ‘tribes’” along with such terms as ‘aborigines’,
‘primitive’, also like wise referred to by Asiatic Society in 1866, till
Charles Grand in 1870 started listing the Adivasis, now for the purpose of
administering our land and resources and the local population as well who used
it… as we all know the khatians and patta systems were made
‘records’ of individual or family ownership of Adivasi land and the rest
then given to understand as that of the government and since they administer,
you pay the ‘malgujari’ -tax to the government. When British decided
to leave the administration in the Indian leadership and the new constitution
was being drafted, Jaipal Singh argued against use of the term ‘tribe’ or
‘tribal’ for the Adivasis. Instead his argument in the Constituent Assembly
was to use the term ‘Aboriginal’ in English and ‘Adivasi’ in Hindi
before the adoption of the new Construction. But leaders like Sardar Patel and
others were not so concerned and today the terms used were accepted without
acknowledging the arguments of the Adivasi leader being opposed to use of these
terms. His argument was voted out and thus Adivasis today, as you said are
called the ‘anusuchit janjati’ or ‘schedule tribe’. It seems we
have accepted them. But have we?
What determines the
identity of the Adivasis? Who tells us if we are tribe or janjati or what
ever we have been made to think of ourselves to be today? The Adivasi - who do
not speak their language, who have given up their customs and practices, who
have denied the existence of their real ancestors who were the source of
knowledge and their identity, all in the guise of being ‘modern’, they have
given up their fate to those who ‘wrote’ their history and named them with
different names to determine who an Adivasi is. Once a happy, honest, simple and
cultured person today suffers the image of being portrayed as someone
‘primitive’, ‘illiterate’ and ‘uncivilised’, one who drinks and
dances to the drums... The culture of the ‘cultured’ one seen by the
‘modern’ eye can only see the culture in its face value. Therefore the
culture of Adivasis today has become an ornamental museum piece. It is ironic
that our akhra – which is the cradle of Adivasi folk culture, is
dishonoured by outsiders as well as by our own, of which only the visual culture
of the Adivasis is taken for the cameras to demonstrate the ‘tribal’
identity, as if dancing with costumes is what cultural means.
What a name can not and can do
Today, even the
anthropologists who gave the name ‘tribal’ to the Adivasi, do not use the
term ‘tribal’, it is used for group not necessarily Adivasi or Aborignal in
or indigenous to a certain regions. In the legal battle as ‘tribal’ you
don’t have much ground to claim for you rights as much as you do if you are
recognized as an ‘Aboriginal’ or ‘Adivasi’. The phenomenon of name then
is associated with the whole notion of rights, one person’s rights against the
other depending on who can claim what. The individual rights versus collective
claims and their collective rights. It is because these terms can single
out rights / claims of individuals, or legal entities or states as against the
collective rights of communities (see Note below). Interestingly, today the
United States government insists on using the word ‘tribe’ in the United
Nations instead of indigenous for its native indigenous ethnic groups, so does
the Indian, Bangladeshi, Thai and Malaysian governments, whereas the indigenous
representatives are opposed to it and demand to be called indigenous peoples or
with their own names. Also, the argument is to be accepted as peoples against
the use of the term populations for these groups in the UN process (the whole UN
process can be seen through link 1. below). If you note you can see that there
is a motive for promoting such terms for people - be it at whichever level, and
you need to be aware of it. The term ‘tribal’ is not synonymous to Adivasi
– the term ‘Adivasi’ has some how been given by the Sanskrit speakers when
Sanskrit was a spoken and written language. It is more acceptable today as well
because it means who and what the referred people really were at that time. I
believe the term ‘Adivasi’ should be used instead of any other term used for
the said group of people. The tragedy of name can be seen for one of the group
of people in north India identified as ‘criminal tribes’, also called the
‘de-notified tribes’ as they were rebellious and did not tolerate the
presence of others dominance, most probably because of their reaction outside
dominance seen as ‘crime’ were given this name by outsiders. They are the
nomadic groups of people, however, it cannot be said if they consider themselves
to be Adivasis. It is because of the name tagged to their identity, members of
this group are arrested for no crime of their own, they are booked and charged
with false cases most of the time if the police is not able to find the real
culprit in a theft or criminal case. Some police personals also use them as
pimps to do illegal activities, if they do not; they face the consequences of
ending up in prison for crimes not committed by them. One who happens to be a
member of this ethnic group, and the name given to them eventually determines
their fate. (A friend of mine from Jamia University in Delhi has made a
documentary film on the life of these people with interviews on record in 2002).
