Dialogue January-March, 2012, Volume 13 No. 3
Between Nation and Nationality: Chakma
Refugees in Arunachal Pradesh
India is a largest experiencing refugee-hood. During her liberation in 1947, an estimated 10 million people took refuge from neighboring countries. India has been hosting refugees for a long time, however it is not a state party to the UN Convention relating to the status of refugees 1951 or its Protocol of 1967. There is also no domestic legal framework to deal with the issue of asylum and refugees. Although there are few provisions in the Indian Constitution, which could be translated for the protection of refugees, but there is a lack of common understanding on the same1. In this backdrop, there is a point for India for accession to the UN Convention relating to the status of refugees 1951 and adoption of a normative legal framework. The Convention is the basic instrument of Refugee Laws that defines a refugee, and sets out the rights of them and the responsibilities of states that grant asylum2.
The Ministry of Home Affairs formulates the policies and programmes for relief and rehabilitation of people of Indian origin displaced from other countries. It has also been entrusted with the work of providing relief to the Tibetan and Srilankan refugees. Various relief and rehabilitation schemes are being implemented by the Ministry of Home Affairs through the State Governments and Union Territory Administrations. A wide range of measure was taken for resettlement of ‘old migrants’ during the period 1948 to 1961. These included agricultural schemes, vocational and technical training schemes and rehabilitation loans for small traders, businessmen and professionals and provision of housing, medical and educational facilities. Another measure was taken to resettled ‘new migrants’ who arrived between January 1, 1964 and March 25, 19713. All these migrants largely resettled in the eastern and northeastern states of India. The settlement wing functions as a Subordinate Office of the Rehabilitation Division of the Ministry of Home Affairs and deals with residuary matters of resettlement of displaced persons from former West Pakistan under the Displaced Persons Compensation and Rehabilitation Act, 1954 and the rules framed under the same4.
So far the India’s refugee regime is concerned she should frame its refugee law and has to put her refugees in different categories, according to their historical divide and injustice. Chakmas are such a category who come under it. Chakmas, who settled in 1964, were about five decades ago, are reclaiming their basic human dignity which they were denied on various occasions by the State Government as well as civil society groups5.
The Chakmas are the tribals of the Northeastern states of India. They are settled mainly in the states of Mizoram, Tripura, Assam, Arunachal Pradesh, Meghalaya and West Bengal. They migrated from the Chittagong Hill Tract (CHT) of East Bengal (now Bangladesh) to the Mizo hills. It is also believed that earlier they migrated from the Champa Kingdom in Cambodia and the Lushai’s called Chakmas as Tui-Chek, which means the people who lived near water. Chakmas have close resemblance to Mongolians of the Tibeto-Burman groups. Khyangtha and Thangtha are the two groups within the Chakmas. They are classified on the basis of the places where they live. Khyangthas live on the bank of the river while Thangthas also called Jhumias live on hill tops. Chakmas follow in Buddhism and have a language of Burmese stock and Sanskrit scripts. Agar Tara a version of Buddhist scripture is their oldest scripture. It is read on the special occasions like marriages, funerals etc6.
Chakmas are the Mongoloid tribes probably of Arakanese origin. The name Chakma is some time spelt as ‘Tsakma’ Tsak or Thek in Burmese. They might have migrated from a place some where in South-East Asia. The Chakmas are the original inhabitants of the CHT are perhaps the least known people of Asia being the residents of a remote and backward area which is of little political or economic consequence. This place has been the home land of the Chakmas particularly for centuries. Though the origin of the Chakmas is too murky, their history connects them with the mountainous kingdom of Kapilnagar in the Himalayan ranges. It is learnt that from 1052 A.D onwards the Chakmas started moving from Arakan into the bordering area of Bengal right down the plain areas of Chittagong (Bangladesh) and made it their home7.
