The Concept Of Indigenous Peoples In Asia: A Resource Book

Christian Erni, ed.

2008

IWGIA

In her Foreword to The concept of Indigenous peoples in Asia, Jannie Lasimbang notes, “On 13 September 2007, the global indigenous peoples’ movement achieved a major success in its decade long struggle for international recognition of their rights when the General Assembly of the United Nations adopted the Declaration of the Rights of Indigenous Peoples” (p. 9). The book, published jointly by International Work Groups for Indigenous Affairs (IWGIA) and Asia Indigenous Peoples Pact Foundation (AIPP), and edited by Christian Erni brings a collection of 13 papers and articles that document diverse perspectives of historical, cultural, and international underpinnings of the indigenous peoples of Asia. Erni notes that this work of “The Concept of Indigenous Peoples in Asia” is a direct result of the workshop, and its nature was determined by the participants’ call for a flexible, contextual approach to the identification of Indigenous peoples in Asia. Its point of departure is the simple fact that despite the still ongoing definitional controversy more and more groups in Asia identify themselves as indigenous peoples. The question, therefore, is not whether but how indigenous peoples can be identified.

The contributing authors in this collection shed light on the concept of indigenous peoples in Asia from various perspectives, as well as regional and global movements for indigenous peoples rights and their problems and issues with reference to some specific Asian countries.

The book is divided into three parts and an annex, where different interpretations of indigenous peoples by international organizations and governments are included. In Part 1, The Concept of Indigenous Peoples: The international Dimension, three essays trace the notion of indigenous peoples and communities from various legal documents and statements of the international communities. Referring to the lack of consensus for the definition of indigenous people, Corntessel states “the gap between praxis and theory must be closed if the global indigenous rights discourse is to move beyond technical, definitional approaches and towards more substantive issues of self-determination, land rights, and promoting cultural integrity” (p. 69). However, he underscores the need for a common understanding to protect the identity of indigenous peoples at a global level. In his own words:

Given the emergence of new global and regional legal instruments to protect the rights of indigenous peoples, it is imperative that some consensus develops around global indigenous identity... it is difficult overcome some of the regional differences that groups face, especially in Asia, as host states deny the very relevance of indigenous identity. (p. 69)

On the other hand, Tauli-Corpuz presents the dilemma of the nation states at the international levels over the identity of indigenous peoples and their desire for self-determination. What is noticeable here is that, after a series of deliberations over the issues of indigenous identity, many nation states have finally agreed upon the UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples. However, she also notes that many compromises were made to develop a common understanding over the issue. In this regard she refers to the paragraph 23 of UN Declaration 2007, which states:

Recognizing also that the situation of indigenous peoples varies from region to region and from country to country and that the significance of national and regional particularities and various historical and cultural backgrounds should be taken into consideration. (cited in Tauli-Corpuz, p. 93)

In Part 2, Toward Identifying Indigenous Peoples in Asia, ten papers and essays trace various aspects of indigenous communities of Asia through the Western dominated international practices and law. Some contributors give credit to colonialism, modernization and the expansion of media and communication technology for facilitating the movements of indigenous peoples all over the world in their struggle for their self-determination, and distinct identity. As Kingsbury contends “While the indigenous peoples’ movement was made possible in some respects by modern communications, economy and politics, it is also a form of resistance to modernization and globalization, particularly to the convergence and homogenization they threaten to bring on” (p. 110).

There is no doubt about the fact that a vibration, which was created for the rights of indigenous peoples, is the result of modernity and technological advancement. This is totally understandable because these forces not only have raised the awareness among indigenous peoples all over the world, but they also have created a sense of resentment towards the global forces. Indigenous peoples feel in danger of losing their cultural heritage and distinct identity in the race towards cultural homogenization by the global forces.

On the other hand, Geiger has rightly referred to Lukes (1974) and Grey (1995) who highlighted the implication of the notion of “indigeneity” in the light of diverse interpretations of the term in international documents and law. As he puts it, “The word “indigenous” has no fixed meaning; like other key concepts in the realm of anthropology and international law, it is “essentially contested” (Lukes, 1974) and has continuously stimulated debate and skepticism (Grey, 1995:40). Acknowledging the lack of consistency over the notion of “indigeneity”, Geiger emphasizes the need for a broader framework for the recognition of indigenous peoples. In this regard, he further states “Although there is no single accepted definition that captures the diversity of indigenous peoples all over the world, the usual reference point for any discussion of “indigeneity” is that of the UN's Special Rapporteur Jose Martinez Cobo” (p. 184).

It is important to note that Jose Martinez Cobo underscored five key elements or interrelated factors that need to be taken into account for understanding the concept of indigenous peoples and or “indigeneity.” The five key factors are: 1) subject to colonial invasion and settlement; 2) historical continuity with pre-invasion or pre-colonial societies; 3) an identity which is distinct from that of the encapsulating society; 4) non-dominance, the situation of being out-of power locally and on the national level; and 5) a concern with the preservation of their ethnic identity, cultural traditions and territorial rights. Geiger has added one more on top these five factors and that is self-definition. (pp. 184-185).