Legacy and claim in the name
One has to be careful
with names. Looking at the Native Americans or the First Nations, you don’t
call them ‘indian’ - it is an abusive word, in the circumpolar region Inuits
would not like to be called Eskimos, they would like to be called by their own
name Inuit. Saamis would not want to be called Lapps, as they were presently
called in Scandinavian countries. Similarly the Koi-Koi and San in South Africa
would not like to be called the ‘bush men’. You don’t call a coloured
person a Negro or Afro-American, they are called either Black or
African-American. Adivasis in central India and / or in Chotanagpur have been
called by different names, ‘vanarsena’, ‘vanvasis’, ‘kols’
and all the versions mentioned earlier during the British Raj including that of
‘tribes’. None of which are the same as Adivasi or aboriginal or the names
we call ourselves with, which means humans. During the Vedic era the Adivasis
were equal to ‘vanars’ in the early modern era. Founded on Darwinian
theory Adivasis were ‘wild, mixed or imperfect…etc. TRIBES’. Adivasis have
their cultural and belief system but with the introduction of ‘creation’ or
the ‘Genesis’ concept, again which is a western and Biblical concept, the
Adivasi cultural and belief system was over shadowed and marginalized to the
maximum. For these Adivasis who continued to being members of ‘Adi-dharma’
or commonly known as Sarna and did not convert to any of the
institutional religions were called ‘anya jati- heathens’ by this new
religious group or called with other names and their practices ‘andhbishwasi-
believe in superstition’, and from that kind of life they were to be civilized
and saved. Not to talk of the latest Marxian ideologies and other ideologies
that are present today …the latest ideology being for or against
globalisation.
Let us question
ourselves, then what has been the ultimate motive for these names given to the
Adivasis? Let’s also ask ourselves, if the religious conversion and reforms
with a given religious perspective, has it done justice to the Adivasi
perspective in helping them shape their social and cultural life? Answer it as
yes or no, the fact is that the Adivasi stand divided among themselves more then
they affiliate with the respective religious groups they have converted into and
their perspectives. These affiliations have more to do with upward social
mobility more then their spiritual enlistment. Here talking of social reforms in
the pre independent era with a religious leanings, be it the Vaishnavites,
other reformers with Hindu outlook or Gossners, Levanskis and the Anglican with
the gospel. Not denying that some, if not all have made outstanding
contributions in the regions for the Adivasi people and also for the local
communities. But the question still remains if any of that is helping Adivasis
to unite among themselves? It would depend on what objectives they have.
Yet there had been
other kind of social awakenings mainly against the continued exploitation by
outsiders all through out the history of the Adivasis. Be it form that of Tilka
Majhi or the leaders of Siddhu and Kanu or Singrai and Bhindrai and later Birsa
and the Tana Bhagats, all with a vision of a just Adivasi society. All for the
Adivasi and their fellow beings to live a life of honor. Ultimately it is your
self-determination of how you want to change yourself, not how others want you
to change, that too with their conditions and their world-view. The question is
why are these social movements reforms not talked about by Adivasis today?
Instead social reforms with an outside perspective are given more importance
then that of your own. The challenge of keeping to your social reform becomes
even bigger in the globalising society of today.
Collective or individual name for
Adivasi claim
Why is the individual
rights more preferred then collective rights? The British rulers facing a touch
resistance during the Santhal Hul, 150 years ago, and then the uprising in
Chottanagpur a 100 years ago recognised the collective rights of Khutkati system
and the like, Chottnagpur Tenancy, Santhal Pargana Tenancy Act. and Willkinson
Rule were the outcome. Why is it that the British government then had recognized
it, but today, her delegation (see link 2 below) along with USA, China,
Malaysia, India, Bangladesh’s are so strongly opposed to adoption of the
article 25 to 30 of the draft Declaration that deals with “collective
rights” for indigenous peoples on their land and resources and article 3 for
Self-determination as proposed in the draft Declaration on the Rights of the
Indigenous Peoples in almost all the UN Working Groups on Draft Declaration
sessions. Their condition for adoption is if they use their own wording in
phrasing these articles. For example from the draft Declarations preamble
paragraph which says “Affirming that the indigenous peoples are equal in
dignity and rights to all other peoples, while recognising the right of
all peoples to be different, to consider themselves different, and to be
respected as such…” the UK delegation wants the wording “in dignity and
rights” from the said text removed, so does the US delegation. In the third
paragraph where it is proposed … “Reaffirming also that indigenous peoples, in
the exercise of the rights, should be free from discrimination of any
kind…” the UK delegation wants to remove the wording “in the exercise of
their rights” from the text. It is only the preamble paragraph, but Articles?