There is very little documentation available on the early history of the Chakmas. However, there is evidence of the mention of a place known as ‘Chacomas’ in central CHT, probably referring to the land inhabited by the Chakmas, in the 1550s where a Burmese king claims himself to be the ‘highest and most powerful king of Arakan, Tippera (Tripura), of Chacomas and of Bengala’8.
In 1947 Radcliffe ceded the CHT district to Pakistan, when the India was partitioned on the basis of religion into Islamic Pakistan and secular India, though the district was 98.5 percent Buddhist9. On the 15th of August 1947, Chakma youths under the leadership of Sneha Kumar Chakma hoisted the Indian tricolour at Rangamati. Six days later the Pakistanis lowered the Indian tricolor at gunpoint10.
On the other side Jawaharlal Nehru promised Sneha Kumar Chakma, the representative of the Parbattya Chattogram Jana Samity, that the Bengal Boundary Commission had no jurisdiction over the CHT. Before India’s independence, Sneha Kumar Chakma had met Sardar Patel and Jawaharlal Nehru in July 1947 and was promised by both, that CHT would remain with India. On 18th of July 1947, when the Indian Independence Act was published, it showed that Radcliff had not listened to the submissions of the two Hindu members of the Bengal Boundary Commission, Justice Bijon Mukherjee and Charu Biswas, that CHT should be with India. Sneha Kumar ran to Delhi after hoisting the Indian Tricolor at Rangamati on the 15th of August 1947, to meet the Indian leaders to try and get revised the decision of Radcliffe11. He met Sardar Patel, who told him that he was with him but he should meet Jawaharlal Nehru. It took 50 days for Sneha Kumar Chakma to meet Nehru. When he finally got an audience and told Nehru the CHT should be with India, and the Chakmas were ready to fight for this and would India help with arms, Nehru got up in anger and shouted, "Do you propose to bring India under foreign rule again?" That decision sounded the death knell for the hapless Chakmas. Thus, the Chakmas had to unwillingly join Pakistan12.
Chakma Settlement in India
As history is concerned the Chakma problems in India goes back to pre-1971 and Bangladesh and therefore started in pre. The Chakma influx into India started just after days partition of the Country. From the beginning, ‘inconsistency and political expediency’ governed India’s CHT policy. The first influx of the refugees took place shortly after partition when 40,000 Chakma families fled to India13. India did not treat the Chakma differently and resettled them in North India and later on in Northeast India. The manageable number of the Chakma refugees, their widespread dispersal in the sparsely populated Northeast and ethnic proximity with locals largely mitigated any potential opposition from the indigenous population. Furthermore, absorption was feasible partly because ethnic consciousness in the Northeast was still in its infancy14.
The present demand for the grant of citizenship and Scheduled Tribe status by the Chakmas clearly shows that they are not only unwilling to move out of the state, but are also politically conscious and quite determined to stay permanently in the state. Their desires are not fulfilled even after five decades; they have been denied citizenship at several occasions even after the Indira-Mujib agreement of 1972 which makes mandatory for the Indian Government to treat their applications lawfully for the grant of citizenship15. Under the Indira-Mujib agreement of 1972, it was decided that the Chakmas who came to India from the erstwhile East Pakistan before 25 March 1971, will be considered for the grant of citizenship. Moreover the Supreme Court in its ruling of 9 January 1996 has directed the State Government to forward all applications of Chakmas for citizenship to the Government of India and not to evict any of them while their application is under consideration. M.M. Jacob, while expressing the view of the Central Government stated that,
"The presence of these Chakmas in the area has also not resulted so far in any major law and order problems though some isolated instances of friction between locals and these Chakmas have come to our notice…. That the Central Team which visited Arunachal Pradesh to study the problems of these refugees expressed the view that the grant of citizenship would introduce an element of responsible social behavior in these refugees"
He further added,
"Refugees from Bangladesh who came to India between 1964 and March 25, 1971 are eligible to the grant of citizenship according to the policy of the Government, as most of the migrants have already been granted citizenship".
