By : Gam A. Shimray 11/12/2007 12:56:03 AM
The 13th of September 2007 will be remembered as one of the most historic day for the indigenous peoples as well as for all those who believe in justice and democratic values, especially those who have suffered and walked the painful path along with the indigenous peoples. The UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples is indeed a remarkable achievement and a victory for those who have struggled inspiringly and worked selflessly in crafting the declaration. This is a major victory for the Nagas as well for we have been a part of this process. There are many among the Nagas who have worked uncompromisingly and this goes back much before the Nagas celebrated the International Year of the World’s Indigenous People in 1993. It was during this occasion that the Naga public declared themselves as one of the indigenous peoples of the world. It is these processes that have brought about this historic declaration. It is the fruits of the efforts our elders and others that we have come this far. And I believe that if we continue the struggle with the same commitment and perseverance, the Declaration will materialize into reality.
However, what prompts me to write is not just about these words of celebration. What I think is more important is to go back to the roots or basics if we have become confused or doubtful of what we have once embarked upon. With the people that I have interacted with and what I have read in the papers tells me that we are unsure of whether we should take ownership of the Declaration or not. It is in this context that I would like to address few issues that relate to the current confusion. The primary question that has arisen is whether Nagas are indigenous peoples or not (within some quarters). Hence, who are the indigenous peoples? Secondly, what do we mean by self-determination and what does the declaration imply? These are basic and fundamental questions that one is required to be sufficiently clear of to be able to take an informed decision. This is the basis on which one can continue to walk the path of a common struggle with a common vision for a dignified existence. In this article, I shall address the question of who the indigenous peoples are.
To begin with, the UN does not have an official definition on indigenous peoples. What exist now are all working definitions. Within the UN system, the debate on indigenous peoples began with the realization of their unique situation and condition. In 1971, the UN commissioned a study and Dr. Jose R Marinez Cobo came up with the following definition:
indigenous peoples are composed of the existing descendants of the peoples who inhabited the present territory of the country, wholly or partially, at the time when persons of a different culture arrived there from some other means, more in conformity with their particular social, economic and cultural customs and traditions than with the institutions of the country of which now they form apart, under a state structure which incorporates mainly the national, social and cultural characteristics of other segments of the population which are predominant” [UN Document No.E/CN4/Sub/2/L566, June 29, 1972].
This definition covered mainly the indigenous peoples of North America, South America, Canada, Australia and New Zealand but left out other regions, especially Asia as the study was not comprehensive enough. This definition implied that indigenous peoples were subjugated through conquest or colonization and continues to be ruled even today by nation states. It was in this light that the indigenous peoples of Asia joined hands with other struggling indigenous peoples of the world in the 80s. Ever since, the scope and the process have become as wide and as inclusive. Subsequently, Erica-Irene Daes, Chairperson of the UN working Group on Indigenous Populations suggested a number of variations, designating certain peoples as indigenous peoples.
According to her: although they have not suffered conquest or colonization, isolated or marginal groups existing in the country should also be regarded as covered by the notion of indigenous populations for the following reasons:
· they are descendants of groups which were in the territory at the time when other groups of different cultures or ethnic origins arrived there;
· precisely because of their isolation from other segments of the country’s population they have almost preserved intact the customs and traditions of their ancestors which are similar to those characterized as indigenous;
· they are, even if only formally, placed under a state structure which incorporates national, social and cultural characteristics alien to them”. [UN Document No.E/CN4/Sub.2/1983/21 Add 8, para 379]
Dr. Martinez Cobo himself added new elements to his earlier working definition as part of the process of drafting the UN Declaration on Indigenous Peoples. He wrote in his report in 1986: indigenous communities, peoples and nations are those, which having historical continuity with pre-invasion and pre-colonial societies that developed on their territories, consider themselves distinct from other sectors of the societies now prevailing in those territories, or parts of them. They now form at present non-dominant sectors of society and are determined to preserve, develop and transmit to future generations their ancestral territories and their ethnic identity, as the basis of their continued existence as peoples, in accordance with their own cultural patterns, social institutions and legal systems”.
These later working definitions eventually covered the historical reality, circumstances and situation of the indigenous peoples in Asia, including that of the Nagas. The key features and significance of these definitions are as follows:
· it does not seek to define the history of suffering and situation of the indigenous peoples as being uniform in nature;
· it neither implies that indigenous peoples are the same. Rather, indigenous peoples means ‘diversity of peoples within a group as a whole’;
· the definition does not imply that indigenous peoples are only those who have suffered conquest or cololisation. This is not a qualification but could be a factor among many others;
· in general terms, indigenous peoples are the politically disavantaged inhabitants or are those in a politically non-dominant position of a present day country (with or without their consent) who have lived in the area before it became a nation-state. Their problems occur not only from the process of conquest or colonization but also from state formation arising from decolonization;
· it clearly implies that it can be resolved only through multiplicities of political solutions basing on the uniqueness, merit and the ground reality of each peoples.
