[Previous entry: "Tripartite talks on UNC 'alternative arrangement' held Nagaland Page"] [Next entry: "AMUCO advises Naga leaders Source: The Sangai Express"]

12/05/2010: "Chumpo Museum set up to showcase tribal culture of Nagaland Sify news"

Chumpo Museum set up to showcase tribal culture of Nagaland Sify news

Chumpo in Nagamese, the language of Nagaland, means 'Morung' or 'bachelors' dormitory'
But in Sovina village near Dimapur, one of the principle cities of Nagaland, the cultural artifacts of Naga tribes are preserved in a Chumpo Museum.
The uniqueness of the museum is that visitors can stay here for the night to acquire a deeper insight into the Naga way of life.
Nagaland has 19 tribes, each having their own distinct culture, and to create awareness about the richness of Nagaland's culture among the younger generation, aware, a Chumpo Museum has been set up in Sovina village.
The museum is the brainchild of Abraham Lotha, a museum anthropologist, whose quest to collect Naga artifacts began in 1990.
Today, he has a wide collection of both traditional and contemporary Naga artifacts.
"The Naga community needs to preserve its culture. There have been many occasions when others have described the culture of Nagas in their books, magazines, events and other functions, both at domestic and international levels. So, we Nagas also need to act to prevent an erosion of our culture, and this museum, is our way of representing Naga culture," said Abraham Lotha, the curator of the Chumpo Museum.
The museum has Naga artifacts dating back to the 18th century, including ancient log drums, spears, bows and arrows of a Naga headhunter warrior, traditional rice beer containers, traditional handloom, rice pounders and many other wooden artifacts depicting the cultural history of Naga tribes are preserved at the museum.
Paintings by well-known Naga painters Pheaso and Iris Yingzen adorn the museum walls.
The architecture of the building reflects the Naga way of life.
Lotha says young Naga children need to know their culture.
"Those living in urban areas like Dimapur and Kohima, particularly children, have not seen the traditional artifacts of Naga society. So, here is a place where they can come and see how their ancestors lived. The objects that are placed here, can tell a lot of stories about Naga culture, which can help them, promote and preserve their culture," Lotha said.
Lotha's initiative is expected to play an important role in promoting and preserving Nagaland's rich culture among future generations. (ANI)

Forest & Biodiversity Rights of the Nagas morungexpress
Encroachment over the Rights of the Nagas by enacting and extending the application of Forest Conservation, Act 1980 and Bio-diversity Act, 2002: a Critical analysis and Appraisal

