The Indigenous World 2026: India

Written on 22 April 2026. Posted in India

In India, some 705 ethnic groups are listed as Scheduled Tribes. In central India, the Scheduled Tribes are usually referred to as Adivasis, which literally means original inhabitants or Indigenous Peoples.^[1] With an estimated population of 104 million, they comprise 8.6% of the total population. There are, however, many more ethnic groups that would qualify for Scheduled Tribe status but which are not officially recognised and, consequently, the total population of the Scheduled Tribes is higher than the official figure.

The largest concentrations of Indigenous Peoples are found in the seven states of north-east India, and the so-called “central tribal belt”, stretching from Rajasthan to West Bengal. India has several laws and constitutional provisions, such as the Fifth Schedule for central India and the Sixth Schedule for certain areas of north-east India, that recognise Indigenous Peoples’ rights to land and self-governance. The laws aimed at protecting Indigenous Peoples have numerous shortcomings, however, and their implementation is far from satisfactory.

The Government of India has increasingly been using the term “Indigenous Populations” in official notifications such as the establishment of a High-Level Committee to look into the “social, economic, cultural and linguistic issues of the indigenous population in the State of Tripura”^[2] or in its justification for the Citizenship Amendment Bill, 2019. The State government of Jharkhand declared the International Day of the World’s Indigenous Peoples, celebrated on 9 August every year worldwide, a state holiday.^[3]

This article is part of the 40^th edition of The Indigenous World, a yearly overview produced by IWGIA that serves to document and report on the developments Indigenous Peoples have experienced. Find The Indigenous World 2026 in full here

Peace and security of Indigenous Peoples

In December 2025, at least two persons were killed, and several others injured after a protest turned violent in West Karbi Anglong and Karbi Anglong districts of Assam. The protesters were demanding the eviction of illegal settlers from Indigenous areas governed under the Sixth Schedule of the Constitution, where land is legally protected for Indigenous communities. They alleged large-scale encroachment by outsiders on village grazing reserves (VGRs) and professional grazing reserves (PGRs), which are meant to safeguard Indigenous livelihoods and land rights.^[4]

This incident is not an isolated one. Across India, the peace and security of Indigenous Peoples are increasingly under threat due to illegal occupation of Indigenous lands, aggressive mining, hydropower and infrastructure projects, shrinking democratic spaces and the deployment of security forces in Indigenous areas. These tensions are closely linked to the way development projects are planned and implemented, often without respecting the deep and long-standing relationship between Indigenous Peoples and their forests, which are central to their livelihoods, culture and identity. Between 1 April 2021 and 31 October 2025, 91,650.10 hectares of forest land were diverted for non-forest use under the Forest (Conservation) Act, 1980, including in Scheduled Areas and Fifth Schedule districts,^[5] affecting a large number of Indigenous communities. Instead of being treated as rights-holders and partners in development, Indigenous Peoples are frequently subjected to criminalisation, intimidation and violence.

Despite constitutional protections, many Indigenous communities face an increasing presence of police and paramilitary forces in their areas. Such actions, often justified in the name of maintaining “law and order”, only deepen mistrust, increase tensions and weaken Indigenous self-governance. They threaten traditional livelihoods, cultural identity and the long-term peace of Indigenous regions.

Some of the cases reported in 2025 illustrate this pattern.

In Arunachal Pradesh, the proposed 11,000 MW Upper Siang Hydropower Project triggered protests in May 2025 after Central Armed Police Forces were deployed to conduct a survey-cum-pre-feasibility report without community consent. Indigenous organisations demanded the withdrawal of forces and meaningful dialogue, stating that the project threatened displacement, ecological destruction and sacred landscapes. They alleged the “forceful” survey was a blatant violation of their fundamental rights under the Constitution of India and they condemned the alleged arbitrary abuse of power, stating that it hurt and violated their sentiments and rights.^[6] The heavy security presence turned a development issue into a security crisis.

In Chhattisgarh, Indigenous communities in Raigarh district opposed an underground coal mining project by an Adani-owned company in a Fifth Schedule area. The project involves forest land, non-forest land and private land, including affecting 10 Indigenous villages. In October 2025, Gram Sabhas unanimously rejected the project under PESA, citing threats to forests, water and wildlife.^[7]

In Odisha, prohibitory orders under Section 163 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), 2023 were imposed by the administration in Dhinkia village, Jagatsinghpur district on 28 October 2025 in connection with the proposed JSW steel project. These orders banned public gatherings for a month and followed a Gram Sabha resolution demanding the return of forest land handed over to JSW in 2022, which was allegedly transferred without consent and with police-backed coercion. The administration also ordered police deployment to the site to maintain law and order.^[8]

The Vedanta Sijimali bauxite mining project in Rayagada and Kalahandi districts, Odisha illustrates the criminalisation of Indigenous resistance. In December 2025, lawyers from across India protested the arrest, intimidation and harassment of Indigenous villagers opposing the alleged illegal acquisition of Fifth Schedule land for the project. They alleged that 1,548.786 hectares of land had been leased to Vedanta, including 708.24 hectares of forest land following the Forest Advisory Committee’s recommendation on 2 December 2025 for Stage-I forest clearance. The lawyers alleged that the lease was granted without free, prior and informed consent of the affected communities, in violation of Panchayats (Extension to Scheduled Areas) Act, 1996 (PESA), Forest Rights Act, 2006 (FRA), etc. They also alleged fake Gram Sabhas conducted under police presence. Indigenous villagers who rejected the project in their Gram Sabhas in September 2024 reportedly faced sustained police repression between 2023-2025, including arbitrary arrests and detentions. At least nine village leaders remained in custody. The lawyers demanded an immediate review of Vedanta’s lease, a halt to arrests and the withdrawal of cases, the suspension of all project-related activities until voluntary Gram Sabha decisions could be ensured, and that any police deployment be subject to Gram Sabha approval.^[9]

Beyond development-related conflicts, militarisation in conflict-affected states, particularly in the North-East and Naxalite-affected regions, has led to serious human rights violations against Indigenous Peoples. These include extrajudicial killings, custodial torture, arbitrary arrests, prolonged detention without due process, enforced disappearances and use of force during counter-insurgency operations. Indigenous communities, already facing historical and structural marginalisation, bear a disproportionate burden of these security measures, resulting in a pervasive climate of fear, insecurity, and distrust.

While the State has a legitimate responsibility to address insurgency and ensure public security, such measures must be lawful, proportionate, accountable and grounded in constitutional safeguards and human rights obligations. Peace and security for Indigenous Peoples cannot be separated from their rights to land, forests, and natural resources, nor from their right to self-governance. When consent is ignored and coercive, and security-driven approaches are used to impose development projects or suppress dissent, this generates conflict rather than peace. There is an urgent need to move away from militarised and coercive responses and towards inclusive, rights-based frameworks that respect the law, uphold free, prior and informed consent and recognise Indigenous Peoples as central actors in shaping their own futures.

As a member of the United Nations, India is obligated to carry out resolutions of the UN Security Council. There has, however, been little to no implementation of United Nations Security Council (UNSC) Resolution 1325 by the parties to armed conflict to “take special measures to protect women and girls from gender-based violence, particularly rape and other forms of sexual abuse, and all other forms of violence in situations of armed conflict”.