Take article 26, which deals with ownership of land. The first paragraph of the
text proposed here says “indigenous people have the right to own, develop,
control and use the land and territories, including the total environment of THE
land, air, water, coastal sea, sea ice, flora and fauna and other resources
which they have traditionally owned or otherwise occupied or used. …”, the
governments amended texts say, “indigenous peoples have the right to own,
develop and control and use THEIR lands and resources…”, and there are
altogether 45 Articles. Nearly twenty years since the process has been going on,
this year being the last and there has been no substantive progress. More over
this declaration even if adopted has only moral binding for the governments it
is not even legal binding, and still why are they so opposed? It is because our gairmajurwa
lands, forest land, the common land and others legally remains with the
government, once which was our common land, for Akhra, grazing, common
fishing, for hunting or for collecting mahua flower or ‘madkom baa’,
if the government finds something underneath it, on the surface or above it
which has a commercial value and wants to exploit it, they will not have to deal
with any one and or pay compensation for it acquisition. Because what you are
given is your ‘patta’ or ‘khatian’, only for your rarity
-revenue land every thing else is sarkari or state property. The
government can issue license to any company to mine, build dam, make a golf
club, or a national park or what ever a profit-making agency can think of, be it
military firing range or defence zones. We have, the Bokaro Steel City, Dhanbad,
Ranchi, Chaibasa, Tatanagar or Jamshedpur- which does not even have an Adivasi
name any more, Raurkela and other names will matter when we have our presence
there, presence that can reflect our features. Now Tuderma multi purpose
project scheme is on its way, struggle in Panchwara goes on… while we have
Koel Karo and Netrahat so far saved - we like to think that it is saved- from
going away, but it is not certain when there is going to be another unannounced
commandment from the World Bank or the International Financial Agencies willing
to release (lend) their fund to have some thing else proposed here. The Indian
government will be highly obliged, as always the ministries who approve the
project have larger chunks of commission so will the officers who implement
it…and so on. When there is a big kill many scavengers make a feast out of it.
Correct name in the census
All these notions of
the civilised superior against the uncivilized inferior has its roots in the
Darwinian theory of looking at the human society, on the other hand the
civilised as opposed to ‘paganism’ is another slap in the face of
Adivasis… I also have difficulty in accepting the cultural practices such as Karam
and other Adi-dharma or Sarna cultural practices being imitated by other
organised religious institutions. Is it because most of the members in this
religious institution come from the same ethnic background as of those who
practice Adi-dharma or Sarna cultural, is it for themselves to feel that
they too belong to the Adivasi culture, and is take for granted by them that
they can imitate those practices ignoring the spirituality of this cultural
practice. Let Adi-dharma or Sarna be what the Adi-dharma and its
practices is in its full holiness. Why imitate the custom only without accepting
its spirituality? To console yourself that you are still sticking to your
‘Adivasi custom’ but do away with its spirituality! It is like the Basmati
rice or Neem patented by the US company for them to use and sell. They don’t
grow it. It has its origin in India. I think before the Indian government’s
census forms have the column of Adi-dharma or commonly called Sarna to be
recognised as a separate cultural and spiritual belief system it should be
RESPECTED by those who have left it and adopted the institutionalised religious
practices. I do not question the existence of these religious institutions; I
have my respect for the contribution they have made to the people of this
region. But I say a cultural practice without its spirituality is like a human
being without his/her soul. As for freedom which is a value that cannot come
from outside,… someone coming from outside and telling you that that now you
are a free man or a free woman. First he/she needs to know what has enslaved
them or what he/she has been enveloped into. Is it not that stigma one has to be
free of, and accept who an Adivasi is and where their roots lay? Saamis in
Norway, Finland and Sweden are doing it (learning about their culture).
