Introduction
In recent news, three organisations representing the Bru community have expressed discontent with the sites proposed for their resettlement by the Joint Movement Committee (JMC). The JMC is an umbrella group comprised of non-Bru communities in Tripura, including Bengali, Mizo, Buddhist Barua, and more. The Mizoram Bru Displaced Peoples’ Forum, Mizoram Bru Displaced Peoples’ Coordination Committee, and Bru Displaced Welfare Committee, which are the three Bru representative organisations, provided numerous arguments challenging these propositions.
JMC’s Actions and Proposals
On July 21, 2020, the JMC presented a memorandum to the Tripura government, suggesting six locations within Kanchanpur and Panisagar subdivisions of North Tripura district for potential Bru resettlements. The proposal also suggested limiting the number of families settling in these places to a maximum of 500, citing the argument that Tripura lacks the necessary space and resources to accommodate a greater number.
Disagreements from Bru Community Representatives
The Bru representatives decried the JMC’s selection as unjust, arguing they were not part of the quadrilateral agreement underlying the decision-making process. Additionally, they stated that the proposed sites were inconvenient due to the lack of road and electricity access and proximity to hospitals, schools, and other facilities. Despite this, they suggested alternative settlements for approximately 6,500 families in clusters of at least 500 families each across twelve sites – seven in North Tripura district and five in the adjoining Dhalai district.
Furthermore, they rejected the proposition to include four JMC members in the resettlement monitoring team due to the JMC’s lack of connection or involvement with the issue of either repatriation to Mizoram or resettlement in Tripura over the last 23 years.
Background of Bru Community
The Bru or Reang community is indigenous to Northeast India, primarily residing in Tripura, Mizoram, and Assam. In Mizoram, they have faced issues with groups who do not consider them native to the state. Following ethnic clashes in 1997, around 37,000 Brus fled districts in Mizoram and sought refuge in relief camps in Tripura. Of these, approximately 5,000 Brus have returned to Mizoram during eight phases of repatriation. However, 32,000 still live in six relief camps in North Tripura today.
In 2018, Bru community leaders signed an agreement with the Centre and the two state governments for repatriation in Mizoram. This agreement, however, was rejected by most camp residents as it failed to guarantee their safety in Mizoram. Consequently, another agreement was signed in January 2020—between the Central government, Mizoram and Tripura governments, and Bru organisation leaders—to facilitate the resettlement of the remaining 35,000 refugees in Tripura. The rehabilitation package offered included financial assistance of ₹4 lakh and sufficient land for constructing a house for each family.
The Way Forward
To resolve these issues, the state government must ensure that the conditions specified in the quadrilateral agreement are strictly enforced. Simultaneously, it must consider the interests of non-Bru communities to prevent potential conflicts between the Bru and non-Bru communities during the execution of the resettlement plans. With careful planning and collaboration among all stakeholders, it will be possible to achieve a satisfactory resolution that respects the rights and needs of all involved communities.