In the ethnic conflict in Manipur, women and girls from both the Kuki-Zo and Meitei communities have been severely affected, facing killings, injuries, displacement, livelihood disruption and various forms of gender-based violence, including sexual assault. On 19 June, a woman belonging to the Kuki tribe was killed in the crossfire between security forces and suspected Kuki militants in Chingphei village, Churachandpur district, Manipur.^[10] The conflict has created a fertile environment for crimes against women and children. The Manipur State Commission for Women (MSCW) reported that crimes against women and children increased in 2025, with a total of 61 cases recorded. These included nine cases of rape, one gang rape and 18 cases of molestation. Violent crimes reported during the same period comprised 15 murders, five assaults and four suspicious deaths.^[11]

Although major cases related to the Manipur conflict, including the sexual assault of two women seen in a viral video being paraded naked, were transferred to the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) and trials shifted to Assam,^[12] justice remained elusive by the year’s end. Meanwhile thousands of Internally Displaced Persons (IDPs) continued to live in relief camps in this and other states, with women and children among the most vulnerable, facing insecurity, inadequate access to services and heightened risks of exploitation and abuse.

In Naxal-affected areas, Indigenous women and girls have become among the most vulnerable victims of the armed conflict, facing multiple and intersecting forms of violence. On 28 October, a 10-year-old Indigenous girl was killed in an Improvised Explosive Device (IED) blast allegedly planted by the Maoists in a forest in West Singhbhum district, Jharkhand.^[13] The Maoists also exploited, coerced, and misled vulnerable Indigenous women and young girls into joining their ranks under false assurances of empowerment, equality and high-ranking positions. In reality, these women were instead subjected to emotional, social and psychological manipulation. Once recruited, they were exploited by senior Maoist leaders and disproportionately exposed to violence, often being used as foot soldiers and human shields during armed encounters, while top leaders remained insulated from harm. According to Chhattisgarh Police, 82 female Maoists were killed in encounters with security forces in Bastar region of Chhattisgarh in 2025.^[14]

Despite bearing a disproportionate burden of conflict-related violence and displacement, Indigenous women remain largely excluded from formal conflict resolution mechanisms and peacebuilding processes, which highlights a critical gap in the implementation of UNSC Resolution 1325 in India.

Legal rights and policy developments

India saw significant positive policy developments at Central and State level in 2025. In a landmark judgement on 13 November 2025, the Supreme Court ruled that mining activities were impermissible within national parks and wildlife sanctuaries or within one kilometre of their boundaries, applicable across India.^[15] In another judgement, Sugra Adiwasi & Ors v. Pathranand & Ors, on 23 September 2025, the Supreme Court examined conflicts between housing rights under the Forest Rights Act (FRA), 2006 and restrictions under the Forest Conservation Act and directed the Ministry of Environment, Forest and Climate Change (MoEFCC) and the Ministry of Tribal Affairs (MoTA) to hold consultations and submit an affidavit outlining modalities for enabling housing within forest areas while respecting conservation mandates.^[16] In October 2025, the Government of India, through the MoTA, strongly defended the FRA before the Supreme Court. In its counter affidavit, the MoTA not only affirmed the legal validity of the FRA and its 2012 Rules, currently under challenge,^[17] but also emphasised that the law goes beyond mere land ownership to restore dignity, livelihoods, and cultural identity to millions of forest-dependent communities. The government further clarified that the absence of a sunset clause or fixed deadline for filing claims was a deliberate legislative choice, intended to prevent the imposition of arbitrary timelines on vulnerable communities who often lack the resources, awareness or institutional access to assert their rights promptly.^[18] In November, the MoTA issued the policy paper “Reconciling Conservation and Community Rights” and directed the MoEFCC to adopt a conservation framework permitting village relocation from tiger reserves only as a last resort and only when voluntary,^[19] marking a policy shift from “fortress conservation” to a rights-based, partnership approach.^[20] At the same time, the central government continued to dilute the Forest Conservation Act. On 31 August, the MoEFCC notified the Van (Sanrakshan Evam Samvardhan) Amendment Rules, 2025, which dilute the Forest Conservation Act by easing forest land diversion for linear infrastructure projects after only Stage-I approval, enabling pre-clearance activities, allow offline applications for defence and other projects thus reducing transparency, and weaken compensatory afforestation safeguards.^[21]

At the State level, on 26 November the Assam government approved the report of a Group of Ministers (GoM) recommending the granting of Scheduled Tribe (ST) status to six communities – Tai Ahom, Chutia, Moran, Motok, Koch-Rajbongshi and Tea Tribes (Adivasis).^[22] On 15 December, the Core Committee of the Coordination Committee of the Tribal Organizations of Assam constituted a Consultative Group headed by rights activist Suhas Chakma to examine the GoM’s recommendations^[23] and the Consultative Group rejected the report of the Group of Ministers on the grounds that it was unconstitutional by disregarding settled criteria for Scheduled Tribe identification and bypassing the prescribed process of objective assessment, expert evaluation and due consultation.^[24] In another important development, on 23 December, the Jharkhand government passed the Rules under the Panchayat Extension of Scheduled Areas (PESA) Act, 1996 to empower Indigenous communities (Gram Sabhas) with self-governance over their land, water and forests. In Jharkhand, 13 of 24 districts fall completely under the Fifth Schedule and two districts fall partially under it. With Jharkhand notifying its rules,^[25] Odisha remains the only State which is yet to frame the PESA rules.

Continued violations of the right to land and forest resources

Attempts to undermine the Forest Rights Act continued during the year. On 3 July, the Forest Department of Chhattisgarh withdrew its 15 May circular on Community Forest Resource (CFR) rights following massive protests from Indigenous people across several districts. The directive was criticised as undermining the FRA, Gram Sabha supremacy and protections under the PESA Act and the Fifth Schedule for seeking to make the Forest Department the nodal agency for FRA implementation.^[26]

Illegal occupation of tribal land by industries and evictions continued. As in March, Indigenous land at Sarutari village in the South Kamrup Tribal Belt, Assam continued to be illegally occupied by M/s Superlite AAC Blocks Industry and Purbanchal Cement Pvt Ltd despite multiple eviction notices issued since September 2023, and again in January and March 2025. The failure of the administration to enforce these orders, in violation of Chapter X of the Assam Land and Revenue Regulation Act, 1886 had led to growing unrest among Indigenous communities, who have warned of mass protests to reclaim their ancestral land.^[27]

On 12 August, the Gauhati High Court criticised the allotment of nearly 3,000 bighas of land (about 4,036,800 square metres) in Dima Hasao district, Assam to a cement firm, calling the decision “extraordinary” and questioning its legality. The Court recalled that Dima Hasao falls under the Sixth Schedule of the Constitution, whereby Indigenous Peoples’ rights and interests must take precedence over corporate land allotments. It directed the North Cachar Hills Autonomous Council to submit records explaining the policy and procedure under which the land was allotted. The case involves petitions by local Indigenous villagers opposing eviction from their ancestral lands.^[28]

Indigenous and forest-dwelling families in Jamui district, Bihar faced forced eviction, harassment, and demolition of homes by the Forest Department in collusion with local strongmen after being branded as “encroachers” despite having lived in the forest for generations. On 28 April, hundreds of tribal villagers protested at the Jamui District Collectorate against the illegal eviction drives and destruction of their homes. Tribal families were also intimidated and falsely implicated in criminal cases with no rehabilitation or compensation provided.^[29]

