Right across the South Asian one of the most neglected and misunderstood issues if that of the rights of indigenous ethnic communities. From the Shan and the Karen in Burma to the Raika of Rajasthan such people face a veritable barrage of assaults on their identity and often minimal protection from the power of the various organs of the State. Furthermore, what is particularly troubling is that countries that take pride in having thrown off the shackles of imperialism appear at times more than content to engage in cultural imperialism and acts of repression. Matters are further exacerbated by widespread ignorance and indifference, a fact that at times appears to be a contributory factor to the occasional use of the heal of insolent might.

Identity is by its very nature a complex issue, something that sociologists and anthropologists continue to debate at length. Most of us like to feel we belong or subscribe to a particular nation, clan, group or sub-group and as part of this attachment a whole raft of elements come into play. Walter von Molo elucidated something of this when he wrote the following; “As I understand it, a national character consists in the possession, by a certain human group, of qualities which are influenced by the particular locality in which the group happens to live, and by the fact that well-nigh from time immemorial all its members have shared the same history.” In writing of “national character” and “qualities” we soon gain a sense of affinity and distinctiveness, essential elements that differentiate communities. It hardly takes a leap of faith to appreciate that with differentiation comes difference and thus in the nature of human fallibility and insecurity there is the potential for suspicion, rivalry, xenophobia and racism.

Minority ethnic communities often find themselves alienated and mismanaged by alien political systems and frameworks. Being viewed as outsiders they have to endure overt and covert prejudice and in this era of insecurity are invariably seen as suspect as Administrative and Security Structures invariably have a tendency to develop a myopic approach that results in an ‘Us and Them’ mentality. We see marked signs of this in the majority community’s lexicon when it comes to those deemed ‘other’. An example in India is the use of derogatory names such as asuras or rakshas (demons). India with its veritable patchwork of states and communities throws this whole subject into sharp relief. The attitude of officialdom to what are invariably referred to as ‘Scheduled Tribes’ is riddled with inconsistencies, whilst on the one hand India endeavours to exude a spirit of pluralism and tolerance it continues to find it difficult to address the legitimate concerns and grievances of those who are sometimes referred to as Adivasi* The fact that the majority of the Scheduled Tribes reside in remote frontier regions further complicates matters and has resulted in detachment, occasional high-handedness and often mutual mistrust. Mention to officials in New Delhi names such as Assam, Arunachal Pradesh, Manipur, Meghalaya, Mizoram, Nagaland and Tripura and one will often be on the receiving end of as many quizzical looks as if one had mentioned Estonia, Latvia and Lithuania. Some Administrators have made a conscious effort to discover something of the distinctive nature of the Scheduled Tribes, but sadly all too often the mindset is shaped by a catalogue of events that have led to many of the tribal areas being deemed suspect.

Peoples such as the Gouds, Santals, Oraon, Bhils and Nagas have long cherished their sense of separateness, a fact accentuated by the remote locations where they live. Some of these people adhere to what has been dubbed ‘Nagalism, a concept that does not sit easily with the superannuated bureaucrats in New Delhi. The word ‘Nagalism’ is a name that was coined to refer to the Naga homeland which transcends the present state boundaries. It is important to note that there has been a periodic Naga insurgency since the 1950’s, something which resulted in the AFSPA (Armed Forces Special Power Act) being passed in 1958. In effect this placed the remote tribal lands of north eastern India under a form of martial law since that time. What started off as applying to Nagaland was extended to all adjacent regions except Mizoram in 1972 (the same legislation was further extended to include Kashmir in 1990). There have been strict controls on those permitted to visit these ‘sensitive’ regions, with foreigners (especially journalists) discouraged or prohibited. As a result indigenous peoples have complained about human rights abuses and the fact that the Armed Forces appear to act with impunity. Such have been the concerns raised by some that the United Nations Human Rights Commission has in the past questioned the constitutionality of the AFSPA and have sought clarification in regard to Article 4 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights. Even within India there have been investigations into over-zealous activity and in the case of The Jeevan Reddy Commission (2005) into alleged violations carried out by the Assam Rifles in Manipur. Campaigners such as Irom Chanu Sharmila nicknamed ‘the Iron Lady of Manipur’ have used hunger strikes as a means of raising awareness of human rights concerns. In addition publications such as the Jharkhand Mirror () make considerable play of reporting that which the mainstream press seem oblivious or indifferent too. For all the challenges it would be quite wrong to denigrate all those connected with various elements of the Security Apparatus. There are legitimate concerns, especially along some of the border regions. The activities of Maoist separatist groups have long been a major pre-occupation. Many officers and security specialists have made a concerted effort to engage and understand, but may be at times the gulf of mistrust and misunderstanding has proved too difficult to bridge.

The Indian sub-continent within the colonial period and after independence has struggled to understand and appreciate those that fall outside the mainstream. One only has to look at how the Onge or the Great Andamanese have been driven to the brink of extinction to understand how as humans we often fear, oppress or abuse those who may have different habits and traditions to our own. The Vadda (Veddus) of Sri Lanka have suffered a similar fate. Scarce resources have also been a point of frequent conflict. In Bangladesh the eleven indigenous groups that comprise some 500,000 people that reside within the Chittagong Hill Tracks (CHT) are currently enduring regular flare-ups involving the majority Bangla population who are moving into to the CHT in search of land and grazing. It is important that we remember that many indigenous communities have been the guardians of extraordinarily rich and diverse habitats for hundreds, maybe thousands of years. Demographic change, population growth and our near insatiable demand for land and resources looks set to trigger further ‘land grabs’ and the clash of cultures that sadly has been a feature of history since the dawn of time. Rather than shrugging our shoulders or wringing our hands we can at least make some attempt to understand the anxiety of those who we all too often we overlook. Objective observers freely admit that empathy has been in very short supply and for all our supposed progress let us not forget that there is often majesty in the margins.

*Adivasi is a Sanskrit word meaning ‘original people’. The 2001 census figures calculated that they make up 8.2% of the Indian population.