The Brus + ECI Contra Mizoram

Understanding the Current Political Turmoil in Mizoram

Following the removal of Lalnunmawia Chuaungo, the Principal Secretary of Mizoram, by the Election Commission of India (ECI) at the request of Chief Electoral Officer (CEO) SB Sashank, the public, led by the NGO Coordination Committee of Mizoram, took to the streets in Aizawl and other district headquarters in Mizoram on the 6th and 7th. They demanded the immediate removal of the CEO.

The Problem and its Context

During the 2014 Lok Sabha election in Mizoram, there was widespread discontentment among the Mizos over the fact that the Election Commission of India (ECI) planned to have the Bru refugees in Tripura cast their votes from their campsites in Tripura. There were plans to boycott the election by the NGO Coordination Committee of Mizoram. However, the ECI and the NGO Co-ordination Committee came to an agreement on the issue and the Bru refugees were permitted to cast their votes from their campsites in Tripura.

The NGO Coordination Committee signed the agreement on behalf of the Mizo people because the agreement stipulated that the Brus will no longer cast their votes from their campsites in future elections to the Lok Shaba and the Legislative Assembly of the state of Mizoram. The Election Commission of India’s (ECI) letter No.464/MIZ-HP/2014 (B&R) Dt. 7th April 2014, states, "Further, the Commission has decided that provision would be made during future elections to the Lok Sabha and the Legislative Assembly of the state of Mizoram, for the exercise of the franchise within the state of Mizoram by Bru (Reang) voters living in Tripura enrolled in voter lists of Mizoram". The first election in the state after the agreement was signed is the upcoming election to the Legislative Assembly which is due on the 28^th of this month. The ECI, in direct violation of the 2014 agreement, plans to have the Bru refugees cast their votes from their campsites in Tripura, again!

In 2016, the Mizoram government conducted an inspection of the Bru refugees in their camps to verify the actual refugees that were to be repatriated. The verified citizens were given identity slips by the Government of Mizoram. And as the election approached, electoral rolls had to be revised and updated. The same had to be done for the Bru refugees as well. But, since they were still [and still are] in their camps and refused to go back to Mizoram, the Mizo people could not allow a roll revision to be conducted in their camps in Tripura. And since such was the case, the ECI decided to appropriate the identity slips as legal documents - meaning that the electoral roll of the Brus was revised and updated based on the identity slips that were designed to identify the refugees that were to be repatriated! The Mizoram government protested, arguing that the identity slips were not legal documents but rather mere media by which it could identify the actual Bru refugees that are from Mizoram and as such could be manipulated.  However, the ECI responded by saying that since it has statutory authority over revisions of the electoral rolls it possesses the authority to accept anything as legal documents and so decided to accept the identity slips as legal documents. The Mizo people later learned that a roll revision was conducted surreptitiously and things became very tense. Since there was lots of discontentment, the important documents necessary for the inclusion of the Bru refugees into the electoral roll had to be vigilantly guarded and protected. However, on 23^rd August 2018, the important documents were purloined from the unguarded Mamit District Election Office. Why was the DEO left unguarded? Who is responsible for this incompetence?

The agreement to repatriate the Bru refugees before September 2018, agreed upon by the Ministry of Home Affairs, the Mizoram government, the Tripura government, and the Mizoram Bru Displaced People Forum (MBDPF), was again rejected and protested by the Brus. The repatriation programme failed, yet again. The MBDPF immediately took advantage of the 23^rd August 2018 heist by sending a letter to the ECI and the CEO on 25^th October 2018 to make provisions for the Bru refugees to cast their votes from their relief camps in Tripura. Their main contention – after the said heist, Mizoram is no longer safe for the Brus.