Since time immemorial, the socio-economic and cultural life of the Naga has revolved around the forest and its resources. In fact, it is because of this reason that Article 371A has been incorporated in the Constitution of India so as to protect the socio-economic and cultural rights and interest of the Nagas. Nagaland has diverse culture with each tribe having its own distinct customary practices as regards the use, ownership and transfer of land and its resources. Therefore, it is of utmost importance that before enacting any Act in respect of the environment and forest, which has a direct bearing on the socio-economic and cultural life of the Nagas, it is incumbent for the State Government to examine very carefully the implications of such legislation vis-a-vis Article 371A of the Constitution.
Nagaland is not a Scheduled State under the Sixth Schedule of the Constitution of India. However, Article 371A of the Constitution, provides a special provision to the effect that no Act of Parliament in respect of (i) religious and social practices of Nagas; (ii) Naga customary law and procedure; (iii) administration of civil and criminal justice involving decisions according to Naga customary law and (iv) ownership and transfer of land and its resources shall apply to the State of Nagaland unless the Legislative Assembly of Nagaland by a resolution so decides.
The Forest (Conservation) Act, 1980 (Act No 69 of 1980), hereinafter being referred to as the Act, has been enacted by the Parliament, with a view to check further deforestation which ultimately results in ecological imbalance. As such, the provisions made therein for the conservation of forests and for that matters connected therewith, must apply to all forests irrespective of the nature of ownership or classification thereof. The Act has made prior approval of the Central Government for necessary de-reservation of reserved forest and use of forests for non- forest purposes.
It is therefore, imperative to examine the stand of the Nagas more particularly, the Legislative Assembly of Nagaland, on the applicability of Forest (Conservation) Act, 1980 as to whether the adoption of the Act and its provisions shall defeat the very purpose of incorporating Article 371 A in the Constitution of India. As such, it is necessary to discuss some of the relevant provisions of the Act.
Section 2 of the Act provides as follows: “Notwithstanding anything contained in any other law for the time being in force in a State, no State Government or any authority shall make, except with prior approval of the Central Government, any order directing (i) that any reserved forest (within the meaning of the expression ``reserved forest`` in any law for the time being in force in that State) (ii) that any forest land
or any portion thereof maybe used for any non-forest purposes (iii) that any forest land or any portion thereof may be assigned by way of lease or otherwise to any private person or to any authority, cooperation, agency or any other organization not owned, managed and control by Government and (iv) that any forest land or any portion for the purposes of using it for reforestation.
Section 2 of the (Forest Conservation) Act, 1980 also takes away the power of the State Government to make any order directing de-reservation of any reserved forest or the use of any forest land or any portion thereof, for any non-forest purpose except with the prior approval of the Central Government.
Section 2 (iii) of the Act, clearly stipulates that the provision of the Act will apply to all forest lands irrespective of its ownership or classification thereof. There cannot be any doubt that Forest (Conservation) Act, 1980 would apply to any forest land whether declared as private forest or not and whether the forest is reserved forest or not.
From a bare reading of the Act, what is abundantly clear is that the State Government has no power to make any order directing de-reservation of any reserved forest or the use of any forest land or any portion thereof, for any non-forest purpose except with the prior approval of the Central Government.
Basing on the Act, the Hon’ble Supreme Court, as well as different High Courts, have also rendered several decisions some of which are worth mentioning herein. In State of Orissa -vs- Duti Sahu & Ors., reported in AIR 1997 SC.1040, the Hon’ble Supreme Court has held that any non-forest activity in the forest area without prior approval of the Central Government is banned. Similar observation has been also made in Jairaj, A.P -vs- Chief Conservator of Forest (Wildlife), Thiruvanthapuram & Ors., reported in AIR 1998 Pat. 20). In the case of T.N.Godavaraman Thirumulpal -vs- Union of India (AIR 1997 SC 1228), the Hon’ble Supreme Court, after hearing the Central Government, as well as, the Government of all the States, has held that in view of the meaning of the word “forest” in the Act, it is obvious that prior approval of the Central Government is required for any non-forest activity within the area of any “forest”. In accordance with Section 2 of the Act, all on-going activity within any forest in any State throughout the country, without the prior approval of the Central Government, must cease forthwith. It is worth mentioning herein that even in the case of Jammu and Kashmir, which is excluded from the application of the Forest (Conservation) Act, 1980 vide Section 1 (2) of the Act, the Hon’ble Supreme Court has directed that any felling of trees in forest or otherwise or any clearance of land for execution of projects, shall be in strict compliance with existing Act, i.e. the Jammu and Kashmir Forest Conservation Act, 1990.
Moreover, from judicial decisions, it is also well settled that the provision of Section 2 of the Forest (Conservation) Act, 1980 shall prevail over the provision of the Mining Act and the Rule 24A (6) (State Bihar -vs- M/s. R.M.C Dill and Co. (P) Ltd & Ors. AIR 1998 Pat. 20).
Furthermore, if an area satisfies the description of being a forest land as defined in Section 2 (1)), it shall come within the purview of the Forest (Conservation) Act, 1980 and no permission to fell trees even in private areas cannot be granted without the prior concurrence of the Central Government (refer to Bhagawan Bhoi -vs- State of Orissa, AIR 2002 Ori 201).
In this context, we may also refer to those cases in Tribal Areas falling under the Sixth Schedule of the Constitution of India. Paragraph 6 (2) of the Sixth Schedule has delegated the power to the Governor to delegate to the Council the functions in relation to ‘forest’ amongst other matters. However, Article 256 of the Constitution cast an obligation upon the States and the Union to the effect that the executive power of every State shall be so exercised so as to ensure compliance with the laws made by the Parliament and any existing laws which apply in that State and the executive power of the Union shall extend to the giving of such directions to a State as may appear to the Government of India to be necessary for that purpose. Moreover, the District Council constituted as per the provision of the Sixth Schedule, has no power to make law in respect of management of reserve forest under paragraph 3(1) (b) of the Sixth Schedule and (ii) such executive power will be subject to the conditions, if any, imposed by the Government while entrusting the executive function in relation to forest or reserve forest under paragraph 6 (2) of the Sixth Schedule. It is therefore, very clear that the executive power of the Council in relation to Reserved Forest will be subject to provisions of the Constitution, law made by Parliament including the Forest (Conservation) Act, 1980 law made by the State Legislative and the Assam Forest Regulation, 1891 (see M/S Hills Syndicate -vs- North Cachar, Hills Autonomous Council & Ors AIR 2001 Gau 83).