Aboriginals in Australia are doing it. The Mohawk, the Cree and the First
Nations peoples in North America are doing it. Inuits in Greenland, Canada and
in the north are doing it, so are the Ainu in Hokkaido Island in Japan. Though
much is lost for them, still they are reviving their languages, the customary
systems and rituals, dress, food, even some of their own sports… (See links 5,
6 and 7 below)
Naming some examples
For example, the
Saami festival in Jokkmokk in Sweden every year early February (this was their
400th year - see link 3 below), though the region is dominated by Swedes, the
Saami with their gaktis -traditional dress, recognise each other who come
here from all over from Norway, Finland and from the rest of Sweden. They come
here to meet each other, sell their handicrafts, reindeer – sheep - fox and
other fur products, knifes, toys, drinks, musical instruments, their traditional
goods and more. To have music concerts, young boys and girls also come to look
for their life partners, shows and exhibitions takes place. For the non-Saami
Europeans, even if you cannot distinguish them with the looks, the Saami with
the Saami gakti says it all. With the patterns in it you can tell which
clan or village he or she comes from, a certain knot of the belt on the waist of
a young girl. So does the decoration in the boy’s belt indicating if he is
engaged or single, that would indicate to help them find their partner. Although
the Saami people are mixed with their European neighbours in the course of time
due to different reasons, the consciousness of their ethnic identity is the
driving force for regaining their indigenous identity in northern Europe. In
Norway the Saami today have their own Parliament comprised of Saami
representatives from four countries. Though this is a western model their
traditional Siida system- of land anagement and reindeer herding
territories. Siida, though not in its original form, still is symbol of
their social organizations today. They have schools for their children in Saami
language, and prefer to send their children to be sent here instead of
Norwegian, Swedish or Finnish language medium schools in respective countries.
If we look at
ourselves we are much rich in this respect…we still have our language, Hor-ror,
Ho, Mundai, Kharia, Kurukh, Nagpuria, Kurmali, Kortha and also the Malpaharia,
some even with scripts of our own- other then Davnagri, Bangla or Roman, we have
our own social and government system Majhi Pargnait, Khutkati, Manki Munda and
Parha system (like what Siida was to Saami), we still have our Baa, Karam,
Mage and other festivals, (I have not notice Saami having these exclusive
cultural festivals, except annual festivals and Easter - having been converted
to Christianity in seventh century) we still also have our own sports like
bhawar and many other sports other then hockey and other modern sports, we still
have our Sasangdiris, Jahers and Majhi-thans… Many other indigenous people
around the world have lost theirs including the Adivasis in central and south
India, if not in the north east India - who eventually are losing it due to
rapid westernisation. Those indigenous peoples in the first world or
‘developed countries’ who have lost their language, customs and social
practices due to long being assimilated with outsiders and the rapid industrial
development and modernisation. Now when there is barely any thing left they are
reviving it using the disciplines of archaeology, anthropology, historiography
and other means that is made possible. It certainly does not mean that going
back to the roots is opposed to modernisation. In some of the Saami family
(farm- fishing or herding) cabins I have seen snow scooters, cars and four
seater (water landing) airplanes parked out side. Saamis despite of all the odds
are proud to be Saami even after attempts to assimilate them into the national
mainstream cultures. For ourselves, let’s think before it is too late, what
worth is a modern life if modesty of the modern living has erased your identity
from us, we then are living some one else’s life, not our own.
The policy of
assimilation emphasised in the Indian National Tribal Policy today certainly is
not in our own terms. On the first place why assimilation? The process was used
for the nation building after independence of our country (India ratified only
ILO Con.107 which speaks of centralization, indirectly speaks of assimilation).
It is not only Nehru who was responsible in India for promoting the assimilation
policy, the nation building process was taking place all over the world after
the two World Wars and assimilation of minority, tribes and the indigenous was
taking place else were as well. We have to realize that if we live some ones
else’s life it will be too difficult and next to impossible to even buy back
our own life. And as we see India march into opening up its economy to the
maximum, when all, be it material physical and or social cultural things will
become a commodity for consumption and profit, someone else making money out of
our identity and its richness. Considering that our physical and minerals wealth
are gone, even after legend story of Tore Kora or Khasra Kora with Lutkum Haram
and Lutkum Budi having warned us, and now as the Coal Bearing Areas
Development…Act. that can over rule the Land Acquisition Act; the forest are
about to go after this India’s New Forest Policy comes to force, our lands are
gone as soon as the Fifth Schedule is amended and Chotanagpur Tenancy and
Santhal Pargana Tenancy Act are done away with. It won’t be late when our
social and cultural practices and symbols too will become mere commodities with
no value of its own but for tourist attraction and research, if any of that is
left, and will be opened for research and discussions in the universities and
write in journals about.
