The Struggle for Indigenous Self-Governance in Asia: A Democratic Alternative to Authoritarianism

Written on 06 August 2025. Posted in News

BY GAM A. SHIMRAY FOR INDIGENOUS DEBATES

Indigenous Peoples across Asia have long mobilized for self-governance. Their struggle is deeply intertwined with broader political crises, democratic movements, and the persistence of authoritarian rule throughout the region. While they speak different languages and uphold distinct cultures, customary laws, and institutions, they share a common fight for the right for self-governance and strong resistance to state violence and unsustainable development. Supporting Indigenous self-determination, then, means also supporting democracy—as a living, consensus-based practice rooted in their territories.

The movement for indigenous rights reflects a larger call for political reform, particularly in states under authoritarian control such as Myanmar, Bangladesh, Nepal, Laos, Cambodia, China, and Vietnam. While countries like Thailand present themselves as democracies but are not in practice, others such as India and the Philippines show an increasing shift toward authoritarianism. In this context, by challenging entrenched state power, Indigenous Peoples align themselves with a broader struggle for democracy and justice across Asia.

Indigenous Peoples aspire to exercise self-governance and achieve full sovereignty over their lands, territories, and resources. However, this vision cannot be realized in isolation. The broader political landscape in Asia—marked by military repression, fragile democracies, and rigid centralized governance—poses major barriers to self-governance. From Myanmar’s military junta to Laos’s tight control over indigenous communities, these challenges reflect a wider pattern of state dominance and suppression that has failed to build democratic institutions.

Restoring Self-Governance

Across the globe, Indigenous Peoples have been subjected to colonization. In some cases, they were forced to live in countries created and governed by descendants of colonizers. In other cases—such as in Asia—they were made to live in states formed after colonial withdrawal and, to this day, governed by elites from dominant native ethnic groups. Through both paths, Indigenous Peoples have been subjected to various forms of internal colonialism: discrimination, dispossession, and marginalization, all of which culminated in the loss of self-governance.

A common pattern between them is that many Indigenous communities have been forcibly relocated: their lands expropriated, their forests razed, their mountains exploited by mining, and their valleys flooded due to dam construction. Today, their children are compelled to attend schools where their languages are not spoken and their knowledge and values are not taught. Moreover, they are governed by authorities over whom they can exercise little participation or influence.

Decolonization—including that of the mind— is a necessary step for re-acquiring traditional visions, worldviews, value systems, and practices, which form the foundation of indigenous self-governance. This process will allow Indigenous Peoples to rebuild, recover, and restore a social and political order based on consensus and free institutions.

The pursuit of self-governance in Asia requires progress in democratic processes. States must rethink their institutional architectures to recognize, guarantee, and protect the right of Indigenous Peoples to self-governance. This is central to indigenous struggles, enabling communities to grow individually and collectively in a self-determined manner. Thus, the vision and mission of Indigenous Peoples have always been grounded in self-governance.

Decolonization and Democratization

In Asia, the Indigenous movement is fundamentally rooted in decolonization, challenging both historical and contemporary systems that suppress Indigenous self-governance and autonomy. Indigenous governance is more than a cultural right —it is about expanding democratic space in authoritarian regimes. Historically, Indigenous governance structures functioned as democratic systems based on collective decision-making, participatory leadership, and consensus-based conflict resolution. However, colonial and post-colonial states undermined these structures, replacing them with governance models centered on state control.

In Northeast India, the Sixth Schedule of the Constitution grants limited autonomy to District Councils, but state interference continues to weaken their authority. Seeking state recognition of indigenous governance systems carries risks, as governments often attempt to co-opt indigenous institutions by absorbing them into state structures, diluting their autonomy. As a result, Indigenous movements prioritize organizing their communities to reclaim self-governance as a form of resistance against repressive state structures, while ensuring that their governance models reflect their worldviews and priorities.

State education systems and official histories often erase Indigenous identities, languages, and memories. In countries like Thailand and Cambodia, Indigenous languages and histories are frequently excluded from school curricula, reinforcing national cultural dominance. In response, Indigenous movements document oral histories, promote Indigenous language education, and build Indigenous-led knowledge-sharing networks. Education is a key battleground for cultural survival, with indigenous scholars and activists leading initiatives to decolonize curricula, integrate indigenous epistemologies, and empower future generations with knowledge of their heritage and governance traditions.

Many governments portray Indigenous self-governance as a separatist threat, as seen in Myanmar, Indonesia, India, and the Philippines. Indigenous movements counter this by using UN mechanisms to affirm their governance as a democratic right, not rebellion. The criminalization of Indigenous activism—through anti-terror laws and militarized repression—is part of a broader pattern to maintain centralized control. Despite this, Indigenous communities persist in resisting via advocacy, legal action, and solidarity campaigns.