Further more he asserted that,
"Keeping the above in view there is no question of deporting these refugees from the state of Arunachal Pradesh. The general public in the state will have to be convinced that the burden of rehabilitation of the refugees will have to be shared by the country as a whole including Arunachal Pradesh"
Chakmas Concentrat in Arunachal Pradesh
The population in Chakmas, Changlang district is 40,000 followed by that in Lohit with 15,000; Papumpare has only 5,000 Chakma population. As per Government of India record, their population is approximately 60,00018. Presently Chakmas are resettled in three districts/villages respectively which are given as below:
Table - 1
Chakmas in the World
Country Total Population Total Percentage
Sources: UNHCR Report on Migration, Global Resettlement,
Status of Chakmas in the Northeast and Eastern States of India
State Status Scheduled Status Total Population
Arunachal Pradesh Refugees Refugees 60,000
Assam Citizens ST 5,000
Meghalaya Citizens ST 610
Mizoram Citizens ST 71,283 (8.5%)
Tripura Citizens ST 64,293 (6.5%)
West Bengal Citizens ST 3000
Source: Office of the Registrar General, Government of India, 2001 on Population. Also see Migration Report-2009.
PAPUMPAREIt is the most developed city of Arunachal Pradesh because Itanagar is in this district. Largely Nyishi are the majority community in this district. It has a border called Balijan and Kokila which divide Arunachal Pradesh and Assam. It is one of the most conflicting areas as for as state boundary and land is concerned. Earlier Chakmas were largely settled in Balijan but over a period of time they were shifted forcefully and resettled in the new place called Kokila, which is a flooded area. For a period of minimum four to five months, this area remains under flood and heavy rainfall. Being a low-lying area, the Chakma inhabited region is always under a deluge.
Changlang the biggest district of Arunachal Pradesh has maximum population, largely of Buddhist origin. Maximum number of Chakmas are concentrated in Diyun and Mieo in the comparatively condition is than that in better other two districts where Chakmas are settled and the reason is the activeness of civil society groups particularly the SNEHA.
1. Villages of Chakma settlement in Changlang District
a. Gautampur Village
b. Santipur Village
c. Joytipur Village
d. Abhaypur Village
e. Dumpani Village
f. Rajnagar Village
g. Joshnapur Village
h. Dumpattar Village
i. Udaypur Village
j. Modoideep Village –I
k. Modoideep Village- II
l. Kamakhyapur Village
m. Vijoypur Village- I
n. Vijoypur Village- II
o. Vijoypur Village- III
p. Dharmapur Village- I
q. Dharmapur Village- II
r. Ratnapur Village
s. Golakpur Village
t. Milanpur Village
LOHIT DistrictLohit is also having good number of Chakma population. They are living in three bastis (villages). These bastis are always under threat of flood every year. Loss of life and property is very common.
a. Chakma Basti- I
b. Chakma Basti- II
c. Chakma Basti- III
Socio-Economic and Political Conditions of Chakmas in the Settled Areas
The social condition of the Chakmas of Arunachal Pradesh in particular and India in general is very rich. They do not have caste system or any type of division we see in other religions. Socially, they live and eat together, and participate in all the occasions without any differences. They marry freely without any restriction based on rich, poor etc. Chakmas are Buddhist. Though they are facing huge discrimination. They are facing everyday violence by the AAPSU activists and Arunachalees. They have strong and deep feeling that they are in good religion and one day definitely things will change.
Politically very few Chakmas are enrolled in the electoral list and they are voting without choice. Many Chakmas who are born in India are still waiting for their enrolment in the electoral rolls and their application have been rejected many times during 2004, 2007 and 2008. In 2004 the Election Commission has warned that it would not hold Assembly polls in Arunachal Pradesh unless the State Government includes the Chakmas in the electoral rolls. As a result of the same, the Commission from January 2 onwards has stopped its ongoing revision of the electoral rolls in four Assembly segments that also form parts of the Lok Sabha constituencies in both East Arunachal Pradesh and West Arunachal Pradesh constituencies.
