Dr. Opangmeren Jamir
IDSA, New Delhi
Subsequent to renaming the ‘Look East Policy’ into ‘Act East Policy’ in 2014 by the BJP-led NDA Government, the development of an extensive infrastructure in the Northeast India region (NER) has become a priority as the region is projected as the gateway to Southeast Asia and East Asian countries. To this effect, to consolidate further for a comprehensive connectivity led development in the NER, Arun Chawla, Deputy Secretary General of Federation of Indian Chambers of Commerce & Industry (FICCI), at the 4th North East Connectivity Summit held in Kohima in September 2017 outlined four agendas known as the ‘Nagaland Declaration’: Establishment of the North East Implementation Agency to supervise the funding of the projects; Formation of the High Powered North East Economic Forum, a version of think tank comprising government officials to coordinate planning in the region; Developing the North East Ring Road, connecting all the north-eastern states; and Constructing four lane road connectivity in all north eastern state capitals.
By implementing several infrastructural development projects in the region, policymakers are confident in taking the region to the path of development, perhaps a viable strategy for peace and development. However, there are important issues that need to be taken into consideration, particularly in the context of a diverse social and cultural complexity of the region.
Protection of Tribal Rights
The NER is inhabited by over 240 ethno-linguistic diverse cultural communities, where each tribal community has its own set of governance system, way of living etc. The Constitution of India under Fifth and Sixth Schedules and Article 371 (A) has endowed the protection and promotion of tribal communities. This was further reinforced by the recognition of the Forest Rights Act, 2006, wherein it protects the tribal community’s rights in the matter of forest resources. On several occasions, the government deliberately by-passed this set of rule of laws, which fueled a resistance movement by different tribal communities in NER.
One of the salient features under the ‘Act East Policy’, besides the domestic investors, is that the foreign investors are being invited for investing in infrastructural development in the region. Some of the key foreign investors, the India-Japan Coordination Forum for Development of North East is heavily investing in several states on road network development and electricity; recently the Korea Gas Corp (KOGAS), which is the second biggest liquefied natural gas (LNG) company in the world, expressed a keen interest to invest in limestone and LNG in Nagaland.
By investing heavily in infrastructural and related development projects, stakeholders are anxious for yielding positive results. But there is no guarantee that the proposed development projects will be implemented successfully, unless they take the protection of tribal rights into account. An important experience to this effect occurred, where India was dragged to investment treaty arbitration (ITA) under the India-UAE Bilateral Investment Treaty (BIT) in December 2016 by the UAE-based investor Ras Al Khaimah Investment Authority (RAKIA), seeking compensation of $ 44.71 million. This was initiated in consequence to the cancellation of the Memorandum of Understanding (MoU) signed with AP Mineral Development Corporation for Bauxite mining, allegedly due to the concern raised by the tribal population located in the mining areas.
The negative impact on the indigenous communities from the foreign investors has been mentioned in UN Special Rapporteur on the Rights of indigenous, where the main reason is the failure to adequately address the human rights concern of the tribal people in the International Investment Agreement, the perceived threat of enforcement of investor protection, and barring indigenous communities from the decision making process. Ample evidence specifies the undermining of the right of indigenous communities by the international free trade regime. Except New Zealand, which upheld the rights of Maori people, several countries including Australia, Mexico, Peru and the United States failed to uphold the rights of the indigenous communities in one of the most imminent free trade regime, the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP), which was formally signed on 4 February 2016.
To avoid such a situation from foreign investment projects, every stakeholder needs to strike a balance between the rights of the investor and the tribal communities. A telling example of this is set in Canada’s BIT with several countries.
Recognition of Indigenous Knowledge
Another important aspect which intertwines with the tribal communities is the appreciation of indigenous knowledge. Until anthropologists in the 1970s brought the findings that tribal societies have their own set of knowledge to sustain their life and communities and biodiversity conservation, the concept of ‘development’ in social science was based exclusively in terms of ‘economic growth rate’, until anthropologist began to emphasize qualitative indicators such as standard of living, happiness etc. The knowledge based on ‘science’, although extremely has been successful in furthering human needs into simpler mechanisms, yet it has substantially contributed to the degradation of the environment. On the other hand, the ‘Indigenous knowledge’ is a cumulative body of knowledge and beliefs, distinctive to a particular tribal community in which it has been handed down from generation to generation. Consequent to numerous findings on the practice of sustainable management of resources by several tribal communities, conditioned in a specific area or locality, anthropologist like Paul Sillitoe argues that since ‘other’ people have their own effective ‘science’ and practice how to use their resources, in order to assist them, we need to understand something about their knowledge and management system. For instance, the Ministry for Development of North-East Region (DONER) recently has encouraged ‘organic farming’ in the region. Yet one needs to acknowledge that such practices existed among the tribal communities within their own set of knowledge.
Certainly, through investing heavily in infrastructural projects, policymakers have high expectations for improving bilateral ties with regional states. But unless the rights of tribal communities are being upheld as prescribed in the said rule of law, achieving the objectives is likely to remain challenging. Against the political environment of the region, which is under fragile condition, by-passing the rule of law will only add fuel to the fire. Hence, implementing any developmental projects requires reconciling the needs and conditions of the local communities, so that the region remains peaceful and prosperous.
Dr. Opangmeren Jamir is a researcher at Institute for Defence Studies and Analyses (IDSA), New Delhi.