Given and inherited Clan name and
titles
If we talk of claims,
it is the name that is key to it. And that is why names and titles are
important. It is not only individual names and titles, as it was once when one
would not say if they are Tiru, Kerketta, Tudu, Lakra or Soren but introduce
themselves with their given name, say Kaily, Madra, Binko, Eyon and then say
Manjhi, Munda and Uraon etc. As I understand the clan name was an internal
affair. It had not only to do with clan lineage but also to address oneself to
be a part of a larger group, which had their territorial claims and their
chieftain. Today, what we are called also determines what we can claim or are
entitled to. If you are called ‘Anusuchit Janjati’, ‘Scheduled
Tribal’ or ‘tribal’ you are entitled for mere ‘reservation’ in the
social, economic and political system where we are only subjects. Lets see it
this way, if your given name, say is, ‘delhiet’, ‘bombaywala’ or
‘ranchiar’ and your clan or family name then is ‘doctor’,
‘engineer’, ‘clark’ or ‘aya’ which is an internal matter, well not
always if it makes you proud about it, by the grace of (…)…etc. and we all
proudly claiming to be call Indians inheriting her ‘pride’ and giving
ourselves to or bowing to her chieftainship. Well I am not trying to sound
myself as an antinational. I am just questioning ourselves of how much Indian
can we be if our mother nation does not even want to address her subjects with
their real name. She will tax you and you and you will do the same to those who
come to you for your service.
Even if a mother
accepts her stepchild, may be for his/her physical features (our minerals and
natural resources), and not accept him/her for who that child is, with the name
given to this child by his/her ancestral parents, the child will not be enjoying
to live his/her own life nor will the death be his/her own. Coming back to the
child’s real name - Adivasi or aboriginal then he she has a rightful claim.
May be the mother is really treating the child as an orphans, as the child grows
up use him or her to serve his her mother in reservation and when the youth of
this child is over you disown the person and take all his /her claim (emptying
all the mineral and natural reserves). The child will legally still be called an
Indian, but will not be entitled to his / her real possession - the native land
and his/her claim to it. All the indigenous peoples all around the world are
demanding this native claim today from their ‘parents’ –their
governments.
If you go back to
your real name ‘Adivasi’ - Ho, Hor, or humans - and if translated correctly
in English - Aboriginal you have a claim to be native. The claim as said most of
the indigenous people around the world are fighting for today from the very
local court level to United Nations level. It is the name that reminds and
reaffirms you to have your rightful claims from others who have taken it away
from you. If we have forgotten our name that our ancestors have given us, we
have to learn our language to know the meaning, -the thirteen festivals are the
reminder of our real naming ceremony- if we do not recollect the meaning of our
name, on our death our future generation will not be there to even claim our
body. They will not be there to lay the Sasan Diri on our name –the
customary clan line burial ceremonial stone. The Adivasi will then only be the
legend of the past who’s future has failed him / her to the ‘modern’
world. Simply because he / she has been made to forget who he / she is and is
living the reserved life GIVEN by somebody like stepparents, and will probably
live that life all through his / her life and certainly THE next one as well
(now for sure) without a name and without a past to know where did he/she came
from. Because the generation that follows us will not have the will nor the
power to buy back their life from the ‘reserved life’ which the Adivasi HAS
BEEN GIVEN, as the land of Adivasi will not be theirs and the Sasang Diri of
ours, if we still hope to have for us having completed our days, which by
customs cannot be laid on the land that is rented or leased to us by the state
or any one who has taken the ownership of our lands.
The Adivasi has to
have his/her own family and community, if need be, give just reservation to
others who have come to live with them, and this reservation will not be
hierarchical but an egalitarian one. The First Nations indigenous peoples in
Canada have proved it (see link 4 below). They have not only reclaimed their
lands, but also set up their own governing system, they collect tax and give
services. They monitor their resources and respect their traditions. They are
more or less equal partners in the Canadian government system with other state
parties.