On 4 December, a Member of Parliament from Bihar sought an urgent inquiry into alleged atrocities against the Indigenous Gadaba tribe, a Particularly Vulnerable Tribal Group (PVTG), in Anakapalle district, Andhra Pradesh, allegedly committed by relatives of a Zilla Praja Parishad Territorial Constituency member with the involvement of revenue and police officials. The allegations include attempted forcible occupation of around 10 acres of land, illegal deletion of names from land records, illegal detention and custodial torture of seven Indigenous persons in October, and the destruction of crops and trees on 21 November.^[30]

Displacement in the name of conservation and misuse of compensatory afforestation fund

In May, 52 Jenu Kuruba families (a PVTG) re-occupied their ancestral village inside the Nagarahole Tiger Reserve, Karnataka after waiting over a decade for recognition of their FRA claims filed in 2011. On 18 June, with police support, the Karnataka Forest Department demolished their makeshift huts citing the Wildlife (Protection) Act, leaving families with minimal shelter during the monsoon. The authorities rejected FRA claims, relying mainly on satellite imagery, while the community argued that the FRA permits local evidence such as oral histories, burial and sacred sites and official documents.^[31] The families had challenged the rejection before the Karnataka High Court.^[32]

In August, the National Compensatory Afforestation Fund Management and Planning Authority (CAMPA) directed the Principal Chief Conservator of Forests, Karnataka to halt further release of CAMPA funds and ordered an inquiry into their alleged misuse of the funds for the forced relocation of some 450 tribal forest-dweller families from the Kali (Dandeli-Anshi) Tiger Reserve. The relocations were reportedly carried out without free, prior, and informed consent of Gram Sabhas, violating the FRA, the Wildlife (Protection) Act, 1972 and the CAMPA Rules, 2018. Around Rs. 151.8 crore (approx. US$16.85 million) approved under CAMPA for this purpose was allegedly misused. Ironically, while Indigenous Peoples were being displaced in the name of creating inviolate tiger habitats, the Forest Department had proposed nearly 30 trekking routes in the same sensitive areas, thus undermining the stated conservation rationale.^[33]

In July, 17 Indigenous families in Aarey Milk Colony, Mumbai, Maharashtra, bordering Sanjay Gandhi National Park (SGNP), were served eviction notices by the Forest Department alleging encroachment, without having settled their pending FRA claims. The notices ordered them to vacate their homes and farmlands by 3 August, threatening demolition and recovery of costs.^[34]

In April, the Odisha government declared an 845 sq. km. area of the Similipal Tiger Reserve (STR) in Mayurbhanj district as a National Park. Since then, 61 Indigenous families who reside in Bakua, located within the core area of the STR, have remained at risk of forced relocation. According to the Gram Sabha of Bakua, officials uploaded fabricated documents on the government’s Parivesh portal, an online single-window platform for environmental, forest and wildlife clearances, falsely stating that the villagers had voluntarily agreed to relocation. The Gram Sabha denied giving any consent, stating that they were neither consulted nor informed and that free, prior and informed consent was never obtained.^[35] The situation escalated with violent repression by forest and police authorities, including physical and sexual assault of tribal women, restrictions on village access, intimidation on 16 June, and a midnight raid on 21 June aimed at mass arrests and eviction.^[36] Instead of action against officials, fabricated criminal cases were allegedly filed against the villagers. Field documentation by the Community Network Against Protected Areas (CNAPA) confirmed these abuses and reported further obstruction of journalists, lawyers, and human rights defenders.^[37]

Violations of Indigenous Peoples’ rights by security forces and armed opposition groups

Indigenous Peoples were the victims of human rights violations in 2025, including death in custody and torture. Some of the cases reported in 2025 included the death of a 25-year-old Indigenous man due to torture by police in Kathua district, Jammu and Kashmir on 6 February;^[38] the torture of a mentally ill Indigenous youth by police officers attached to Pothia police station in Katihar district, Bihar on 26 February;^[39] the death of a 45-year-old Indigenous man in Bharuch district, Gujarat on 14 March;^[40] the death of a 17-year-old Indigenous boy belonging to PVTG, during illegal detention at Kalpetta police station in Wayanad district, Kerala on 1 April;^[41] the death of a 50-year-old Indigenous man, a daily wage labourer, allegedly due to injuries sustained during police interrogation in connection with a case under the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 at Sarath police station in Deoghar district, Jharkhand on 12 April;^[42] the alleged custodial torture of four Indigenous youths at Naugaon police station in Chhatarpur district, Madhya Pradesh after being detained on charges of stealing on 15 July;^[43] the custodial torture of a 17-year-old Indigenous boy by four police officers, at Botad Town police station in Botad district, Gujarat on 19 August;^[44] the custodial death of a 48-year-old Indigenous man at Aalo Women’s Police Station in West Siang district, Arunachal Pradesh on 3 September;^[45] and the alleged stripping and torture of three Indigenous men at the Kuldiha Wildlife Sanctuary range office in Balasore district, Odisha on 21 December.^[46]

The police were also accused of failing to act promptly and effectively, including by not invoking the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act. On 9 December, Anjel Chakma (24), an Indigenous student from Tripura, was racially abused with words such as “Chinki”, “Chinese”, and “Momo”^[47] by a group of six youths in Dehradun, Uttarakhand, and was stabbed when he objected. After battling for his life for 17 days, he died on 26 December. The incident drew widespread criticism of the police response, as the authorities initially refused to register a complaint and filed the First Information Report (FIR) only three days later following public pressure, while provisions of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act were not invoked. Although five of the accused were arrested, the prime suspect absconded. On 27 December, the Chakma Development Foundation of India urged Union Home Minister Amit Shah to enact a comprehensive anti-racial violence law, as recommended by the M.P. Bezbaruah Committee constituted by the Ministry of Home Affairs in 2014.^[48] A Public Interest Litigation was also filed before the Supreme Court seeking directions to address racial discrimination and violence against people from the North-Eastern states.^[49]

Several Indigenous Peoples in the North-Eastern region and the Naxalite-affected areas of the “tribal belt” were victims of human rights abuses in 2025, including extrajudicial killings, torture and detention by security forces. The victims who died at the hands of the security forces included a 38-year-old Indigenous man belonging to a PVTG who was shot dead during an anti-Naxal operation in Mandla district, Madhya Pradesh on 9 March on allegations of being a Maoist, despite his family and local residents asserting his innocence;^[50] and a 35-year-old Indigenous man employed as a midday meal cook at a government school in Bijapur district, Chhattisgarh, who was killed on 10 June in an alleged staged encounter, also on charges of being a Maoist after he had gone to the forest to fetch cattle.^[51]

Armed Opposition Groups (AOGs) continue to target civilians. Those killed by the AOGs include a 59-year-old Indigenous community activist and Chairman of the Thadou Literature Society by armed Kuki militants in Karbi Anglong district, Assam on 31 August^[52] and a 50-year-old village chief of T Khonomphai village in Churachandpur district, Manipur, by suspected cadres of the United Kuki National Army.^[53]

In central India, the Maoists continued to target Indigenous Peoples on charges of being “police informers”, in clear violation of international humanitarian law. The victims included: a 48-year-old Indigenous man who was killed and two other Indigenous persons tortured after their abduction in Bijapur district, Chhattisgarh on 17 January;^[54] two Indigenous men, aged 50 and 55, killed in Bijapur district, Chhattisgarh in July;^[55] a 24-year-old Indigenous man killed in Kanker district, Chhattisgarh on 15 August;^[56] two Indigenous men, aged 25 and 30, abducted and killed in Malkangiri district, Odisha on 14 October;^[57] and an Indigenous political leader killed in Bijapur district, Chhattisgarh on 14 October.^[58]