Article 371A of the Constitution provides for a special status to the State of Nagaland to the effect that notwithstanding anything in the Constitution no Act of Parliament in respect of the ownership and transfer of land and its resources shall apply in the State of Nagaland unless the Legislative Assembly of Nagaland by a resolution so decides. As per Section 2(d) of the Nagaland Ownership and Transfer of Land and its Resources Act, 1990 (The Nagaland Act No. 1 of 1993), “Lands and its resources” means `` advantages derived from the surface of the land and all that is below it and which is valuable or is a source of money or income and includes ….. ……………………………………”
No doubt, as per Section 1(2) of Forest (Conservation) Act, 1980, the Act has been extended in whole of India, except the State of Jammu & Kashmir. However, the said provision cannot override the Constitutional provision as guaranteed under Article 371A. As such, the Forest (Conservation) Act, 1980 which has direct bearing over the ownership and transfer of land and its resources cannot be extended in the State of Nagaland unless the Legislative Assembly of Nagaland by a resolution so decides. However, there is no record to show that the Act has been extended by a resolution adopted by the Legislative Assembly of Nagaland. But most unfortunately, even government officials, leave aside the common people, are not sure as to whether Forest (Conservation) Act, 1980, has been extended in the State of Nagaland. There is instance where a responsible government officer has commented that the Act is applicable in the State of Nagaland. There is also an instance, from which an inference may be drawn that the the Forest (Conservation) Act, 1980 has been extended in the State of Nagaland by implication. In this regard, we may refer to the Deed of Agreement for Changpang Petroleum Mining Lease executed between the Government of Nagaland and the Oil & Natural Gas Corporation Ltd. Part – III Clause 2(m) of the said Agreement reads as under:
“ m) Any clause of the lease, which is violative of any provision of forest law including the Forest(Conservation) Act, 1980 shall be treated as ab-initio void.”
Be that as it may, the Forest (Conservation) Act, 1980 which has direct bearing over the ownership and transfer of land and its resources cannot be extended in the State of Nagaland, either by way of comment or by implication, unless the Legislative Assembly of Nagaland by a resolution so decides to adopt and extend the said Act, in the State of Nagaland.
In the backdrop of the Forest (Conservation) Act, 1980 it will be more appropriate to analyse the provisions of Bio-diversity Act, 2002. Whereas, Section 1(2) of Forest (Conservation) Act, 1980 was extended in whole of India, except the State of Jammu & Kashmir, Section 1 (2) of Bio-diversity Act, 2002 extends its applicability in whole of India. As such, going by the provision of the Bio-diversity Act, 2002, the same is also extended in the State of Nagaland.
The Bio-diversity Act has been enacted to provide for conservation of biological diversity, sustainable use of its components, fair and equitable sharing of the benefits arising out of the use of biological reasons and emphasis is given on the fact that ‘India is rich in biological diversity associated traditional and contemporary knowledge’. The Bio-diversity Act, 2002 therefore provides measures for regulating the access to Bio resource, need for approval of NBA for Intellectual Property Rights, Constitution Function & Power of National on Biodiversity Authority and its Committee. Determination of equitable benefits sharing by NBA, the State Biodiversity Board its power function etc. Therefore, the Bio-diversity Act, 2002, if extended in the State of Nagaland, shall amount to a fresh and deeper encroachment over the rights of the Nagas as protected under sub-clause 1(a) (iv) of Article 371A of the Constitution and also Section 2(d) of the Nagaland Ownership and Transfer of Land and its Resources Act, 1990 (The Nagaland Act No. 1 of 1993).
In the State level consultation on Bio-diversity Act, 2002 held in 2007, one question raised seems very important to record here `` when Nagaland does fall under the preview of Bio-diversity Act 2002 since Nagas are protected by the Article 371-A, what is the need to discuss so much about BDA 2002? Why don’t we go framing our own Act? ” Reply of the resource person was “before we review the Act we should know the status of the State Biodiversity Board.”
In India, we have many Acts which are enacted for conservation of biological diversity, such as - Indian Forest Act 1927, Wildlife (Protection) Act 1972, Forest (Conservation) Act, 1980, Protection of Plants varies and Farmers Right Act 2001 and The Schedule Tribe and other Forest Dwellers (Recognition of Forest Rights) Act 2006. But their applicability in the State of Nagaland is limited due to constitutional safeguard guaranteed under the Article 371A of the Constitution. However, the State of Nagaland, understanding the need to conserve and protect the forest and its resources, has enacted series of local Acts/Rules to conserve and protect the forest viz., The Nagaland Forest Act, 1968; the Nagaland Rules for protection of the Establishment and Control of Forest Villages 1969; the Nagaland Rules for Protection of Forest from Fire 1969; the Nagaland Village and Area Council Act, 1970; the Village Development Rules,1980; the Nagaland Jhumland Act 1970; the Nagaland(Requisition & Acquisition) Act 1966 and the Nagaland Tree Felling Regulations 2002. All these local Acts/Rules have been enacted by the Nagaland Legislative Assembly keeping in mind the rights and interests of the various tribe/communities and individuals of the State.
No doubt, even the Government of India has enacted The Schedule Tribe and other Forest Dwellers (Recognition of Forest Rights) Act.2006 in order to protect and safeguard the rights of the tribal communities over forest resources. However, even the said Act cannot be extended in the State of Nagaland without complying with the provision of Article 371A of the Constitution. Moreover, from the provisions of The Schedule Tribe and other Forest Dwellers (Recognition of Forest Rights) Act.2006 what is apparently clear is that, the Act is mainly directed against those Schedule Tribe and other Forest Dwellers who are settled or under occupation of forest areas, owned by the Government and who are deprived of even the basic minimum rights and are almost refugee of the nation. However, due to the peculiar land holding system in the State of Nagaland, the land and its resources belongs to the village/community/clan and individual. The State Government does not own any land except those which has been acquired from the land owners. As the Nagas are the owner and possessor of the land and its resources, which includes the forest, the Naga people do not need the protection of The Schedule Tribe and other Forest Dwellers (Recognition of Forest Rights) Act.2006.
Therefore, before extending any Act passed by the Government of India in the State of Nagaland be it the Forest (Conservation) Act, 1980, the Bio-diversity Act, 2002 etc., the same has to be tested in the touchstone of Article 371A of the Constitution of India so as to preserve the socio-economic and cultural identity of the Nagas.
Mr. Imotemsu Ao
&
Professor L.K. Jha
Department of Environmental Studies
NEHU, Shillong-(Meghalaya)

