Facts

The Bru tribal community, also known as Reangs, straddle both sides of the Mizoram-Tripura border. Following a Bru-Mizo ethnic clash in 1997, a large but indeterminate number of Brus fled to neighbouring Tripura and Assam with the bulk in Tripura. The Bru National Liberation Front (BNLF) emerged in late 1997, demanding an Autonomous District Council for the Bru community in Mizoram and the repatriation of displaced Brus. Nine rounds of talks have been held between the BNLF and the Mizoram government since September 2001, the latest was concluded on 13 July, 2003, sans any major breakthrough.

Foilers

One factor that has persistently foiled resolution of the Bru problem remains the dispute over the exact number of displaced Brus. Ranging from 16,000 maintained by Aizawl to 32,000 by Agartala to 37,000 by the Union Home Ministry?s on-the-spot verification team in July 1998 to 40,000 according to the National Human Rights Commission report of October 1998, this dispute over the number of displaced Brus to be resettled in Mizoram hinders progress on the issue. The Mizoram government?s precondition for repatriation, that the BNLF lay down their arms has been another problem linked to talks addressing their demands. Third, the Young Mizo Association (YMA) is opposing repatriation of more than 15,000 Brus which, according to the student body, is the actual number of Brus who left the state in 1997.

Footsteps

The Mizoram government initiated talks with the BNLF, and held nine rounds of talks with the outfit, albeit inconclusively. The BNLF on its part toned down its demand for an Autonomous District Council to a Regional Council, and lately to a Bru Area Development Council. On 7 August 2000, the Union Home Minister L.K Advani convened a joint meeting between the Tripura and Mizoram Chief Ministers where it was decided that all ?Bru refugees? must return to their original residence and the entire process should be completed by December 2000. The Center?s efforts failed with several organizations in Mizoram opposing the move due to the ?unacceptable? number of displaced Brus estimated by the center.

Follow-on

The latest round of Mizoram government-BNLF talks, held at Aizawl from 11-13 July 2003, concluded on a note of optimism, with both sides agreeing to draft the modalities and detailed provisions of an accord in the latter part of August when talks are proposed to be resumed. While the BNLF and Mizoram government can afford to drag the issue forever whilst the concerned authorities and organizations debate numbers, the displaced Brus continue to suffer. Apart from the economic and social problems of being driven away from their home, there is also the mental pain of being treated unfairly in their own country. Beginning July 4, a six member team led by the Chief Electoral Officer of Mizoram, on the directions of the Election Commission, began enumeration of displaced Reangs in six evacuee camps in north Tripura for inclusion of their names in the voters list. On 18 July 2003, the Mizoram Bru Refugee Committee (MBRC) alleged that around 1000 eligible voters were being omitted in the enumeration process which carried out following an earlier MBRC submission to the Chief Election Commissioner that the Bru refugees had been denied their franchise in the general election of 1998 and the Parliamentary election of 1999.

Complicating the issue is the continued slanging-match between Aizawl and Agartala. While the Mizoram government alleged that BNLF militants were using Tripura as a safe haven, quoting intelligence reports of BNLF militants in the Bru refugee camps with the state government turning a Nelson?s eye towards them. Tripura Chief Minister, Manik Sarkar, accused the Mizoram government of sheltering National Liberation Front Of Tripura (NLFT) militants. With a soured relationship and disagreement over the number of displaced Brus, an early and amicable solution of the Bru tangle is clearly not on the horizon.

Suggestions

Appreciating the plight of the displaced community and the need to pre-empt security fall-outs from the Bru ?refugee? problem, certain initiatives from various quarters seem necessary. The central government should bring the two states together to work out an agreed figure on the number of displaced Brus, if necessary by constituting a non-partisan body which could work in consultation with both the YMA and the MBRC?a Bru refugee body. Secondly, the Bru demand, espoused by the BNLF, of a Bru Area Development Council, which can be met within the constitution, should be looked into. The Center should assess the feasibility of acceding to this demand. Some space conceded by the parties concerned can do a lot of good for all concerned.