Targeting of Indigenous Peoples’ Human Rights Defenders

In 2025, Indigenous Peoples’ Human Rights Defenders faced travel bans and criminal proceedings. On 4 October, Indigenous lawyer and anti-dam activist, Ebo Mili, from Arunachal Pradesh was stopped by immigration officials at the Kolkata airport in West Bengal while travelling to Bangladesh to attend the Regional Infrastructure Monitoring Alliance (RIMA) conference, which was to be held between 5 and 7 October.^[59] Earlier, on 22 and 23 May, Ebo Mili co-led two successive peaceful protests against the proposed 11,000 MW Siang Upper Multipurpose Project (SUMP) in Beging village, Arunachal Pradesh along with more than 400 Indigenous villagers. In response, the authorities imposed prohibitory orders under Section 144 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 and filed an FIR accusing him of violating restrictions on public assembly.^[60] On 26 May, an FIR was filed against Mili at the Boleng police station, citing violations of various provisions of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 and the Prevention of Damage to Public Property Act, 1984.^[61]

On 7 September, Ms Bhanu Tatak, legal adviser to the Siang Indigenous Farmers’ Forum (SIFF) and another activist against SUMP, was stopped by immigration officials at Delhi airport while en route to Ireland for a three-month course at Dublin City University. She was prevented from travelling due to a Look-Out Circular issued by the Ministry of Home Affairs at the request of Arunachal Pradesh police, citing pending cases related to protests against the SUMP. Several cases were filed against her in connection with a protest against the proposed SUMP.^[62]

On 20 April, a 35-year-old Indigenous man was crushed to death by an excavator engaged in the construction of a railway line to the Rourkela Steel Plan during a peaceful protest by local Indigenous villagers resisting eviction from their traditional land at Barkani village in Sundergarh district, Odisha. Furthermore, 19 people were injured, including 16 police officers, during clashes that ensued after the protesters were allegedly met with force.^[63] It was also alleged that the police lodged FIRs against several protesting Indigenous villagers.

Situation of Indigenous women

The individual and collective rights of Indigenous women and girls are regularly denied or violated in private and public spaces. Sexual violence, trafficking, killing or being branded a witch, militarisation or State violence and the impact of development-induced displacement remain major issues faced by women and girls.

On 17 July, in a landmark judgement in Ram Charan & Ors. vs. Sukhram & Ors., the Supreme Court upheld equal ancestral property rights for Indigenous women, holding that the exclusion of daughters violated the right to equality under Article 14. The Court ruled that, although the Hindu Succession Act does not generally apply to Scheduled Tribes, patriarchal customary laws denying women inheritance are invalid if discriminatory. Emphasising constitutional morality, the Court held that where customary law is unproven or unjust, principles of justice, equity and good conscience must prevail, marking a significant victory for Adivasi women’s rights.^[64]

The trend in sexual violence against Indigenous women and girls continued both on the part of security forces/government officials and non-tribals. Some of the cases reported in 2025 included a 13-year-old Indigenous girl who was abducted and raped by a government official in Pakke Kessang district, Arunachal Pradesh on 16 January;^[65] the sexual exploitation of an under-age Indigenous school girl, resulting in pregnancy and childbirth on the premises of a State-run residential school at Chitrakonda in Malkangiri, Odisha on 24 February;^[66] the abduction and gang rape of four Indigenous girls, including three minors, by seven individuals while they were returning home in Balaghat district, Madhya Pradesh on 25 April;^[67] the torture to death of a 45-year-old Indigenous woman following rape by a group of men as she went out to graze her goats in Srinagar, Jammu and Kashmir on 4 May;^[68] the gang rape, torture and murder of a 45-year-old Indigenous woman by two individuals in Khandwa district, Madhya Pradesh on 25 May;^[69] the gang rape of a 17-year-old Indigenous girl by 10 individuals after her abduction in Godda district, Jharkhand on 7 June;^[70] and the abduction and gang rape of a minor Indigenous girl by two non-tribals while she was on her way to a shop in Khowai district, Tripura on 28 July.^[71] In all these cases, the accused were arrested and the cases are at various stages of investigation and trial.

Situation of Indigenous Internally Displaced Persons in India

Indigenous Internally Displaced Persons (IDPs) continue to face prolonged displacement, inadequate services and uncertain resettlement.

In Manipur, thousands remained in relief camps in unsafe conditions following their displacement in the 2023 ethnic violence. Prime Minister Narendra Modi visited the State in September^[72] and President Droupadi Murmu in December, assuring steps for safe return and livelihood security.^[73] On 1 December, the Manipur government formed State and District Level Committees for rehabilitation of all the IDPs by December.^[74] However, only 389 Meitei IDPs have returned to their original homes in Bishnupur district, while Kuki-Zo IDPs, who constitute the majority of the displaced population, continue to remain in relief camps with inadequate services.^[75]

In Tripura, delays in implementing the 2020 Quadripartite Bru Agreement left some 320 Bru/Reang families without access to basic services. In July, Bru leaders appealed to Union Home Minister Amit Shah, highlighting ongoing gaps and demanding full implementation of welfare schemes.^[76] In December, the Ministry of Home Affairs stated that all facilities were being provided to the Bru families, including free rations, with the construction of the remaining 257 houses in progress.^[77]

Similarly, Gutti Koya Indigenous IDPs, displaced from Chhattisgarh in 2005 and living in Telangana and Andhra Pradesh faced new challenges. In December, the IDPs across states raised concerns about losing voting rights during the Special Intensive Revision of electoral rolls as names were reportedly being deleted on grounds of “non-residence”, without verification, risking permanent disenfranchisement in both their home and host states.^[78]

NAGA HOMELAND

Even among the Naga people themselves, the notion of Naga nationhood as perceived today in the modern sense has not been around for long. Traditionally, Nagas were territorial and restricted themselves more or less to their own villages, the protection of which is their prime concern.^[79] Nagaland covers an area of 16,579 sq. kms and has a population of almost 2.2 million people (as per the 15^th Indian Census held last in 2011), 90% of which are Naga with significant Indigenous minorities in Manipur, Arunachal Pradesh, Assam, and Sagaing Division and Kachin State (Myanmar). The population is primarily agrarian with high literacy rates (approx. 80%) but they are facing severe economic stagnation due to the unresolved political conflict with the Indian state.

Its official boundary is with the Indian states of Arunachal Pradesh to the north, Assam to the west, Manipur to the south and Myanmar (Burma) to the east, and it is one of the least populated states in India. To this day, the Nagas are divided into Burmese Naga and Indian Naga, the result of colonial and post-colonial arrangements. This means the Nagas are Indigenous to north-western Myanmar and north-eastern India. According to articles 371(a) and 371(c) of the Constitution of India, special provisions are provided for Nagaland and Manipur, protecting Naga customary law and land ownership.

However, the pursuit of peace and security by the Naga people has been marked by complexity. Despite years of striving for peace and security, the Naga people have experienced numerous political and social transformations. True peace, however, remains elusive. Political negotiations clouded by distrust and charades, coupled with the unilateral dismantling of traditional cross-border rights and the extension of repressive security laws, plus factional fighting within the Naga groups, are some of the issues that the Naga people faced in 2025.

