Thursday, May 26, 2022

Kailam Wildlife Sanctuary threatens to displace forest tribes

Village chiefs in the Indian state of Manipur – site of various conflicts – are protesting against a notification that will uproot up to 100 villages to make room for a wildlife sanctuary

About sixty village chiefs of Churachandpur district in the Indian state of Manipur gathered at Lamka on May 12, 2018 to deliberate upon a notification about the Kailam Wildlife Sanctuary[i]. The village chiefs unanimously resolved to object ‘tooth and nail’ against the move the Manipur government, and formed a Joint Action Committee to take forward their move. The gathering also featured a seminar on “Forest rights in Hill Areas of Manipur state”


These are only the latest moves in a long dispute. In June 1997, the government of Manipur issued a gazette notification stating that – in exercise of powers conferred by sub-section (I) of Section 18 of Wildlife (Protection) Act 1972 – the Governor of Manipur had declared an area of 187.50 square kilometres in south Manipur as a wildlife sanctuary on account of ecological conditions, fauna, floral, geo-morphological features of significance. The gazette notification declared that the area would be called “Kailam Wildlife Sanctuary”.


At that time the area included 17 villages within its boundaries. In August 2015 the Union Ministry of Environment, Forest and Climate Change issued a draft notification declaring the surrounding area as “eco-sensitive” covering an additional 48 villages in an area of 734 square kilometres.


According to the village chiefs there are approximately another 40 villages that are not mentioned in the list covered under the proposed core area of the sanctuary and the eco-sensitive zone. Thus a total of 105 villages will be affected, and their residents displaced to make way for the proposed sanctuary.


In response to the 1997 gazette notification five village chiefs filed a written objection. The 2015 notification was objected by the Thanlon sub-division Village Chiefs Association in October 2015. Moreover 8 village chiefs field a writ petition in the High Court of Manipur challenging the proclamation of the sanctuary. The said writ petition was closed since the government did not take further steps.


Some of the key reasons cited for the objection include the infringement upon the rights of the Chiefs, being uprooted from their ancestral lands, taking away their right to land and forest resources, and the deprivation of livelihood.


The village chiefs claimed that the move to declare the sanctuary came as a shock, and they were unaware of any such move by the government until the gazette notification came to their doorsteps. Only 5 village chiefs filed their ‘objection’ to the 1997 notification and that too only in 2001.


Thiankholian Guite, the chief of Songtal village, explained why the response had been so delayed. He said that the gazette notification in 1997 came at a time when there was largescale inter-community conflict in the district, so much so that Churachandpur district came to standstill for more than a year. Again in 2015, when the notice for declaring the eco-sensitive zone came, the district was seeing intense upheaval against three contentious bills had been passed in the state assembly. At least eight people were killed in the ensuing violence, and the district came to a standstill for almost two years. Guite asked, “Is the government taking advantage of such socio-political crisis in the district?”


The village chief of Kaihlam, which is at core of the proposed sanctuary, Kaizamang Naulak stated that, “We are not aware of any survey or information regarding the proposed sanctuary”. The same sentiment was echoed by the chief of Maite village, Lianminthang, who said, “We have to oppose it. Else we will be wiped away. Either we leave the village for good or fight it with any possible means.”


The chiefs also disputed the core rationale for their being moved out of the area: the preservation of flora and fauna. Guite said that village chiefs had been preserving the forest since generations, “We have been strictly monitoring the forest – in terms of restricting cutting of trees and exploiting resources of the forest.” He asked, “Are animals in the forest far more precious than the forest dwellers?” Adding, “We (chiefs) must protect our ancestral land and its people.”


Kaihlam Hills – locally known as Kaihlam Taang – is a popular hill range in Churachandpur district. A great deal of history, culture, folk tales, and beliefs are woven around them. Geographically located at 93o 25.00′ E longitude and 24o12.00′ N latitude with an altitude ranging from 500 – 2,018 metres above sea level, the proposed / notified Kailam / Kaihlam Wildlife Sanctuary falls under the Indo-Burma region of the biodiversity hotspots as declared by Conservation International.


According to a research study by Thangsuanlian Naulak at the Forest Research Institute, Dehradun, the proposed area of the sanctuary is home to five species of hornbills: Tickell’s brown hornbill, rufous-necked hornbill, great hornbill, wreathed hornbill, and the Oriental pied hornbill. Apart from this the area plays host to leopards, the golden cat, the serow, the Hoolock gibbon, the stump-tailed macaque, the Asiatic black bear, the Chinese pangolin, the Eurasian otter, and the Chinese ghoral. There are 135 species of trees, 119 species of herbs, 80 species of shrubs, as well as a combination of 68 grass and bamboo species.


The study also mentions that – as per the gazette notification – the District Magistrate is required to publish notifications in the regional language in every town and village in the neighbourhood of the area regarding the situation and limits of the sanctuary, as well as determine the rights of those displaced. However the notification has not been published in any vernacular language and no settlement of rights has been carried out so far.


According to forest officials in Churachandpur the final notification is yet to be made, while the acquisition of forest lands for the sanctuary is yet to be made by the district administration. The officials stated that due to opposition from village chiefs further action cannot be taken up at present.


There is fear, anxiety, and uncertainty among the people dwelling at Kaihlam Taang forest and the vicinity of the proposed sanctuary and the inhabitants of Churachandpur district at large. Various public discussions, deliberations and consultations have been held by civil society organisations and traditional bodies (without government participation).


One of the issues discussed is that if there were reasons for the sanctuary to be declared – such as poaching – why so no information shared with the people there, especially the village chiefs? The dismissal of village chiefs and tribal communities as mere ‘collateral damage’, is deeply resented.