The other important document to look at is the International Labour Organisation Convention 169 (commnonly refered to as ILO 169). In essence, their definition echoes a similar understanding and meaning of the above definitions. But the Convention inserted a qualification to the concept of self-determination.
Whether the indigenous peoples are numerical minority (as could be the case in some parts of India or other countries) or majority (such as the Nagas) is not only insignificant but it is neither a criteria for defining the indigenous peoples. Also, a numerical minority does not necessarily occupy a non-dominant position (politically). Indigenous peoples have always maintained that it is their basic right to define themselves, and hence, self-identification is the most important criteria [here, self-identification does not refer to individuals or organisations but as a group/community/people]. Secondly, it has been made very clear that indigenous peoples’ issues has to be dealt with as ‘peoples’ issue’ and not as a ‘minority issue’. The declaration is the result of this assertion that indigenous peoples are peoples and not populations or people or a minority. The debate over these terminologies and concepts were considered to be very crucial during the development of the declaration, however, I do not have the space to get into those arguments here. But it may be important to keep in mind that there is a separate UN Declaration on Minorities. Also in more than 50 years, the UN has never agreed on a definition of what constitutes a minority.
Further, the argument that ‘original inhabitants’ are indigenous peoples is not sufficient. It is only one of the criteria among several others. It is for this reason that all nationalities do not qualify to be called ‘indigenous’. The Kashmiries for instance does not come under the category of ‘indigenous peoples’ nor do the Burmans (who are fighting for restoration of democracy in Myanmar/Burma) even though the Karens, Kachins, Chins, etc. do.
The above definitions, variations and criteria are all important in understanding the issue and question of who the indigenous peoples are, even though they are not conclusive. However, what is more important for us to keep in mind is the political nature of the issue. In this sense, indigenous peoples are those who share a common vision in their struggle (in a broad sense) based on their worldviews. This is what makes their struggle unique. It has the potential of redefining the world history. The recent UN declaration, I believe, is part of that process. But it has to be by the people and only by the people. Hence, it is necessary for us to understand that no revolution can be carried out without the power of the powerless.
-----------------------------------
The writer is Indigenous Advisor (Asia Region) to the UN Convention on Biological Diversity Research Fellow at Kimmage Development Studies Centre, Holy Ghost College, Dublin, Ireland.
Source: http://ifp.co.in/ArticleFull.asp?ArticleID=179
The 13th of September 2007 will be remembered as one of the most historic day for the indigenous peoples as well as for all those who believe in justice and democratic values, especially those who have suffered and walked the painful path along with the indigenous peoples. The UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples is indeed a remarkable achievement and a victory for those who have struggled inspiringly and worked selflessly in crafting the declaration. This is a major victory for the Nagas as well for we have been a part of this process. There are many among the Nagas who have worked uncompromisingly and this goes back much before the Nagas celebrated the International Year of the World’s Indigenous People in 1993. It was during this occasion that the Naga public declared themselves as one of the indigenous peoples of the world. It is these processes that have brought about this historic declaration. It is the fruits of the efforts our elders and others that we have come this far. And I believe that if we continue the struggle with the same commitment and perseverance, the Declaration will materialize into reality.
However, what prompts me to write is not just about these words of celebration. What I think is more important is to go back to the roots or basics if we have become confused or doubtful of what we have once embarked upon. With the people that I have interacted with and what I have read in the papers tells me that we are unsure of whether we should take ownership of the Declaration or not. It is in this context that I would like to address few issues that relate to the current confusion. The primary question that has arisen is whether Nagas are indigenous peoples or not (within some quarters). Hence, who are the indigenous peoples? Secondly, what do we mean by self-determination and what does the declaration imply? These are basic and fundamental questions that one is required to be sufficiently clear of to be able to take an informed decision. This is the basis on which one can continue to walk the path of a common struggle with a common vision for a dignified existence. In this article, I shall address the question of who the indigenous peoples are.
To begin with, the UN does not have an official definition on indigenous peoples. What exist now are all working definitions. Within the UN system, the debate on indigenous peoples began with the realization of their unique situation and condition. In 1971, the UN commissioned a study and Dr. Jose R Marinez Cobo came up with the following definition:
indigenous peoples are composed of the existing descendants of the peoples who inhabited the present territory of the country, wholly or partially, at the time when persons of a different culture arrived there from some other means, more in conformity with their particular social, economic and cultural customs and traditions than with the institutions of the country of which now they form apart, under a state structure which incorporates mainly the national, social and cultural characteristics of other segments of the population which are predominant” [UN Document No.E/CN4/Sub/2/L566, June 29, 1972].