Naga peace process: frameworks without fulfilment

The Naga political peace negotiation with the Indian government continues to remain stagnant without any significant progress. The negotiation, now in its 28^th year, continues with the 2015 Framework Agreement being the foundation of the talks. However, progress has stalled due to a widening distrust, with Naga leaders accusing the Indian government of losing its political will to implement the letter or spirit of the agreed framework. There have been more than 600 rounds of political negotiations between both sides since July 1997. The contention between the Indian government and the Naga Socialist Council of Nagaland- Isak-Muivah (NSCN-IM) remains the Naga’s insistence on a separate flag and constitution (yehzabo), which they argue are inherent to their recognised unique history and sovereignty. This demand is non-negotiable.^[80]

The long impasse in bringing a solution to the Naga peace process has created distrust not only between Naga leaders and the Indian government but also within the Naga family itself. It has deepened the trust deficit between the Naga public and factions, raising questions about the lack of transparency regarding the peace process.

Amidst all this, Naga civil society continues to play its role as a peacemaker. On 23 August 2025, leaders of NSCN-IM, the Naga National Political Groups (NNPGs) and many other Naga factions, along with Naga tribe-based bodies, participated in an event convened by the Forum for Naga Reconciliation (FNR) and hosted by Ao Senden, the apex Ao tribe organisation at Ungma Village, Nagaland. During this event, a collective decision was made to reach a common position from which to articulate and pursue a shared political vision on the basis of the historical and political rights of the Nagas.^[81]

The advent of drone warfare: a new security dimension

The year 2025 saw a new type of warfare method allegedly used by the Indian military. For the first time, use of precision drone strikes targeting the Naga Socialist Council of Nagaland-Khaplang/Aung Yung (NSCN-K (YA) camp at Khenmoi-Loiyi village, Myanmar, was reported, resulting in the death of five militants and two civilians, including an eight-year-old girl.^[82]

This shift toward technologically advanced, intelligence-driven military tactics has created a new environment of fear among the Naga people. These strikes signal a move toward precision warfare, marking a departure from traditional ground-based engagement. Such developments thus raise important questions regarding the protection of Indigenous civilians in conflict zones.

Paradox of peace and security: AFSPA and FMR

For decades, security for the Naga people has been defined by a heavy military presence, while simultaneously living under the shadow of the Armed Forces Special Powers Act (AFSPA), an act that confers special powers upon the Indian armed forces in disturbed areas and legitimises any actions they may take. Although some on the outside might view the Act as a necessary instrument for peace and security, for the Nagas it remains a tool of suppression that reflects how the Indian government perceives them. It is quite a paradox that the government, which frequently celebrates its achievement in ushering in peace in the Naga region, continues to label the same areas as “disturbed”" to justify extending the AFSPA.^[83] The priority thus appears to be the security of the state, and not human security.

In line with this approach, the Indian government decided to abolish the Free Movement Regime (FMR) and commence the fencing of 1,643 km of the Indo-Myanmar border, covering mostly Naga-inhabited areas. This decision to fence the border will have a deep social and economic impact on the lives of Naga people. Although the artificial line drawn by the colonial rulers labelled the Nagas into different nationalities, because of the FMR, the border communities continued to maintain social-economic relations. However, with the abolition of the FMR and the coming of a hard border, it will divide the ancestral Naga lands, destroy cultural ties, and halt economic livelihoods.

In 2025, the commencement of border fencing in sectors of Manipur and Nagaland sparked widespread protests. Various elements of Naga civil society demanded the total rollback of the FMR, and a halt to border fencing, viewing them as a threat to Naga unity and ancestral territory. They have termed the FMR as a right upheld by international instruments such as the UNDRIP.^[84] The United Naga Council (UNC), Manipur, Naga Student Organisation, Myanmar and various student bodies condemned the fencing as an act of geographical partition aimed at permanently severing the ethnic and cultural ties of the Naga people.^[85] As a result of this protest, the border fencing work has been put on halt for now. However, there has been no official statement/order on the total rollback of border fencing.

Naga women

At a time of prolonged uncertainty Naga women’s organisations represent an important civil society body that continue to advocate for peace, equality, and justice. The NMA (Naga Mothers’ Association) and the NWU (Naga Women’s Union) have been working together with other Naga civil society organisations such as the UNC, the FNR, and the NAGA HOHO to raise issue on the FMR and the factional war. In July 2025, the NWU, along with the UNC, the All Naga Students' Association, Manipur (ANSAM), and the Naga People's Movement for Human Rights-South (NPMHR-S) served a “20-day joint ultimatum” on the Government of India (GoI) in connection with the abrogation of the FMR and the border fencing in the “Naga ancestral homeland”.^[86]

The political future of the Nagas remains unclear due to the stalled peace process, which continues to be marred by distrust. The decision to fence the border will further add to the hardship of the Naga people living near the border unless the government overturns its decision. Ultimately, it will be for the Indian government to decide whether to continue prioritising state security or shift toward human security. For the Nagas however, the priority remains the recognition of their unique history and their right to live as one people, undivided by artificial fences.

Tejang Chakma is Head of Research at the Indigenous Lawyers Association of India (ILAI).

Tera Varethan Vashim is a member of the Naga Peoples’ Movement for Human Rights (NPMHR), based in Imphal, Manipur.

This article is part of the 40^th edition of The Indigenous World, a yearly overview produced by IWGIA that serves to document and report on the developments Indigenous Peoples have experienced. Find The Indigenous World 2026 in full here

Notes and references

^[1] Since the Scheduled Tribes or “tribals” are considered India’s Indigenous Peoples, these terms are used interchangeably in this text.

^[2] Government of India, Ministry of Home Affairs, North East Division. 11011/53/2012-NE-V. 27 September 2018. https://mha.gov.in/sites/default/files/filefield_paths/HLC_Tripura.PDF

^[3] Mukesh, A. “World Indigenous People’s Day: Jharkhand CM declares public holiday, Congress plans grand celebration.” The Times of India, 9 August 2020. https://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/city/ranchi/world-indigenous-peoples-day-cm-declares-public-holiday-cong-plans-grand-celebrations/articleshow/77438738.cms

^[4] Mazumdar, P. “Differently abled man among two killed; over 45 injured as violent protests demanding eviction roil Assam.” The New Indian Express, 24 December 2025. https://www.newindianexpress.com/nation/2025/Dec/23/eviction-demand-ips-officer-among-38-cops-injured-in-riot-in-assams-west-karbi-anglong

^[5] Rajya Sabha, Unstarred Question No. 1282 answered on 11.12.2025 by Minister of State in the Ministry of Environment, Forest and Climate Change (MoEFCC). https://sansad.in/getFile/annex/269/AU1282_nAqlci.pdf?source=pqars

^[6] Mazumdar, P. “Arunachal locals protest CAPF deployment for Siang mega power project.” The New Indian Express, 23 May 2025. https://www.newindianexpress.com/nation/2025/May/23/arunachal-locals-protest-capf-deployment-for-siang-mega-power-project

^[7] Mallick, A. “Tribal Outrage Erupts Over Adani Land Acquisition Bid in Chhattisgarh's Scheduled Area.” The Free Press Journal, 28 October 2025. https://www.freepressjournal.in/india/tribal-outrage-erupts-over-adani-land-acquisition-bid-in-chhattisgarhs-scheduled-area