It is very important to have a free, fair and peaceful election since it is the very foundation on which democracy stands. As such, it is the duty of the Chief Electoral Officer (CEO) to ensure that a free, fair and peaceful election is conducted. For the CEO to conduct such an election, it is his/her duty to consult with the District Commissioner (DC) and the Superintendent of Police (SP) on security measures. After such consultation, the actual requisition letter for the deployment of the Central Armed Police Force (CAPF) is to be sent not by the CEO but rather at the level of the Chief Secretary or the Home Secretary. The CEO, on the other hand, mainly deals with technical issues. While this is the standard protocol, the CEO for the upcoming Mizoram Legislative Assembly has taken it upon himself to write and send the requisition letter to the ECI without any consultation with the official personnel concerned. In his requisition letter, the CEO has requested for the deployment of 40 battalions of the Central Armed Police Force (CAPF). His conduct is in clear violation of the ECI’s Manual on Force Deployment, Chapter 6, Paragraph 3. When his conduct was questioned by Lalnunmawia Chuango, the Principal Secretary of Mizoram, the CEO immediately sent a letter of complaint to the ECI, accusing Chuaungo of directly interfering with security measures.

Now, Mizoram, the most peaceful state in India, has several local and national parties like Congress and the BJP, and it has always been considered the quintessential model for a peaceful election. Bearing by the Mizo moral code of conduct, parties and candidates have always conducted themselves in the most exemplary fashion. As such, the CEO’s decision to deploy 40 battalions of the CAPF is highly uncalled for and a waste of the state’s resources and needs justification. But when such justification was called for by the authority concerned, the official was immediately removed by the ECI. Now the popular contention among the Mizos, though unsubstantiated, is that the ECI is conspiring against the Mizos. It is their belief that an IAS (conferred) officer of the 2007 batch would not, of his own accord, dare to conduct himself in such a manner as he did. Now, if one takes a good look at the entire episode and asks the question ‘Which party, political or otherwise, would benefit the most from the Brus casting their votes from their campsites in Tripura?’ one can begin to comprehend the real issue.

It is the right of every citizen to cast his/her votes in an election, and the NGO Coordination Committee of Mizoram and the Mizo people in general, have no qualms about that. They are not protesting the rights of the Bru refugees to exercise their adult franchise. Rather, they are demanding that if these refugees want to cast their votes in the upcoming election, they should do so from the respective polling stations to which they belong. Why such demand? Firstly, as mentioned before, ECI has already signed an agreement with the NGO Coordination Committee of Mizoram in 2014 to conduct the election as such. Secondly, the Mizoram government has literally bent over backwards several times to bring these refugees back, and yet they still refuse to comply with the government’s effort.

 Genesis of the Problem

To have a comprehensive view of the issue at hand, it is important to know who the Brus are and how and why they came to be in such a condition as they are right now. The popular misconception among the general population of India and even among the top officials of the Government of India (GOI) is that the Brus fled Mizoram due to ethnic clashes between the Mizos and the Brus. This, however, is not the case.

The Brus first migrated in small numbers to Mizoram a few years before 1950. The original home of the Brus is believed to be Maian Tlang near Rangamati Bangladesh. From here they gradually migrated to Tripura. The Brus mainly came to Mizoram as a result of their rebellion against the Maharaja of Tripura that took place during the1940s. Their migration to Mizoram really started in the 1950s

The Brus did not flee Mizoram, they left Mizoram to pursue their own political cause, which was, and still is the establishment of an Autonomous District Council in Mizoram.  On the 23rd and 24th of September 1997, a conference was held by the Bru National Union (BNU) at Saipuilui. Around 400 delegates attended the conference which included delegates from Tripura as well. Here, the delegations resolved to demand an Autonomous District Council in Mizoram. Around this time, the Parliamentary Committee on Petition in Mizoram made a proposal for the establishment of a Union Territory for the Chakmas. Naturally, the people strongly opposed such demand. The Mizo Zirlai Pawl (MZP) appealed to the BNU to withdraw their demand. But their appeal fell on deaf ears. As a result, the MZP issued a Quit Mizoram notice to the Brus. Several Bru families left Mizoram for Tripura in October 1997, not because of any ethnic clash between the Mizos and the Brus – there was no ethnic clash. Rather, they left out of fear of the possible fallout that the BNU’s demand might affect.