Strengthening Political Representation

Indigenous Peoples remain politically marginalized in Asia, with systemic barriers limiting their participation. Consequently, Indigenous movements address this disparity through advocacy, leadership development, and network-building efforts. Participation in international advocacy plays a crucial role in supporting Indigenous self-governance. For this reason, UN mechanisms, such as the UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples (UNDRIP) and ILO Convention 169, provide frameworks for urging governments to recognize indigenous sovereignty.

In many countries, indigenous candidates have historically struggled to secure legislative or parliamentary seats due to systemic electoral disadvantages. Several indigenous organizations—in countries like Indonesia, Malaysia, the Philippines, Thailand, India, and Nepal—collaborate with advocacy groups to push for electoral reforms ensuring fair representation. Additionally, regional organizations like the Asia Indigenous Peoples Pact (AIPP), through platforms like the ASEAN Intergovernmental Commission on Human Rights (AICHR), raise awareness of indigenous political exclusion and demand structural changes.

Alternative methods are also adopted. In mainland India, local self-governance models are advocated as alternatives to over-centralized state power. In Myanmar, indigenous groups have long advocated for federalism as a solution to ethnic conflicts and military domination. Indigenous organizations support these efforts by facilitating dialogues among indigenous leaders, legal experts, and policymakers, with the aim of designing governance structures that uphold indigenous sovereignty while maintaining national cohesion.

In Nepal, indigenous movements leveraged ILO Convention 169 to push for constitutional recognition of their rights. Similarly, in Malaysia, indigenous groups used international advocacy to challenge land-grabbing policies. A successful model is seen in the Philippines’ Indigenous Peoples Rights Act (IPRA), which, despite shortcomings, provides a legal basis for Indigenous Peoples to exercise control over their ancestral domains. These cases illustrate how indigenous movements strategically engage with international institutions to strengthen their demands.

Defending Territorial Sovereignty

Land dispossession is not only an indigenous issue, it is a tool of authoritarian control used to consolidate state power, marginalize dissent, and impose extractive development models. Indigenous Peoples across Asia face large-scale land grabs through mining, monoculture plantations, hydropower projects, conservation policies, and military encroachment. These incursions not only violate their land and territorial rights but also weaken their traditional governance systems, social fabric, and spiritual relationships with the land and territory.

The state’s refusal to recognize Indigenous land tenure and governance fuels a spiral of violence that becomes systemic. For example, in Cambodia and Laos, indigenous communities are often displaced in the name of economic land concessions and Special Economic Zones. In Malaysia and Indonesia, ancestral forests are cleared for oil palm plantations, disregarding customary land ownership. Militarized conservation—where protected areas are created without indigenous consent—is another strategy used to undermine territorial sovereignty, especially in countries like Nepal and India.

Indigenous movements resist territorial encroachments by asserting customary land tenure, conducting community mapping, filing legal claims, and strengthening traditional governance systems that ensure collective land stewardship. Through these strategies, they challenge state narratives that depict their territories as ’empty’ or ‘underutilized,’ and instead emphasize how Indigenous stewardship has preserved biodiversity for generations.

Meanwhile, regional solidarity networks—such as those coordinated by AIPP—support community-led efforts to defend land and territory. Their actions include campaigning against militarized development, sharing legal strategies, and organizing solidarity visits to threatened communities. This collaborative approach helps build resilience and shifts the discourse from “land use” to “land governance,” where Indigenous Peoples are the rightful custodians of their territories.

A Democratic Future Rooted in Indigenous Self-Governance

Early autonomous indigenous communities were the first self-governing polities prior to the formation of nation-states. These communities practiced forms of self-governance that were organically developed and negotiated within strong village or community foundations. In such customary governance systems, primary authority resided within the community itself, including ownership and control of customary lands, territories, and resources. The primary purpose of governance was to ensure the well-being of both human and non-human beings within their territories.

Indigenous self-governance is not a threat to state sovereignty. It is an opportunity to democratize it. By recognising the right of Indigenous Peoples to govern themselves and steward their lands according to their values, states can move beyond colonial legacies and authoritarian control. Indigenous models of governance offer democratic alternatives rooted in consent, accountability, care for the commons, and intergenerational responsibility.

In an Asia marked by democratic decline and political repression, Indigenous Peoples are at the frontlines of a broader struggle for justice, inclusion, and participatory governance. Their movements are not isolated. They are part of a region-wide pushback against authoritarianism, unsustainable development, and cultural erasure. Supporting indigenous self-governance means supporting democracy itself—not merely as a form of electoral politics, but as a living practice of consensus decision-making, belonging, and care rooted in the land and territory.

Part of the opinion expressed in this article is taken from the AIPP Strategic Plan 2025-2028, which is a work in progress, being prepared by Christian Erni, Colin Nicolas, Gam A. Shimray and Ke Jung.   

Gam A. Shimray is the Secretary General of the organization (Asian Indigenous Peoples Pact) AIPP.

Cover photo: Signe Leth

Tags: Indigenous Debates