20 April 2015 IndIa Countrywide response urgently required to address chronic internal displacement As of April 2015 an estimated 616,140 people were displaced in India as a result of armed con- flict and inter-communal violence. Over half, or 364,100, are concentrated in two areas: the north- ern state of Jammu and Kashmir, where there are 251,000 internally displaced people (IDPs), most of them since 1990, and the north-eastern state of Assam, which is hosting some 113,000 IDPs, the majority of whom fled inter-communal violence in late 2014. Some 252,000 IDPs are found in the capital, Delhi, and in the states of Andhra Pradesh, Adavasi tribal villagers along with their belongings move to a safe place after their family members were killed by the National Democratic Front of Boroland (Songbijit Chhattisgarh, Gujarat, Nagaland, Telangana, faction) militants in Tenganala village in Sonitpur district of Assam state, India, 24 Tripura and Uttar Pradesh. At least 346,000 were December 2014. Photo: Ritu Raj Konwar/The Hindu newly displaced by conflict and violence between January 2014 and March 2015, most fleeing inter-communal violence in Western Assam. Many IDPs live in protracted displacement, having been displaced for up to 25 years and having failed to return or successfully find other durable solutions. The majority live in camps, including informal ones, where they often have only limited access to food, clean water and adequate sanitary facilities and little opportunity to secure sustainable livelihoods. Relief assistance provided by local authorities in government-run camps has included food, water and shelter but has tended to be temporary, only lasting a few weeks or months, after which camps are officially closed and IDPs are expected to either return or find alternative solutions on their own. Those who fail to do so often end up in nearby informal makeshift camps where they are left to fend for themselves. There is little information on IDPs living outside camps, including in urban areas. The main obstacles to return are linked to ongoing insecurity, including hostility from former neighbours and unresolved disputes around demarcations of state boundaries. Insufficient state assistance to support IDPs’ local integration or settlement elsewhere is preventing nearly half a million IDPs from achieving durable solu- tions, in particular in the states of Assam and Jammu and Kashmir. In Gujarat and Tripura return has been hindered by a failure to restore their enjoyment of housing, land and property (HLP) rights. States, not the central government, are charged with assisting IDPs. In the absence of any national policies and procedures, the response is often ad-hoc and focused only on meeting immediate humanitarian needs. International humanitarian agencies continue to face barriers to assisting IDPs, including a number of govern- ment restrictions and insecurity in conflict-affected areas. www.internal-displacement.org People internally displaced by conflict and violence in India, April 2015 Capital Jammu, Srinagar, Line of 100,000+ IDPs Area occupied Anantnag Control by China and claimed International boundary 50,000+ IDPs 221,090 IDPs by India JAMMU State boundary 10,000+ IDPs & Abdullain village/ 10,000- IDPs Samba district KASHMIR 30,000 IDPs HIMACHAL PRADESH PAKISTAN PUNJAB MuzaffarnagarUTTARAKHAND Shamli HARYANA 4,280 IDPs CHINA DELHI ARUNACHAL New Delhi NEPAL PRADESH 112,160 IDPs SIKKIM BHUTAN Sonitpur Udalguri Golaghat Chirang Baksa Kokrajhar Karbi Tuensang RAJASTHAN Anglong UTTAR PRADESH Goalpara ASSAM NAGALAND Dima Hasao BIHAR MEGHALAYA BANGLADESH MANIPUR Kachanpurchanpur GUJARAT JHARKHAND TRIPURARIPURA WEST MIZORAM Ahmedabad BENGAL MADHYA PRADESH 16,000 IDPs MYANMAR Bay CHHATTISGARH ODISHA of Bengal Bastar MAHARASHTRA 50,000 IDPs Dantewara TELANGANA Warangal 2,300 IDPs Khammam East Godavari West 11,520 IDPs Godavari 6,240 IDPs ARUNACHAL PRADESH GOA KARNATAKA ANDHRA PRADESH 90,000 IDPs Sonitpur 10,000 IDPs Udalguri Golaghat Chirang Baksa Karbi Tuensang 1,000 IDPs Kokrajhar 5,000 IDPs BrahmaputraAnglong Goalpara ASSAM NAGALAND 7,400 IDPs Dima Hasao 600 IDPs KERALA MEGHALAYA TAMIL NADU INDIAN OCEAN MANIPUR 31,200 IDPs Kachanpurchanpur MIZORAM TRIPURARIPURA SRI LANKA The boundaries and names shown and the designations used on this map do not imply official endorsement or acceptance by IDMC. 0 200 km www.internal-displacement.org Map by: IDMC More maps are available at www.internal-displacement.org/search?Type=Map India: Countrywide response urgently required to address chronic internal displacement The designation of an IDP focal point at the national from marginalised communities unable to assert level and the adoption of a policy and regulatory their land rights. Rapid population growth and framework