Respect and honor to real parents who
named you!
After all what I have
said, I would say with all due respect, I appreciate the comment Sri M.P.
Dungdung from New Delhi makes in defence of some of the Adivasis who have made
it to the TOP but not responding in Sadri if spoken to in this language.
However, the issue is larger than just a response in the local language.
Specially on the issue of respect, I have difficulty in understanding why they
are supposed to be more respected than any other member in the Adivasi society?
It may be in the ‘society they live in’ which demands that mannerism. I
don’t think that’s an Adivasi value. I would like to know how does an
Adivasi in his / her wholeness different form a non-Adivasi who have imposed
their social norms and conditions and tell us how the Adivasis should behave in
their society that down looks at our very existence. Let us not forget that the
officers are government servants, they execute what their seniors order them to
do. Even the decisions they make are in the interests of the government, they
are cogs in the wheel of the government system. Let us also not forget who
carried out the Gua firing known as Gua kand, it is the Adivasi officer leading
the escort…, who is sent on the front to negotiate when the people protest the
Netrhat fining range? It is the commander who is an Adivasi sent to negotiate in
the field. It is Adivasis in the battalion who are deputed to protect the
interest of the Jagdugora’s Uranium Cooperation of India Ltd. (UCIL) uranium
mining activity when the Advises are dying of consuming radioactive contaminated
surroundings and when they protest, it is the security battalion comprising of
Adivasi recruits posted here to defend UCIL. Be it junior or senior most levels
of officials who serve the government, he /she is responsible to the government
not to the people, and because it is not the Adivasi people’s government you
cannot expect any thing other then a few personal favors. I am not denying that
there are good and very capable and committed officials in the government and
they have made outstanding contributions in different ways. The Khasis in
Meghalaya, in festivals their senior most officers and the common Khasi can sit
in the same table and can enjoy being together. That is where you see the
egalitarian behaviours. Their Queen is very respected but is far more different
and not separated from her people due to the pride of being what she is unlike
the image of what queen should be and look like. The mannerism, I understand
from what you are talking of, seems like that of the castes society where the
level of respect is defined by which category you are placed in. I wish the
respect in the real sense, if we mean it, we should have for our Naikes, Mankis,
Parhas, Parganaits, Manjhiharams, our elders who are the custodians and
guardians of our society, they are no more custodians, nor have their dignity
today because they have lost our respect in the ‘society’ we have assumed to
be ours where their place is at the BOTTOM. I think that making the top and
bottom to equal level will be the beginning of learning Adivasi values, and
learn to respect of who we are.
Thank you for your
attention. I conclude my remarks here. Johar!
Bineet J. Mundu
Note:
If the courts of your
country have denied that right you are entitled to as with your real name your
are entitled to and can claim you can go to the International Covenant on the
Civil and Political Rights (Article 27 - see link 8 below) or International
Labour Organisation (under its Convention 169 – India has not
ratified it).
Links:
1. Update on UN’
draft Declaration on the rights of the Indigenous Peoples:
http://www.docip.org/anglais/update_en/index.html
2. UK’s position on
collective rights:
http://www.gcc.ca/pdf/INT000000003.pdf
http://www.blackmesais.org/Britain_blocks_indigenous.htm
3. The 400th year of
Jokkmokks festival:
http://www.jokkmokksmarknad.com/ny/eng/
4. First Nations in
Canada:
http://www.cyfn.ca/
5. Saami People:
http://www.itv.se/boreale/samieng.htm
6. Australian
Aborignals
http://www.academicinfo.net/ausablaw.html
7. Ainu in Hokkaido
Japan
http://www.cwis.org/fwj/22/ainusupp.htm
8. Indigenous land
rights claim on the basis of ‘culture’
a) Ivan Kitok v. Sweden (197/1985)
http://www.unhchr.ch/tbs/doc.nsf/(Symbol)/d9332db8dfce2f63c1256ab50052d2ff?Opendocument
b) Bernard Ominayak, Chief of the Lubicon Lake Band v. Canada (167/1984)
http://www.unhchr.ch/tbs/doc.nsf/(Symbol)/fb7fb12c2fb8bb21c12563ed004df111?Opendocument