But the real problem is when these factors are taken into account, they do not give much help to recognize the indigenous peoples in an Asian context.

This complexity in Asia is rightly emphasized by Baird who cites to Bowen (2000) who argued that “even for those who accept the concept, there is not a universally recognized definition for “indigenous peoples,” and it might come as a surprise to some that many indigenous activists do not advocate creating such a definition at the United Nations level (p. 201). But he also realizes the need for an agreed and well accepted definition to ensure the real rights of indigenous peoples as advocated by Kingsbury (998) and Corntassel (2003) - there are those who believe that a definition of “indigenous peoples” could be useful for limiting those who can identify as “indigenous,” because if anyone can claim to be “indigenous,” the value of the designation would be greatly diminished, especially in relation to the land and recourse rights claimed by those who identify as being indigenous (p. 201).

I think they are right that there needs to be some kind of well accepted criteria for the recognition of indigenous people and their rights. The latest example is the ongoing controversy in Nepal over the recognition of indigenous peoples in the lack of explicit criteria as more and more communities self-recognize themselves as indigenous.

In Part 3, Country Profiles, an over view of the status of indigenous peoples in fifteen different countries is presented. In this part, the editor brings the concept of indigenous peoples in these countries as it is interpreted by the various legal documents, policies, and practices. It gives a bird’s eye-view about the status, problems, issues and challenges of the indigenous peoples in these nation-states. There is no consistency in the concept of indigenous people in the regions as every nation has its own interpretation for the recognition of indigenous peoples and their rights. For example, in India, the concept of indigenous peoples and communities is interpreted through the concept of tribal communities and schedule casts and tribes. In this regard, Xaxa states:

In the context of India as a whole the identification of indigenous peoples is indeed problematic and complex. In the course of history, different communities have come to develop distinct and definite associations with certain territories. Nowhere is this identity with land or territory more crudely manifested than in the "sons-of-soil" theory that is raised from time to time by regionally dominant communities. Whereas such privileges and rights are recognized with respect to these dominant communities, the same has been denied to the tribal communities in India. (pp. 236-237)

I think Xaxa has rightly acknowledged the problematic situation of indigenous peoples in India and that is why she further contends that “If the tribal communities’ status as indigenous peoples of India is problematic and the problem indeed is both empirical and conceptual, the least the dominant regional communities could do is to recognize the priorities of rights and privileges of these people in the territories and regions where they inhabit (p. 237).

This book gives some perspectives and insights for understanding the problems and issues of indigenous people all across the globe. It also underscores the fact that the recognition of indigenous people cannot be explicitly defined into the term “Indigenous” as there are so many interpretations of indigenous peoples in practices. According to Xaxa “the identity of tribal people as indigenous people has become a marked reality today notwithstanding the varied conceptual and empirical arguments brought to bear against the term” (p. 237).

I think the most alarming message that the book conveys is the denial of the nation states in the recognition of indigenous people and their right to self-determination. Although this volume is intended to present the concept of indigenous peoples of Asia, it does not do justice in this respect. It presents a very vague picture of indigenous peoples of only some parts of Asia, especially the indigenous peoples of South-East Asia. However, what is interesting, is the interpretation of the indigenous peoples of Asia through the lenses of the Western scholars and researchers, which raises the question “How justifiable is it to understand, interpret, and recognize the indigenous peoples of Asia based on Western dominated philosophy, world view and international documents and law?” However, the problems, issues and challenges of indigenous peoples are common all over the world, especially as these become more prevalent and complicated in South-East Asian regions. The reason is that the context in Asia is different now, where two extreme civilizations, cultures, and world views are in emergence. For example, India, which is a secular democratic country, where Hindus are in majority, and believes in co-existence of others due to its Hindu world view, on the one hand, and on the other China, which is governed by dictatorship and regime, which had long standing history of cultural genocides and invasions, and does not believe in the co-existence of others. In the context of these two extreme world views and guiding principles, the concept of indigenous peoples becomes really complicated in Asia by the lack of conceptual and empirical evidence. In this regard, I think Stavenhagen highlights the real challenges of the indigenous peoples of Asia as he writes:

Some of the most serious forms of human rights violations that indigenous peoples' experience all over Asia are directly related to the rapid loss of indigenous lands and territories, a process that, while affecting indigenous peoples all over the world, is particularly marked in the Asian context. Development projects, plantation leases, logging concessions, and the establishment of protected areas have been major forces in the increasing loss of indigenous lands, leading to the massive displacement of indigenous peoples from their traditional territories, the degradation of their environment, and raising poverty and migration. (p. 309)

Note

All page numbers in this review refer to Christiana Erni (Ed.), The concept of Indigenous Peoples in Asia. A Resource book (International Work Groups for Indigenous Affairs (IWGIA) and Asia Indigenous Peoples Pact Foundation (AIPP), 2008.

Reviewed by Navin Kumar Singh, Northern Arizona University

Make a difference. Know the history. Change the future.

Find other great books on Indigenous Peoples via our Secure Bookstore.