upholding the rights of IDPs would help the poorest groups’ inability to benefit from the ensure a more comprehensive countrywide response. country’s economic development have exacerbated inter-ethnic or inter-religious tensions around ac- cess to land and state resources. In many cases, this Background and causes of competition has been articulated by ethnic-based displacement (by region) NSAGs over larger political claims including au- tonomy. The largest country in South Asia, India is divided into 29 states and seven union territories and has a The areas having experienced internal displacement, population of nearly 1.3 billion. Under one method including protracted and new displacement, are of measuring poverty in India some 53.7 per cent are the capital Delhi and the states of Andhra Pradesh, classified as poor OPHI( , January 2015). Widespread Assam, Chhattisgarh, Gujarat, Jammu and Kashmir, lack of access to adequate living standards in- Nagaland, Telangana, Tripura and Uttar Pradesh. creases vulnerability to natural hazards, conflict and violence. Displacement resulting from recurrent North-east India disasters, conflict and development projects are key Since independence in 1947, India’s north-eastern drivers of poverty. Socially excluded communities, states of Arunachal Pradesh, Assam, Manipur, including scheduled castes (an official designation Meghalaya, Mizoram, Nagaland, Sikkim and Tripura for castes traditionally facing discrimination) and have seen armed conflict and generalised violence tribes and religious minorities, tend to be dispro- (Bhaumik, 2009, p.1). Assam and its border areas portionally affected by displacement, with many with other Indian states including Nagaland and propelled deeper into poverty and marginalisation Meghalaya, as well as Tripura/Mizoram, are where (ECHO, 14 October 2013, p.2). much of the conflict and displacement has been concentrated in recent decades. There are up to 102 In recent years, economic growth has led to an active NSAGs in the north-east, with insurgency overall decline in poverty, but has failed to resolve closely linked to identity and ethnicity (UNSW, 2 the growing problem of inequality between social October 2014). groups and between those living in the cities and those living in the countryside (Miklian & Kolas, In 1958, in response to demands for outright inde- 2014 pp.204-223). People living in acute poverty are pendence by NSAGs, India enacted the Armed Forces mainly concentrated in India’s rural areas. In the last (Special Powers) Act (AFSPA), which has since been decades, state-led land acquisitions have led to the in force in the region. For those areas that have been displacement of millions of people (Brookings, 21 declared “disturbed”, the AFSPA provides for the pres- October 2013). Those particularly affected include ence of armed forces and grants them wide-ranging members of Adivasi (aboriginal) communities and powers. It has been criticised for creating a culture the Dalit (so-called ‘untouchable’) caste (Oxfam, of impunity for human rights violations (HRW, 19 February 2015, p.1; Brookings, 21 October October 2011; IDMC, November 2011, p.9; Aljazeera, 2013). 8 March 2014; UNSW, 2 October 2014). In November 2014, the AFSPA was extended in Assam as well as in The social and environmental impact of develop- other states of the north-east for another year (Indian ment projects has also fuelled tensions and conflict Express, 2 January 2015). On April 7, 2015, AFSPA was over land access and management. Leftist non-state extended to 12 districts Arunachal Pradesh by the armed groups (NSAGs) have often drawn support Central Government (Reuters, 8 April 2015). 20 April 2015 www.internal-displacement.org 3 India: Countrywide response urgently required to address chronic internal displacement At the same time, generalised violence and resulting Adivasi and Bengali Hindu NSAGs displaced more displacement have been driven by intense competi- than 200,000 people (Tehelka, 23 September 2006; tion for land. This is a consequence of the increasing Bhaumik, 2009, p.136). privatisation of land, which started during British colonial rule. In addition, the British brought in In 2003 the central and Assam state governments migrant workers from Bihar, Orissa and Bengal. After and the Bodo Liberation Tigers Force signed a sec- independence in 1947, the privatisation of land con- ond agreement, replacing the BAC with the Bodo tinued, with less and less collective land available for Territorial Council with jurisdiction over the districts indigenous people to practise subsistence agricul- of Kokrajhar, Chirang, Udalguri and Baksa. This, ture (Bhaumik, 2009, pp.60-71; IDMC, November however, has not put an end to inter-communal 2011, pp.9-10). violence. In 2012,