^[8] “Prohibitory orders clamped at Dhinkia over JSW project.” The New Indian Express, 28 October 2025. https://www.newindianexpress.com/states/odisha/2025/Oct/28/prohibitory-orders-clamped-at-dhinkia-over-jsw-project

^[9] “Nation-wide lawyers protest the arrests and intimidation of villagers in Odisha, against the illegal acquisition of Schedule V land for Vedanta Pvt. Ltd.'s bauxite mining project.” PUCL, 15 December 2025. https://pucl.org/manage-press-stateme/nation-wide-lawyers-protest-the-arrests-and-intimidation-of-villagers-in-odisha-against-the-illegal-acquisition-of-schedule-v-land-for-vedanta-pvt-ltd-s-bauxite-mining-project/

^[10] Shirin, B. “Kuki woman killed in crossfire, farmer injured, protests erupt in Manipur.” India Today, 20 June 2025. https://www.indiatoday.in/india/story/kuki-woman-killed-crossfire-farmer-injured-protests-erupt-manipur-2743436-2025-06-20

^[11] Manipur sees rise in gender-based crimes in 2025, says Women’s Commission, Northeast Now, 4 January 2026, https://nenow.in/north-east-news/manipur/manipur-sees-rise-in-gender-based-crimes-in-2025-says-womens-commission.html

^[12] Manipur ethnic violence: Cases to be tried in Guwahati itself: Supreme Court [17.3.2025], available at: https://legaleagleweb.com/newsdetail.aspx?newsid=8120

^[13] “Jharkhand: 10-Year-Old Tribal Girl Killed in IED Blast Allegedly Planted by Maoists in West Singhbhum.” The Free Press Journal, 28 October 2025. https://www.freepressjournal.in/india/jharkhand-10-year-old-tribal-girl-killed-in-ied-blast-allegedly-planted-by-maoists-in-west-singhbhum

^[14] Sharma, A. “‘Assured High Ranks, Made Human Shields’: Why 2025 Saw Highest Spike in Female Naxal Killings.” News18.com, 26 June 2025. https://www.news18.com/india/2025-sees-highest-spike-in-female-naxal-killings-and-surrenders-since-2001-exclusive-ws-kl-9404675.html

^[15] Judgment of the Supreme Court in “Re: Saranda Wildlife Sanctuary” dated 13 November 2025 available at https://api.sci.gov.in/supremecourt/1995/2997/2997_1995_1_1501_65898_Judgement_13-Nov-2025.pdf

^[16] The order is available at https://www.supremecourtcases.com/sugra-adiwasi-and-others-v-pathranand-and-others/

^[17] In 2008, wildlife conservation organisations challenged the FRA, 2006 in the Supreme Court, arguing that it weakens forest and wildlife protection laws by legitimising alleged “encroachments” and prioritising forest rights over conservation objectives. In February 2019, the Court ordered the eviction of individuals whose claims were rejected but later stayed the order following backlash from Indigenous Peoples and groups. The case is currently pending. (Wildlife First vs Union of India)

^[18] “Supreme Court Reviews Forest Rights Act Protecting Livelihoods.” Court Kutchehry, 24 October 2025. https://www.courtkutchehry.com/pages/blog/supreme-court-reviews-forest-rights-act-protecting-livelihoods/

^[19] Lakshman, A. “What’s the plan to relocate forest tribes? Explained.” The Hindu, 9 November 2025. https://www.thehindu.com/news/national/whats-the-plan-to-relocate-forest-tribes-explained/article70256032.ece

^[20] Pani, C. R. “Centre right to champion vision where roar of the tiger and voices of tribal communities are heard in harmony.” Down To Earth, 30 October 2025. https://www.downtoearth.org.in/forests/centre-right-to-champion-vision-where-roar-of-the-tiger-and-voices-of-tribal-communities-are-heard-in-harmony

^[21] Choubey, J. “MoEFCC's new notification dilutes Forest Conservation Act, afforestation rules.” The New Indian Express, 2 September 2025. https://www.newindianexpress.com/nation/2025/Sep/02/moefccs-new-notification-dilutes-forest-conservation-act-afforestation-rules

^[22] Choudhury, R. “GoM Report on Scheduled Tribe Status Cleared.” NDTV, 27 November 2025. https://www.ndtv.com/india-news/assam-cabinet-approves-report-on-scheduled-tribe-status-for-6-communities-9707500

^[23] “CCTOA Constitutes Consultative Group on ST Inclusion of Six Assam Communities.” Pratidin Time, 15 December 2025. https://www.pratidintime.com/latest-assam-news-breaking-news-assam/cctoa-constitutes-consultative-group-on-st-inclusion-of-six-assam-communities-10912993

^[24] “CCTOA Consultative Group rejects ST status proposal for six Assam communities, submits recommendations to GoM.” India Today NE, 7 January 2026. https://www.indiatodayne.in/assam/story/cctoa-consultative-group-rejects-st-status-proposal-for-six-assam-communities-submits-recommendations-to-gom-1327806-2026-01-07

^[25] “Jharkhand cabinet approves PESA rules to empower gram sabhas.” The Print, 23 December 2025. https://theprint.in/india/jharkhand-cabinet-approves-pesa-rules-to-empower-gram-sabhas/2811725/

^[26] Kaiser, E. “Chhattisgarh forest department withdraws circular on CFR rights after massive tribal protests.” The New Indian Express, 3 July 2025. https://www.newindianexpress.com/nation/2025/Jul/03/chhattisgarh-forest-department-withdraws-circular-on-cfr-rights-after-massive-tribal-protests

^[27] ILAI complaint dated 13 March 2025, registered with the NHRC as Case No. 67/3/30/2025. Case status can be accessed through the NHRC online case status portal at: https://hrcnet.nic.in/HRCNet/public/CaseStatus.aspx

^[28] “Gauhati HC flays 3,000-bigha land allotment in 6th Schedule Dima Hasao to cement firm.” Assam Tribune, 18 August 2025. https://assamtribune.com/assam/gauhati-hc-flays-3000-bigha-land-allotment-in-6th-schedule-dima-hasao-to-cement-firm-1588550

^[29] ILAI complaint dated 29 April 2025, registered with the NHRC as Case No. 4429/4/14/2025. Case status can be accessed through the NHRC online case status portal at: https://hrcnet.nic.in/HRCNet/public/CaseStatus.aspx

^[30] Subba Rao, G. V. R. “MP calls for inquiry into alleged atrocities against PVTG Adivasis in Andhra Pradesh.” The Hindu, 12 December 2025. https://www.thehindu.com/news/national/andhra-pradesh/mp-calls-for-inquiry-into-alleged-atrocities-against-pvtg-adivasis-in-andhra-pradesh/article70388588.ece

^[31] Sheth, A. “‘We are right holders, not encroachers’: Tribal families fight Karnataka's Forest Dept for ancestral land.” The News Minute, 19 June 2025. https://www.thenewsminute.com/karnataka/we-are-right-holders-not-encroachers-tribal-families-fight-karnatakas-forest-dept-for-ancestral-land

^[32] “Protection of Ancestral Land Rights of Tribals.” Press Information Bureau, Government of India, 11 December 2025. https://www.pib.gov.in/PressReleasePage.aspx?PRID=2202379&reg=3&lang=2

^[33] ILAI complaint dated 9 September 2025, registered with the NHRC as Case No. 1189/10/16/2025. Case status can be accessed through the NHRC online case status portal at: https://hrcnet.nic.in/HRCNet/public/CaseStatus.aspx; “Probe ordered into irregularities in Kali Tiger Reserve relocations.” Bangalore Mirror, 7 September 2025. https://bangaloremirror.indiatimes.com/bangalore/others/probe-ordered-into-irregularities-in-kali-tiger-reserve-relocations/articleshow/123738566.cms

^[34] Lohia, E. “Caught between laws and loss.” Mongabay, 16 September 2025. https://india.mongabay.com/2025/09/when-forest-custodians-are-called-encroachers/

^[35] ILAI complaint dated 16 September 2025, registered with the NHRC as Case No. 1854/18/9/2025. Case status can be accessed through the NHRC online case status portal at: https://hrcnet.nic.in/HRCNet/public/CaseStatus.aspx

^[36] ILAI complaint dated 20 August 2025, registered with the NHRC as Case No. 1546/18/9/2025. Case status can be accessed through the NHRC online case status portal at: https://hrcnet.nic.in/HRCNet/public/CaseStatus.aspx

^[37] Ibid.