The conduct of any and all elections in the four assembly constituencies of Doimukh, Chowkham, Bordumsa Diyum, and Miao along with all election related works, including the preparation or revision of the electoral rolls there shall stand suspended until further orders, ruled the Commission, in an order dated January 2, 200419. The Commission was compelled to take this drastic measure, as the State Government officials engaged in the electoral roll revision, in an unprecedented step, refused to entertain its repeated instructions of inclusion of the Chakma names. Their refusal was based on a State Cabinet decision taken on May 14, 2003, not to include non-Arunachalese people in the electoral rolls unless they possessed the Inner Line Permits20. Terming their decision as ‘wrong’ the Commission has pointed out that even the Supreme Court of India and the Delhi High Court, in their respective orders on two different petitions dealing with the question of the settlement of the Chakmas in the state and granting of Indian citizenship to them, have held that the Chakmas, born in India on or after January 26, 1950, but before July 1, 1985, and living in the state, are to be treated as ordinary residents of the state and are entitled to be registered in the electoral rolls of the state. The Commission had also met the Arunachal Pradesh Chief Minister on August 28, 2003, and on the basis of the Supreme Court order dated January 9, 1996 and the Delhi High Court order dated September 28, 2000, had conveyed to him that so long as the Chakmas were ordinary residents in the state, they could not be denied their Constitutional right of enrolment of their names in the electoral rolls of the state. Subsequently, in September 2003, the Commission had also conveyed through an official communication that, the preparation and revision of the electoral rolls was a constitutional duty conferred on the Commission by Article 324 (1) and the state Cabinet resolution refusing voting rights to the Chakmas was a hindrance to its constitutional obligation to prepare and revise the electoral rolls. This, in turn, will adversely affect the free and fair conduct of the elections, said the commission in its September, 2003 communication to the State Government, requesting it to suitably amend or altogether scrap its Cabinet resolution. The State Government’s refusal to comply has resulted in an impasse21.
The Chakma’s are economically so poor and it is difficult to believe that even after sixty years of years Independence some sections of the society are living under such abject poverty and just surviving with one time meal in a day. They are living Below Poverty Line (BPL) and government does not have any plan for these marginalized sections of the society. Not a single scheme I found by Government of India, Government of Arunachal Pradesh as well as any civil society to bring some necessary economic changes to improve the conditions of the poor Chakmas in all the three districts of the state. It is unfortunate to say that the entire settlements of the Chakmas are largely on the banks of the rivers which always remain flooded during the rainy season. In Kokila (Papumpare) the bank of the river where Chakmas are settled is Hollongi. In Diyun, Changlang it is called Neo Deheng river and in Lohit it is called Darang river22.
Categorization of Chakmas
So far Chakmas of Arunachal Pradesh are concerned they are concentrated in the three districts of Papumpare (Urban), Changlang and Tirap. Government of Arunachal Pradesh is violating all the basic rules and laws defining in their own way by categorizing these Chakmas into three categories.
a. Chakmas originally settled in the year 1964.
b. Inter-District migrants and settled in Papumpare, Changlang and Lohit districts.
c. Inter-State migrants and settled in Tripura, Mizoram, Assam, West Bengal and, Mizoram.
In its first category are the Chakmas who directly migrated in the year 1964 and were settled in various parts of India and latter brought to NEFA (present Arunachal Pradesh). Second, there was inter-state migration from within the state because of the situations like floods, life threat, livelihood etc. They generally migrated within the state and mixed with the other Chakmas in the districts particularly in the Changlang, Lohit and Papumpare. And lastly, migration inter-state. The first Chakma exodus took place in the year 1947 just after independence and they were granted citizenship as well as scheduled tribes status and mainly settled in the states of Assam, Tripura, West Bengal, Mizoram etc. but latter on migrated for jobs, education and some other purposes and married and settled in Arunachal Pradesh over a period of time.