For the many indigenous groups that lives in these villages – the Paite, Hmar, Gangte, Vaiphei, and Thadou – it is about identity, rights, livelihood, history, and culture. They may be a small number of people living in an isolated part of the country, and fear that in the formulation of large policy decisions they are, once again, ignored as their lives are turned upside down.

By: Ninglun Hanghal

www.thethirdpole.net/en/nature/kailam-wildlife-sanctuary-threatens-to-displace-forest-tribes/%3famp

Thursday, December 28, 2017

Unmindful of history: on Biren Singh and Manipur

Unmindful of history: on Biren Singh and Manipur
By Kham Khan Suan Hausing

A proposed memorial to a Meitei king could send the wrong signal in Manipur

The Chief Minister of Manipur, N. Biren Singh (in photograph), dares to do things differently. Unlike his predecessors, he has invested a great deal of time and energy in symbolism and in building a tribal-friendly image since he led the Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) to capture power in the State.

The tribal issue

Given that the BJP won only 21 seats against the 28 seats won by the Congress in the 60-member Assembly in the 2017 elections, Mr. Singh has to make a special effort to maintain a stable coalition government of 21 BJP, four Nagaland People’s Front, four National People’s Party and one Lok Janshakti Party MLAs. He has to tread cautiously as he inherited a troublesome legacy from his predecessor, Ibobi Singh, whose government passed three controversial bills in August 2015 — the Protection of Manipur People Bill, the Manipur Land Revenue and Land Reforms (Seventh Amendment) Bill, and the Manipur Shops and Establishments (Second Amendment) Bill — which upset the tribals and led to violent protests. Against this backdrop, Mr. Singh’s most formidable task was to bridge the hills-valley divide.

However, Mr. Singh has created a political storm of sorts by inaugurating the Zou Gal Memorial Cemetery on December 19 at Behiang, an important trading outpost on the India-Myanmar border, and also laying the foundation stone for the Maharaja Chandrakirti Memorial Park at Chibu (locally known as Chivu) around 2 km away from Behiang.

Intended to commemorate the valour of 94-odd Zou martyrs who sacrificed their lives fighting against the British attempt to forcibly deploy them as labour corps during World War I, the memorial was intended to symbolise the independence and lordship of the Zo people over their land. On the other hand, Chivu and the name of Maharaja Chandrakirti Singh evoked a sense of betrayal of trust among the local people. This is because one of their powerful chiefs, Go Khaw Thang, died in 1872 in jail after he was ‘treacherously seized’ — to borrow words from Brigadier General Bourchier, commander of the Cachar Column of the Lushai Expedition (1871-1872) — on March 7, 1872 at Chivu camp by Chandrakirti’s soldiers led by Majors Thangal and K. Balaram Singh. The 2000 Meitei soldiers were enlisted by Major General Nuthall, the then officiating Political Agent of Manipur, as a part of the Cachar column.

In a distortion of historical facts, the Chibu Stone Inscription, subsequently commissioned by Chandrakirti, commemorates the successful completion of the British expedition as if it was a victory of the Maharaja over the tribals. Interestingly, the three stone slabs (each edifying the Maharaja, Nuthall and the two Meitei majors) are being used as a marker of the Maharaja’s, and by extension, Manipur’s border. This amounts to over-stretching the imagination as no Meitei king ever succeeded in extending their border and control over the ‘ferocious’ and ‘independent’ tribes beyond Moirang town, a fact supported by all colonial and local oral historical accounts. The state has given protection to the site in Chivu where the inscription was placed by passing an order in 1990 and included the inscriptions among the 49 monuments protected under the Manipur Ancient and Historical Monuments and Archaeological Sites and Remains Act, 1976. The Archaeological Survey of India seemed to be oblivious to these spurious facts when it accepted this problematic version in one of its publications titled Indian Archaeology 1987-88: A Review edited by its then director M.C. Joshi in 1993 (p.120).

Murmurs of protest

Possibly mindful of the past which continues to inform hills-valley relations in Manipur, neither the State nor the ASI has ever attempted to invoke the name of Maharaja Chandrakirti. In his attempt to develop the site into a tourism park as part of the larger exercise to develop Behiang and Chivu as the “second gateway to Southeast Asia” under India’s Look East Policy, Mr. Singh not only ignores this historical fact but also panders to majoritarian nationalism. In the process he opens up an old wound and hurts the sentiments of the Zo people.

Given that Chandrakirti was not particularly known for his successful military exploits, but for his cowardice and treachery in dealing with the Zo people along the India-Myanmar border, invoking his name would not be particularly useful for Mr. Singh in winning the hearts of the tribal people. His Facebook post about the laying of the foundation stone of Chandrakirti Park elicited mixed responses. While some applauded Mr. Singh for this bold gesture and already proclaimed him as a Meitei ‘nationalist’, ‘patriot’ and ‘hero’, tribals castigated him for his ‘insensitivity’ and asked him to ‘apologise’ to the hill people.

Rumblings in the various local social media indicate that the issue will not disappear any time soon. If Mr. Singh genuinely believes in Ching-tam Amani (hill-valley are one), he will need to respect and honour the Zo people in particular and the hill tribal people in general both in words and deed. The big question is whether Mr. Singh can navigate his politics in ways which would be capacious enough to transcend mere symbolism and genuinely accommodate tribal icons, sensitivity and autonomy aspirations or whether he will be increasingly integrative/assimilationist by embarking upon a majoritarian path. Time will tell.

Kham Khan Suan Hausing is professor, department of political science, University of Hyderabad.