In pursuance of the decision taken by the delegates at the conference, the Bru National Union and the Bru Students’ Union (BSU) started their campaign by telling their people to leave Mizoram. They went from village to village, district to district demanding their people to leave Mizoram as soon as possible. They also assured them that they would continue to fight for an autonomous district council and that they would even resort to taking up arms against the Mizoram government if ever they felt the need to do so. The BSU distributed letters to all the Bru Village Council Presidents (VCPs) in Mizoram about their plans and demands and demanded that the information be passed on by the VCPs to all their fellow Brus in confidence. The main culprits in this scheme were Bruno Mesha, President of the BSU and his subordinates A Sawibunga Riang and R Laldawngliana.

Shortly after this, the BNU set up an armed wing, the Bru National Liberation Front (BNLF), whose first major act was to kill Lalzawmliana, a Mizo youth, on 21st October 1997. After this act of brutality, the BNU threatened the still remaining Bru population in Mizoram to leave the state before 22nd March 1998. The BNU made it clear that any Bru that failed to comply with its demands would be considered a traitor to the Bru community. Not only that, they will also be considered as Mizos and will be given exactly the same hostile treatment as that of the Mizos.

With such threats from the BNU, the Bru population had no other option but to leave Mizoram, and so they did. Some of them went to Cachar while the bulk of the population headed for Tripura. On their way to Tripura, they vandalized and terrorized the Mizos in Sakhan and Jampui villages in Tripura. The crimes and atrocities committed by the Brus at Sakhan are especially odious and heartbreaking – all the inhabitants of Sakhan were forced and driven out of the village and their homes, properties and their farms were taken by the Brus as their own. Even today, many Brus still live in the homes, properties and farms of these Mizos, whom they had driven out 20 or so years ago.

The Government of India immediately recognized these Brus, who left Mizoram of their own accord to pursue their political cause, as refugees and set up six relief camps in Tripura. The Bru National Union (BNU), now aided by Akhil Bharatiya Vidyarthi Parishad (ABVP) and Vanvasi Kalyan Ashram, immediately wrote a letter to the National Human Rights Commission (NHRC), and a copy of the letter was submitted to the Union Home Minister and the Mizoram State Government as well.

As per this letter, 1,391 houses in 41 Bru villages were burnt down. 44 Bru women were raped. 29 Mandirs/Temples were destroyed. 8 Brus were killed and another 8 missing. All these atrocities, as per the letter, were conducted by the Mizos.

The Mizoram police immediately investigated these alleged crimes conducted by the Mizos on the Brus, and on every front found each and every account to be wanting. No houses were burnt down, no women were raped, no Mandirs/Temples were destroyed, and no Brus were killed or kidnapped. No evidence was ever found, and when interviewed by the Mizoram police, none of the alleged rape victims ever corroborated the accusations made by the BNU. All blatant lies – false accusations put forth to push their political agenda i.e. to establish their own Autonomous District Council in Mizoram. In fact, after a peace treaty between the Mizoram government and the Bru National Liberation Front (BNLF) was signed on 26th April 2005, the BNLF admitted and confessed that all the accusations put forth in the letter were lies concocted to slander the Mizos. However, even after such revelations, the Government of India still cater to every whim of the Brus!

On 13 November 2009, another incident took place - an 18-year-old Mizo youth, Zarzokima of Bungthuam Village was killed by the Brus.  Though the condemnation of such acts of barbarity was vehement from the Mizo community, there was no mass violent reaction. However, the incident still affected a mass exodus of the remaining Brus in Mizoram to Tripura. And despite every effort put forth by the Mizoram government, they are still refusing to go back.

The Protest at Treasury Square, Aizawl