Arunachalees have the misconception that Chakmas look like Bengalis, since they were from Bangladesh so they are not tribals like them which is not true at all. The Chakmas were given land in Arunachal Pradesh by the Indian Government with the intention of permanently settling them. They thought that the Chakmas can again build their shattered life in the state. Chakmas were settled in the state on humanitarian basis. Also, the government thought that they will be comfortable living in the state as they were also tribal and Buddhist by religion. That was one of the reason they were settled near the Khamtis and Singphos, who were also Buddhists and tribals. From the time the Chakmas were settled in the state, they were given employment opportunities like in paramilitary forces. Some were also given government jobs. There were no problem and no question of citizenship as they were given equal opportunities like any other Indian citizen. There was no discrimination towards them since Arunachal Pradesh was union territory (NEFA) at that time. But the problem started after it was made a full fledged state23.
Under the Chief Minister-ship of Gegong Apang, slowly all the facilities given to the Chakmas by the Union Government were withdrawn like ration cards, free books for the students, drinking water facilities, electricity etc. After some time, the Circle Officer of Diyun gave a circular ordering the Chakmas to surrender their ration cards, which added more miseries to the life of the community. Since almost all the Chakmas were dependent on agriculture, even after toiling days after days they don’t get enough rice to sustain them throughout the year. So they depended on the PDS for rice and kerosene oil for lighting their home at night. Thus, snatching away of those facilities resulted in hunger among the community. This was not only a crime against the helpless Chakmas but also a crime against humanity. In order to add more miseries to the already piled mountain of miseries, the Arunachal Pradesh Government ordered the closure of most of the schools in Chakma areas. The Chakma children were also prevented from looking for admission in other nearby schools in Chowkham. This inhumane step taken by the State Government had resulted in to a generation of illiterate children among the Chakmas and till date the middle school is lying vacant to be re-opened24.
The injustice was not only done to the Chakmas of Lohit but also to their fellows of Changlang and Papumpare districts. In Changlang district, the Chakma students were prevented from taking admission in any of the government schools. Some of the students studying in Miao Senior Secondary School, Innao Senior Secondary School, Namsai Senior Secondary School, etc had to leave the school in the middle of the academic session rendering hundreds of students’ school-less. Till now Chakma students are denied admission in any of the government run schools after primary slage. The only school open to the Chakmas in Changlang district is the Diyun secondary school where more than 150 students study in a single class room25. In grade six, more than 250 students sit in a single class room. Also all the schools in Chakma areas were dying due to lack of teachers and proper school buildings. Only one teacher is allotted for a primary school to maintain discipline in five classes at the same time. Such is the pathetic condition of the Chakma students only and they have to go through this ordeal26.
Present Arunachal Pradesh Chief Minister Dorjee Khandu requested the Prime Minister Manmohan Singh to constitute a high-level committee to solve the Chakma problems in the state. It is really difficult to understand whether the committee will be constituted from the Centre or from the State Assembly. As already a high power committee had been constituted in the state few months back with Setong Sena as the Chairman. The problem can only to be solved if the willingness comes from the politician as it is a political problem. Only constituting high level committee will take the problem to nowhere27.
The question that is persisting in the minds of all those who believe in humanity is that being born and brought up in India, according to the Citizenship Act, 1955 and also the Citizenship (Amendment) Act, 2003 of section 3-1(a) every person born in India on or after the 26th day of January, 1950, but before the 1st day of July, 1987, shall be citizen of India by birth28. Then, why is this not applicable to the Chakmas of Arunachal Pradesh? Why have they being to go through the trauma of bleed as refugees? Also according to International Convention a person should not be denied a citizenship on the basis of caste, community and religion. Then why the Arunachalee Chakmas are denied nationality? It’s been almost five decades and still Chakmas in Arunachal Pradesh living with a doubt, that whether they are Indian or refugees, where as all other Chakmas who were settled in other parts of India are leading a normal life like any other Indian citizen. Because of the injustice the future of thousands of Chakma children is hanging in balance. Chakmas don’t have any source of employment, as the Arunachal Pradesh Government stops providing employment to them. It is also difficult for them to find jobs outside the state. Chakmas are frustrated when they see their friends from other communities getting jobs just after passing Class 10 or 12; But they remain unemployed even after doing graduation. Despite being more educated and qualified they are being ignored in job opportunities even in their place of birth29.