This definition covered mainly the indigenous peoples of North America, South America, Canada, Australia and New Zealand but left out other regions, especially Asia as the study was not comprehensive enough. This definition implied that indigenous peoples were subjugated through conquest or colonization and continues to be ruled even today by nation states. It was in this light that the indigenous peoples of Asia joined hands with other struggling indigenous peoples of the world in the 80s. Ever since, the scope and the process have become as wide and as inclusive. Subsequently, Erica-Irene Daes, Chairperson of the UN working Group on Indigenous Populations suggested a number of variations, designating certain peoples as indigenous peoples.
According to her: although they have not suffered conquest or colonization, isolated or marginal groups existing in the country should also be regarded as covered by the notion of indigenous populations for the following reasons:
· they are descendants of groups which were in the territory at the time when other groups of different cultures or ethnic origins arrived there;
· precisely because of their isolation from other segments of the country’s population they have almost preserved intact the customs and traditions of their ancestors which are similar to those characterized as indigenous;
· they are, even if only formally, placed under a state structure which incorporates national, social and cultural characteristics alien to them”. [UN Document No.E/CN4/Sub.2/1983/21 Add 8, para 379]
Dr. Martinez Cobo himself added new elements to his earlier working definition as part of the process of drafting the UN Declaration on Indigenous Peoples. He wrote in his report in 1986: indigenous communities, peoples and nations are those, which having historical continuity with pre-invasion and pre-colonial societies that developed on their territories, consider themselves distinct from other sectors of the societies now prevailing in those territories, or parts of them. They now form at present non-dominant sectors of society and are determined to preserve, develop and transmit to future generations their ancestral territories and their ethnic identity, as the basis of their continued existence as peoples, in accordance with their own cultural patterns, social institutions and legal systems”.
These later working definitions eventually covered the historical reality, circumstances and situation of the indigenous peoples in Asia, including that of the Nagas. The key features and significance of these definitions are as follows:
· it does not seek to define the history of suffering and situation of the indigenous peoples as being uniform in nature;
· it neither implies that indigenous peoples are the same. Rather, indigenous peoples means ‘diversity of peoples within a group as a whole’;
· the definition does not imply that indigenous peoples are only those who have suffered conquest or cololisation. This is not a qualification but could be a factor among many others;
· in general terms, indigenous peoples are the politically disavantaged inhabitants or are those in a politically non-dominant position of a present day country (with or without their consent) who have lived in the area before it became a nation-state. Their problems occur not only from the process of conquest or colonization but also from state formation arising from decolonization;
· it clearly implies that it can be resolved only through multiplicities of political solutions basing on the uniqueness, merit and the ground reality of each peoples.
The other important document to look at is the International Labour Organisation Convention 169 (commnonly refered to as ILO 169). In essence, their definition echoes a similar understanding and meaning of the above definitions. But the Convention inserted a qualification to the concept of self-determination.
Whether the indigenous peoples are numerical minority (as could be the case in some parts of India or other countries) or majority (such as the Nagas) is not only insignificant but it is neither a criteria for defining the indigenous peoples. Also, a numerical minority does not necessarily occupy a non-dominant position (politically). Indigenous peoples have always maintained that it is their basic right to define themselves, and hence, self-identification is the most important criteria [here, self-identification does not refer to individuals or organisations but as a group/community/people]. Secondly, it has been made very clear that indigenous peoples’ issues has to be dealt with as ‘peoples’ issue’ and not as a ‘minority issue’. The declaration is the result of this assertion that indigenous peoples are peoples and not populations or people or a minority. The debate over these terminologies and concepts were considered to be very crucial during the development of the declaration, however, I do not have the space to get into those arguments here. But it may be important to keep in mind that there is a separate UN Declaration on Minorities. Also in more than 50 years, the UN has never agreed on a definition of what constitutes a minority.
Further, the argument that ‘original inhabitants’ are indigenous peoples is not sufficient. It is only one of the criteria among several others. It is for this reason that all nationalities do not qualify to be called ‘indigenous’. The Kashmiries for instance does not come under the category of ‘indigenous peoples’ nor do the Burmans (who are fighting for restoration of democracy in Myanmar/Burma) even though the Karens, Kachins, Chins, etc. do.
The above definitions, variations and criteria are all important in understanding the issue and question of who the indigenous peoples are, even though they are not conclusive. However, what is more important for us to keep in mind is the political nature of the issue. In this sense, indigenous peoples are those who share a common vision in their struggle (in a broad sense) based on their worldviews. This is what makes their struggle unique. It has the potential of redefining the world history. The recent UN declaration, I believe, is part of that process. But it has to be by the people and only by the people. Hence, it is necessary for us to understand that no revolution can be carried out without the power of the powerless.
-----------------------------------
The writer is Indigenous Advisor (Asia Region) to the UN Convention on Biological Diversity Research Fellow at Kimmage Development Studies Centre, Holy Ghost College, Dublin, Ireland.
Source: http://ifp.co.in/ArticleFull.asp?ArticleID=179
No comments:
Post a Comment