Tales of bullying buffet ‘hot-head’ camp OUR CORRESPONDENT The Telegraph


Purlembo Ao at Purulia court on Friday. (Mita Roy)
Balarampur (Purulia), Dec. 3: Three short-fuse murders in two months have opened the floodgates of public complaints against a police camp here that is meant to protect civilians from Maoists.
“People in the neighbourhood avoid going anywhere near the base after sundown,” said Kashinath De, a wholesale trader, whose shop is near the India Reserve Battalion camp where a constable killed a superior and a state armed police jawan yesterday.
“So, traders who have shops on either side of NH32 near the camp have no option but to down their shutters after 7pm,” he added.
De and many others alleged that the personnel at the IRB camp in Purulia’s Balarampur were “hot-headed and trigger-happy”, and had assaulted several residents and shopkeepers in the past couple of months.
The camp houses IRB personnel from Nagaland and state armed police (SAP) jawans. Yesterday, IRB constable Purlembo Ao had gunned down a senior and an SAP jawan for protesting the bursting of firecrackers during pre-Christmas festivities at the camp.
On October 1, some IRB personnel from the camp had shot a youth dead inside his car on the suspicion that he was a Maoist.
De said it was a “huge risk” to go near the camp after sundown. “Who wants to risk his life?”
Another trader, Netai Pal, who has a shop 200 metres from the camp, said customers from the neighbourhood had stopped coming to his shop.
“They prefer to go to shops that do not require them to come anywhere near the camp. People want to avoid coming face to face with the jawans at the camp,” Pal said.
He said even his relatives and friends felt afraid to visit his home, especially at night, because they would need to pass by the camp.
The IRB jawans have been camping at the Balarampur base since September. They are part of six companies of IRB jawans from Nagaland involved in anti-Maoist operations in the state.
Several shopkeepers said the IRB jawans regularly coerced them into giving them discounts.
Bholanath Majhi, the Balarampur block president of the Trinamul Youth Congress, said that recently, some IRB jawans had demanded liquor after a meal at a dhaba, 1km from the camp. Refused, they abused the dhaba owner and left without paying for their food, Majhi alleged.
On October 1, the IRB personnel had allegedly dragged several passers-by into the camp and beaten them up, after having mistaken the sound of firecrackers in the neighbourhood as Maoist gunshots. They later fired wildly, killing a traveller from Bokaro in his car and injuring his friend.
Majhi said the IRB personnel had been brought here to fight the Maoists but were “harming the local people” instead. He demanded that the jawans be shifted so that the people in the neighbourhood could “breathe easy”.
Ao, the constable who killed his senior Kebrihom Dominique and SAP jawan Sanjay Bor yesterday, was produced in a Purulia court today and remanded in 14 days’ jail custody. He has been charged with murder and faces either a death sentence or a life term.
The bodies of Bor and Dominique are being taken to their homes in West Midnapore’s Khejuri and Nagaland, respectively. Bor was given a guard of honour at the 13th SAP battalion headquarters in Purulia’s Simulia.
In Calcutta, the additional director-general of police (law and order), Surajit Kar Purakayastha, said the firing was being probed.
“A director-general of police from Nagaland arrived in Calcutta today,” Purakayastha said. The Nagaland officer will visit Balarampur tomorrow and investigate the incident with state police officers.
Purakayastha said a “decision on the platoon in Balarampur will be taken after that”.