Now a day there are lots of talks about the issue of development in Arunachal Pradesh. Chief Minister Dorjee Khandu has taken the oath to root out corruption, streamlining of the PDS, time-bound accelerated implementation of power projects and other critical on-going schemes related to developmental activities which have direct bearing on the life of rural poor of the state. People have high expectations from Dorjee’s regime and changes are expected to be seen very soon. But, what ever developmental activities and project are going on are mainly centered in western and central part of the state. There are no development projects slated for Changlang, and Lohit districts and not realizing that the development of the three districts is as equally important as any in other districts. And this is so because Chakmas are largely concentrated in these districts30.
The Central and State Governments have initiated lots of developmental activities in the state, but none of the policies and programmes have any inclusive provisions for Chakmas. Apart from the initiatives like the encouragement of the establishment of industrial undertakings in the private and cooperative sectors for the sustainable development of the state, employment opportunities and gainful self-employment in industrial and allied sectors31, tourism, medical services, educational services etc. programmes for the development of infrastructure facilities, establishment of industrial estates, industrial growth centers, integrated infrastructure development centers, strengthening of existing industrial estates, export promotion industrial parks, export promotion zones, border trade, reserves of minerals explored and exploited commercially through appropriate agencies, Government made special efforts for development of local entrepreneurial, managerial and technical skills. For this purpose, special training and educational programmes, were started and flow of credit for new industrial projects for village industries and rural artisans were initiated. For this the district industries centers and financial institutions work in close cooperation.32 NABARD has identified 10 sectors for development, which included sectors like agriculture, fish rearing and processing, rural retail trade, sericulture and silk textile fiber products, construction, small plantation products, handloom, handicrafts products in cane & bamboo and wood. These activities are to be developed for creation of additional employment in the rural areas.33 Overall none of the developmental activities is benefiting the Chakmas settled areas of Changlang, Lohit and Papumpare.
Indian’s refugee regime represents a particularly salient case for exploring the role of interconnections between issue-areas as an independent variable in cooperation. This is because of the absence of a binding normative framework on burden-sharing, and the fact that states have few interests in contributing to burden-sharing for its own sake, mean that the prospects for international cooperation have been determined largely by the ability of UNHCR to use linkages to connect refugee protection to states’ interests in issue-areas outside the immediate scope of the regime34.
The plight of the refugees irrespective of whether they are looked after either by the UNHCR or the Government of India is abominable to say the least. The condition of the refugees who are not recognized either by UNHCR or the Government of India is the worst. The lack of legal mechanisms and policies on refugees is one of the fundamental flaws of refugee protection in India. But the courts in India have awarded judgments to abide by international principles on refugee protection.35
However, the cardinal problem arises when both the UNHCR and the Government of India violate their own standards and principles. While it is possible to bring the Government of India under the scrutiny of the quasi-judicial bodies like the NHRC and judiciary, there is no such mechanism to scrutinize the UNHCR in New Delhi. Official rules and procedures have become an excuse to raise the ‘veil of secrecy’ and to resort to arbitrariness at the expense of the refugees. It is a well known fact that none of the regions of South Asia including India, Bhutan, Maldives, Nepal, Myanmar, Sri Lanka and Bangladesh is a party to the 1951 convention or to its 1967 protocol as stated before36. It is also true, that there are no national refugee legislations and administrative provisions related to the protection of refugees despite the positive example set by India’s generous naturalization of Afghan refugees of Sikh or Hindu ethnic background in 2007 and 2008. For those countries hosting refugees, local integration continues to remain a very limited option37.