^[38] ILAI complaint dated 7 February 2025, registered with the NHRC as Case No. 39/9/7/2025. Case status can be accessed through the NHRC online case status portal at: https://hrcnet.nic.in/HRCNet/public/CaseStatus.aspx

^[39] ILAI complaint dated 5 March 2025, registered with the NHRC as Case No. 2244/4/16/2025. Case status can be accessed through the NHRC online case status portal at: https://hrcnet.nic.in/HRCNet/public/CaseStatus.aspx

^[40] ILAI complaint dated 17 March 2025, registered with the NHRC as Case No. 387/6/5/2025. Case status can be accessed through the NHRC online case status portal at: https://hrcnet.nic.in/HRCNet/public/CaseStatus.aspx

^[41] ILAI complaint dated 3 April 2025, registered with the NHRC as Case No. 135/11/14/2025-AD. Case status can be accessed through the NHRC online case status portal at: https://hrcnet.nic.in/HRCNet/public/CaseStatus.aspx

^[42] ILAI complaint dated 18 April 2025, registered with the NHRC as Case No. 334/34/3/2025. Case status can be accessed through the NHRC online case status portal at: https://hrcnet.nic.in/HRCNet/public/CaseStatus.aspx

^[43] “Police brutality in MP: Tribal youths file complaint, Bhim Army holds protest.” IANS, 20 July 2025. https://ianslive.in/allegations-of-police-brutality-in-mp-tribal-youths-file-complaint-bhim-army-holds-protest--20250720164855

^[44] “Four Botad cops booked for custodial torture of minor.” The Times of India, 13 September 2025. https://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/city/rajkot/four-botad-cops-booked-for-custodial-torture-of-minor/articleshowprint/123872796.cms

^[45] “APSHRC directs W/Siang magistrate, SP to submit reports in custodial death case.” The Arunachal Times, 5 September 2025. https://arunachaltimes.in/index.php/2025/09/05/apshrc-directs-w-siang-magistrate-sp-to-submit-reports-in-custodial-death-case/

^[46] Express News Service. “Nilagiri tribals protest alleged torture by forest officials during poaching arrests.” The New Indian Express, 1 January 2026. https://www.newindianexpress.com/states/odisha/2026/Jan/01/nilagiri-tribals-protest-alleged-torture-by-forest-officials-during-poaching-arrests

^[47] “'Complaint only mentioned casteist slurs': Cops dismiss 'racial slurs' in Chakma case; activists slam SSP's 'reductive' reasoning.” The Times of India, 31 December 2025. https://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/city/dehradun/anjel-chakma-murder-family-questions-police-denial-of-racial-slurs-ne-activists-slam-ssps-reductive-reasoning/articleshowprint/126261804.cms

^[48] “Demand for anti-racial violence law grows after Tripura student’s killing in Dehradun.” The Hindu, 27 December 2025. https://www.thehindu.com/news/national/tripura/demand-for-anti-racial-violence-law-grows-after-tripura-students-killing-in-dehradun/article70443361.ece

^[49] “Shame on system: Kejriwal demands law against racism after Tripura student's murder.” India Today, 29 December 2025. https://www.indiatoday.in/india/story/angel-chakma-murder-case-tripura-student-dies-racial-abuse-attack-dehradun-2843526-2025-12-29

^[50] “Man killed in anti-Naxal operation in MP turns out to be tribal.” The Times of India, 17 March 2025, https://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/city/bhopal/man-killed-in-anti-naxal-operation-in-mp-turns-out-to-be-tribal/articleshowprint/119105301.cms

^[51] Tiwari, V. and Mishra R. “Chhattisgarh tribal family alleges school cook killed in encounter was not Maoist.” Hindustan Times, 22 June 2025. https://www.hindustantimes.com/india-news/chhattisgarh-tribal-family-alleges-school-cook-killed-in-encounter-was-not-maoist-101750585486998.html

^[52] “Assam: Six suspects arrested in connection to the murder of Thadou tribe leader, body still missing.” India Today NE, 31 August 2025. https://www.indiatodayne.in/assam/story/assam-six-suspects-arrested-in-connection-to-the-murder-of-thadou-tribe-leader-body-still-missing-1270196-2025-08-31?utm_source=itneweb_story_share&via=IndiaTodayNE

^[53] “Village Chief, 50, Beaten to Death by Suspected Kuki Militants in Manipur's Churachandpur.” NDTV, 29 October 2025. https://www.ndtv.com/india-news/50-year-old-village-chief-beaten-to-death-by-suspected-kuki-militants-in-manipur-churachandpur-9533966

^[54] ILAI complaint dated 18 January 2025, registered with the NHRC as Case No. 116/33/17/2025. Case status can be accessed through the NHRC online case status portal at: https://hrcnet.nic.in/HRCNet/public/CaseStatus.aspx

^[55] “Maoists kill two tribal villagers in separate incidents in Bastar.” The Times of India, 21 July 2025. https://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/city/raipur/maoists-kill-two-tribal-villagers-in-separate-incidents-in-bastar/articleshowprint/122817302.cms

^[56] Chowdhury, S. R. “Maoists kill tribal youth in Chhattisgarh for hoisting tricolour on Independence Day.” The Statesman, 21 August 2025. https://www.thestatesman.com/india/maoists-kill-tribal-youth-in-chhattisgarh-for-hoisting-tricolour-on-independence-day-1503474864.html

^[57] “Two tribal men killed by Maoists: Police.” Business Standard, 15 October 2025. https://www.business-standard.com/article/pti-stories/two-tribal-men-killed-by-maoists-police-115101500504_1.html

^[58] Choudhury, R. N. “Maoists Kill Local BJP Leader, a Tribal, in Bijapur.” Deccan Chronicle, 14 October 2025. https://www.deccanchronicle.com/nation/maoists-kill-local-bjp-leader-a-tribal-in-bijapur-1910143

^[59] Ajum, B. “Ebo Mili stopped at Kolkata airport.” The Arunachal Times, 5 October 2025. https://arunachaltimes.in/index.php/2025/10/05/ebo-mili-stopped-at-kolkata-airport/

^[60] “India: End the judicial harassment of human rights defender Ebo Mili, uphold rights of indigenous communities.” Forum Asia, 29 May 2025. https://forum-asia.org/ebomili/

^[61] “The disappearance of Ebo Mili.” The Arunachal Times, 30 May 2025. https://arunachaltimes.in/index.php/2025/05/30/the-disappearance-of-ebo-mili/