The basic findings of the research suggest that their should be right to life with dignity and access to uniform treatment to all the refugees so far settled in India over a period of time. Civil societies need to work independently without any pressure. India required immediate implementation of national migration and refugee laws and policies with the support of NHRC and International Organizations. I belief that in coming days India’s refugee regime would be more loyal towards the refugees.
The Chakma problem is nothing but the political and policy related problem in Arunachal Pradesh in particular and northeast in general. This can only be solved once both the state and centre sit together and think over it deeply in a sense to solve the problem without doing any politics over it. Chakmas are the legal migrants, particularly those of second and third generations, and fall on the ambit of the citizenship rights acts of the constitution of India. They should be given citizenship rights as well as Scheduled Tribes status so that they live with dignity. The refugee regime of India should also keep in mind that the solution should be democratic which not only satisfy the Chakmas but also the tribals of Arunachal Pradesh so that there is no conflict in future.
1 B.S, Chimni (2000), International Refugee law: A Reader, Sage Publication, New Delhi, Pp. 146-152.
2 Year book of United Nation (2005), Towards Development, Security and Human Rights for all, Vol.59, United Nation Publication, New York, Pp. 711-908.
3 Constituent Assembly of India (Legislative) Debates, Vol. 1 February, 1948, P.187.
4 See the various Displaced Persons Compensation and Rehabilitation Act, 1954 for detail.
5 B.S.Chimni (2005), Outside the Bounds of Citizenship: The Status of Aliens, Illegal Migrants and Refugees in India in edited book by Rajiv Bhargava and Helmut Reifeld, Civil Society, Public Sphere and Citizenship, Dialogues and Perceptions, Sage Publication, New Delhi, Pp. 277-313.
6 See for detail on Incredible India, www.india.com.7 S.P, Talukdar (1994), Chakmas: An Embattled Tribe, Uppal Publication House, New Delhi, p.87.
9 Victims of Partition: A Case of Chakma and Hajong Refugees of Arunachal Pradesh" Think India, Vol. 9, No.4, October-December, 2006, Pp. 59-71.
10 Swapna, Bhattacharya (2001), The Refugee-generating Chittagong Hill Tracts: past, present, and future, in S.K, Roy (ed.), Refugees and Human Rights, Rawat Publication, Delhi, Pp.317-344.
11 S.P, Talukdar (1988), The Chakmas: Life and Struggle, Gian Publication, New Delhi, p.47.
12 Chunnu, Prasad (2010), India’s refugee regime and resettlement policy: a case of Chakmas in Arunachal Pradesh, Thesis submitted to the Centre for Political Studies, Jawaharlal Nehru University, New Delhi.
13 Deepak K. Singh (2001), Stateless Chakmas in Arunachal Pradesh: From Rejected Peoples to Unwanted Migrants, Social Science Research Journal, 9(1), Pp. 47-82.
14 Deepak K. Singh (2001), Refugee question in Arunachal Pradesh: Some conflicting currents’ Journal of Anthropological Survey of India, 50(4), December, Pp. 95-102.
15 Chunnu, Prasad (2006), Migration and the Question of Citizenship: People of Chittagong Hill Tract in Arunachal Pradesh", Indian Journal of Political Science, Vol. LXVII, No. 3, July-September, Pp. 471-490.
16 Deepak K. Singh, (1996), The Arunachal Tangle: Migration and Ethnicity, Journal of Peace Studies, Vol.3, Issue September-December, New Delhi, p. 54.
17 Deepak K. Singh (2001), Refugee question in Arunachal Pradesh: Some conflicting currents, Journal of Anthropological Survey of India, 50(4), 2001, December, Pp. 95-102.
18 Census of India, 2001 did not have proper record on the total population of Chakmas in Arunachal Pradesh the number various from institutions to institutions, SNEHA a Delhi based civil society group and other NGO’s like Asian Human Rights suspected there’re are 60,000 Chakma.
19 Ajit, Rana (2004), Election Commission throws Chakma spanner, The Pioneer, 23 January.
20 Chunnu, Prasad (2007), Arunachal Pradesh and the Inner-Outer Line Regulation of 1873-1874 of North East Frontier Agency", Third World Impact, Vol. XVIII, No.173, January-March, Pp.15-19.
21 Judgment of Supreme Court of India (1996), Original Civil Jurisdiction, Writ Petition (Civil) No. 720 of 1995, Between NHRC versus State of Arunachal Pradesh, 9th January, New Delhi.
22 Chunnu, Prasad (2010), India’s refugee regime and resettlement policy: a case of Chakmas in Arunachal Pradesh, Thesis submitted to the Centre for Political Studies, Jawaharlal Nehru University, New Delhi.
23 Chunnu, Prasad (2007), Student Movement In Arunachal Pradesh: A Case of Chakma-Hajong Refugee Problem, Economic and Political Weekly, Vol. XLII, No.15, April 14-20, Pp.1373-1379.
24 NHRC Vs State of Arunachal Pradesh & Anr (720/1995) and the present plight of the Chakmas of Arunachal Pradesh, 16 December 2002, Committee for Citizenship Rights of the Chakmas of Arunachal Pradesh.
26 Information Displayed by the Asian Centre for Human Rights, Application written by Suhas Chakma to Justice A. S. Anand, Chairman NHRC, Complaint for full implementation of the Supreme Court judgment in the Case of NHRC vs. State of Arunachal Pradesh (CPW 720 of 1995) of 9 January 1996, New Delhi, P.3.
27 See website, http://news.oneindia.in, urges-centre-to-resolve-contentious-refugee-issue, February 1, 2008.
28 Valerian, Rodrigues (2005), Citizenship and the Indian Constitution in edited book by Rajiv Bhargava and Helmut Reifeld, Civil Society, Public Sphere and Citizenship, Dialogues and Perceptions, Sage Publication, New Delhi, Pp. 209-235.
29 Chunnu, Prasad (2007), Student Movement In Arunachal Pradesh: A Case of Chakma-Hajong Refugee Problem" Economic and Political Weekly, Vol. XLII, No.15, April 14-20, Pp.1373-1379.
30 See website, http://news.oneindia.in, urges-centre-to-resolve-contentious-refugee-issue, February 1, 2008.
31 Hundred percent equity ownership of an industrial unit by entrepreneurs allowed for a maximum period of thirty years by the end of which period such equity holding reduced to forty nine percent, the remaining fifty one percent held by a local Arunachal Tribal entrepreneur or a group of local tribal entrepreneurs or the state government, if it considers necessary to do so. Outside entrepreneurs allow to hold land on lease for a period of thirty years, after which the lease renewed for a further period of thirty days and the consideration for the lease in the form of annual or lump sum payments or as equity. (The lease used as security for loans from financial institutions.) Development of all industries encouraged. Industries based on locally available raw materials, Textiles (handlooms and power looms) and handicrafts, Electronics and knowledge based industries, Industries based on non- timber forest produce and etc.
32 Information published by the State Information department, Government of Arunachal Pradesh on the political economy of the state.
34 Tapan K. Bose (2000), India: Policies and Laws towards Refugees, Vol, 10, No. 10, October, Article appeared on the website of Human Rights Solidarity, www.hrsolidarity.net.
35 B.S.Chimni (2005), Outside the Bounds of Citizenship: The Status of Aliens, Illegal Migrants and Refugees in India in edited book by Rajiv Bhargava and Helmut Reifeld, Civil Society, Public Sphere and Citizenship, Dialogues and Perceptions, Sage Publication, New Delhi, Pp. 277-313.
36 P. Oberoi (2006), Exile and Belonging: Refugees and State Policy in South Asia, Oxford University Press, New Delhi, Pp. 77–103.
37 The Hindu, 20 June, 2009.