^[62] Ajum, B. “SIFF legal adviser Bhanu Tatak stopped at Delhi airport.” The Arunachal Times, 8 September 2025. https://arunachaltimes.in/index.php/2025/09/08/siff-legal-adviser-bhanu-tatak-stopped-at-delhi-airport/

^[63] ILAI complaint dated 23 April 2025, registered with the NHRC as Case No. 393/18/14/2025. Case status can be accessed through the NHRC online case status portal at: https://hrcnet.nic.in/HRCNet/public/CaseStatus.aspx

^[64] “Inheritance Rights of Tribal Woman in Ancestral Property.” Supreme Court Observer, 17 July 2025. https://www.scobserver.in/supreme-court-observer-law-reports-scolr/tribal-woman-entitled-to-equal-share-in-ancestral-property-ram-charan-v-sukhram/

^[65] ILAI complaint dated 17 January 2025, registered with the NHRC as Case No. 5/2/7/2025. Case status can be accessed through the NHRC online case status portal at: https://hrcnet.nic.in/HRCNet/public/CaseStatus.aspx

^[66] “Odisha: Class 10 Girl Student Delivers Baby as Parents Blame Residential School Authorities in Malkangiri.” ETV Bharat, 25 February 2025. https://www.etvbharat.com/en/!state/odisha-class-10-girl-student-delivers-baby-as-parents-blame-residential-school-authorities-in-malkangiri-enn25022505156

^[67] ILAI complaint dated 28 April 2025, registered with the NHRC as Case No. 1268/12/4/2025. Case status can be accessed through the NHRC online case status portal at: https://hrcnet.nic.in/HRCNet/public/CaseStatus.aspx

^[68] ILAI complaint dated 6 May 2025, registered with the NHRC as Case No. 245/9/13/2025-WC. Case status can be accessed through the NHRC online case status portal at: https://hrcnet.nic.in/HRCNet/public/CaseStatus.aspx

^[69] ILAI complaint dated 26 May 2025, registered with the NHRC as Case No. 2472/12/25/2025-WC. Case status can be accessed through the NHRC online case status portal at: https://hrcnet.nic.in/HRCNet/public/CaseStatus.aspx

^[70] ILAI complaint dated 9 June 2025, registered with the NHRC as Case No. 772/34/9/2025. Case status can be accessed through the NHRC online case status portal at: https://hrcnet.nic.in/HRCNet/public/CaseStatus.aspx

^[71] ILAI complaint dated 30 July 2025, registered with the NHRC as Case No. 48/23/7/2025. Case status can be accessed through the NHRC online case status portal at: https://hrcnet.nic.in/HRCNet/public/CaseStatus.aspx

^[72] “PM Modi Launches ₹7,300 Cr Projects in Manipur, Stresses Peace and Progress.” AIR News, 13 September 2025. https://www.newsonair.gov.in/pm-modi-launches-%E2%82%B97300-cr-projects-in-manipur-stresses-peace-and-progress/

^[73] “President Droupadi Murmu meets internally displaced persons in Imphal.” The Sentinel, 13 December 2025. https://www.sentinelassam.com/north-east-india-news/manipur/president-droupadi-murmu-meets-internally-displaced-persons-in-imphal

^[74] Express News Service. “Manipur government forms panels to rehabilitate displaced people after month-long protest.” The New Indian Express, 1 December 2025. https://www.newindianexpress.com/nation/2025/Dec/01/manipur-government-forms-panels-to-rehabilitate-displaced-people-after-month-long-protest

^[75] Jaiswal, U. “Manipur firing near Churachandpur jolts IDP resettlement and raises tensions.” The Telegraph, 18 December 2025. https://www.telegraphindia.com/north-east/fresh-firing-in-manipur-hits-idp-resettlement-as-kuki-zo-meitei-tensions-rise-prnt/cid/2138384

^[76] “Bru leaders urge Amit Shah to intervene as hunger strike highlights unfulfilled rehabilitation promises.” The Statesman, 22 July 2025. https://www.thestatesman.com/india/bru-leaders-urge-amit-shah-to-intervene-as-hunger-strike-highlights-unfulfilled-rehabilitation-promises-1503461014.html

^[77] Government of India, Ministry of Home Affairs, North East Division. “Resettlement of Bru Migrant.” December 2025. https://www.mha.gov.in/sites/default/files/2025-12/RESETTLEMENTOFBRUMIGRANTS_18122025.pdf

^[78] “SIR Survey: Two decades after fleeing Maoist violence, Bastar's displaced tribals in AP, Telangana fear loss of vote.” The Times of India, 16 December 2025. https://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/city/raipur/sir-survey-two-decades-after-fleeing-maoist-violence-bastars-displaced-tribals-in-ap-telangana-fear-loss-of-vote/articleshowprint/126013024.cms

^[79] Longkumer, Lanusashi. Self-Governance and Democracy among the Ao Naga of Nagaland. (Thailand: Asia Indigenous Peoples Pact, 2024).

^[80] IANS. 2025. "Naga Flag, Constitution Non-negotiable Issues, Reiterates NSCN-IM." Nagaland Tribune, 23 October 2025. https://nagalandtribune.in/naga-flag-constitution-non-negotiable-issues-reiterates-nscn-im/

^[81] “Naga Factions Unite at Ungma Village to Strengthen Call for Common Future and Reconciliation - the Hills.” The Hills Journal (blog). 23 August 2025. https://www.thehillsjournal.com/naga-factions-unite-at-ungma-village-to-strengthen-call-for-common-future-and-reconciliation/

^[82] “Drone Strike in East Konyak Region: 2 Civilians Killed, Several Injured; NSCN/GPRN (YA) Condemns Attack.” Nagaland Tribune, 21 October 2025. https://nagalandtribune.in/drone-strike-in-east-konyak-region-2-civilians-killed-several-injured-nscn-gprn-ya-condemns-attack/

^[83] “AFSPA Extended in Parts of Manipur, Arunachal and Nagaland for Another Six Months.” The Hindu, 26 September 2025. https://www.thehindu.com/news/national/mha-extends-afspa-in-parts-of-manipur-arunachal-and-nagaland-for-another-six-months/article70098633.ece

^[84] “GNF Issues Joint Statement Against Border Fencing and Biometric Surveillance in Naga Homeland.” Nagaland Tribune, 29 April 2025. https://nagalandtribune.in/gnf-issues-joint-statement-against-border-fencing-and-biometric-surveillance-in-naga-homeland/

^[85] “'No Fence Can Divide Us': NSO-Myanmar Backs UNC, Rejects Border Fencing and FMR.” Ukhrul Times, 27 August 2025. https://ukhrultimes.com/no-fence-can-divide-us-nso-m-backs-unc/

^[86] The Sangai Express English. 2025. “UNC Warns of Extreme Steps Over FMR Abrogation, Border Fencing.” The Sangai Express - Largest Circulated Newspaper in Manipur, 1 August 2025. https://www.thesangaiexpress.com/Encyc/2025/8/1/newmai-news-network-imphal-jul-31-sources-from-the-united-naga-council-unc-have-warned-that-it-will-take-extre.html

Unfortunately, we have to make the Naga chapter a part of the India chapter - so we will not be including this fact box at the beginning og the chapter, but we can include parts of it in the India introductory box.

Last 2 years, the authors wanted the headline of this part of the chapter to be "Naga Homeland" before that it has been called "Nagalim" - what do you prefer?

Tags: Global governance