Self-Determined Development of Indigenous Peoples John Bamba 28 28 Indigenous Affairs 1-2/10
“… the word “development” in its Pali equivalent means “disorderliness” or “confusion”. … Ivan Illich once told me that the Latin word progressio, which is the root of “development”, can also means “madness.”…” Sivaraksa, 1992 Ever since the word “development” was introduced and became common jargon in international affairs and diplomacy following World War II, it has become a dominant term with effects perhaps comparable only to the spread of a religion. Development has been used by several dictatorships, such as Soeharto in Indonesia, to suppress any criticism of their anti-democratic policies. Questioning any government projects or activities carried out in the name of “development” thus became a subversive act against state and government, resulting in a potential jail term. Experts the world over have tried to define “development” and clarify what Ivan Illich believes “can also means madness”. Amartya Sen, winner of the 1998 Nobel Prize for Economic Science, among others, suggests that we should accept “development as freedom” (Sen, 2000). On the other hand, “freedom without opportunities”, according to Noam Chomsky, “is the devil’s gift.” (Chomsky, 2000:135) If we take the case of Indonesia as an example, the 1945 Constitution recognizes indigenous peoples (termed as “Customary-law Communities in the Constitution) on four conditions: 1. that they still exist; 2. that they are in accordance with the development of societies, times and civilizations; 3. that they are in accordance with the principles of the Unitary State of the Republic of Indonesia; and 4. that they are regulated by law. This recognition, itself set out in the State constitution, is undeniably an advanced “development” that has given Indonesia’s indigenous peoples some freedoms. However it is, at the same time, a conditional recognition that has left them with no opportunities to exercise those freedoms. Such legal recognition, even when it is set out in the State constitution, is therefore rendered useless. It is, after all, a “devil’s gift”. As indigenous peoples, we have been experiencing, witnessing and falling victim to this so-called “devil’s gift” of developmentalism. In the name of “development” our lands are taken over, our homes destroyed, our mother earths raped and stripped bare. In many places in the past, our brothers and sisters, including women and children, have even been killed or tortured, kidnapped and brainwashed. Perhaps the most recent shocking case was that reported from Peru by The Guardian about “A Peruvian gang that allegedly killed people and drained fat from their corpses .…and exported the amber liquid to Europe as anti-wrinkle cream.” 1 The gang have been dubbed the “Pishtacos” after an ancient Peruvian myth about white colonialists who killed indigenous people and quartered their bodies with machetes before extracting the fat and turning it into a range of perfumed soaps. 2 This situation was best described by Boris Pasternak as, “… the bare, shivering human soul, stripped to the last shred,…” (Pasternak, 1958:394) And yet the world has also been witnessing a constant and uncompromising commitment to struggle for change on the part of indigenous peoples and their non-indigenous supporters. For more than two decades, our struggles have been able to achieve the most important thing real “development” should be able to offer: “opportunities”. Opportunities that challenge us to exercise our “freedom” and thus bring us the real fruits of “development”. The adoption of the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples on 13 September 2007 by the 61 st Session of the UN General Assembly provides vast “opportunities” through which to exercise our “freedom” and our own “development” model — self-determined development. Besides being an achievement of our struggle, however, the Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples (Declaration) also poses challenges. It is an undeniable fact that the Declaration was not supported by all member countries of the United Nations. It is obvious that the United States of America, as the country with the most important role to play in current world affairs, together with Canada, Australia and New Zealand (also known as the CANZUS group), did not support the Declaration. At the national level, each of us is also experiencing a number of challenges even if our governments did support the Declaration. While the issue of the “right to selfdetermination” (Article 3 of the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples) remains “a pain in the neck” for most of our governments, indigenous peoples welcomed it as the most important “opportunity” to push for the kind of development they wanted. (left) Dayak woman working in a field in west Kalimantan, Indonesia – Photo: Christian Erni 29 Indigenous Affairs 1-2 1-2/10 29
- Page 1 and 2: 1-2/10 INDIGENOUS AFFAIRS Developme
- Page 3 and 4: Mother Earth and “Living Well”
- Page 5 and 6: Although such language may better r
- Page 7 and 8: Introduction The recognition and pr
- Page 9 and 10: als. In fact, the introduction of t
- Page 11 and 12: Charles Kamuren from the Endorois W
- Page 13 and 14: land laws, most indigenous communit
- Page 15 and 16: 58 Amodu Tijani v The Secretary Sou
- Page 17 and 18: Camels fetching water for a nomadic
- Page 19 and 20: KENYA a peace campaign. Unfortunate
- Page 21 and 22: Deaths followed incidents between t
- Page 23 and 24: (left) San woman in south Africa -
- Page 25 and 26: to bear in mind that, unlike common
- Page 27: larly in relation to women being al
- Page 31 and 32: The 7 principles and philosophies D
- Page 33 and 34: Dayak village, west Kalimantan, Ind
- Page 35 and 36: Dayak children , west Kalimantan, I
- Page 37 and 38: values attached to the credit union
- Page 39 and 40: 1. Background Developments in the i
- Page 41 and 42: While deficiencies on the part of t
- Page 43 and 44: try. The Council is empowered by th
- Page 45 and 46: British rule brought about the tran
- Page 47 and 48: generally remained, however, unackn
- Page 49 and 50: This relative reading of the meanin
- Page 51 and 52: 38 E. T Dalton, Tribal History of E
- Page 53 and 54: Introduction It is common to define
- Page 55 and 56: holds specific cultural connotation
- Page 57 and 58: Alamikangban Community in Nicaragua
- Page 59 and 60: moment once more putting forward ou
- Page 61 and 62: “We are building new paradigms fo
- Page 63 and 64: Demostration of Embera people in Bo
- Page 65 and 66: (left) Bellavista community, Cayar
- Page 67 and 68: Bellavista community, Cayarú River
- Page 69 and 70: Things are, in contrast, very diffe
- Page 71 and 72: The Denial and Persistence of Indig
- Page 73 and 74: must respect the decisions adopted
- Page 75 and 76: peoples and did not affect the “n
- Page 77 and 78: Introduction In 2007, the Indigenou
- Page 79 and 80:
practices, and institutions. In con
- Page 81 and 82:
Sustainable and Equitable Developme
- Page 83 and 84:
ight and an integral part of fundam
- Page 85 and 86:
The reasons for drafting new legisl
- Page 87 and 88:
federal legislation in recent years
- Page 89 and 90:
course, may become the best evidenc
- Page 91 and 92:
Russian Federation, by which everyb
- Page 93 and 94:
Sakhalin indigenous peoples studyin
- Page 95 and 96:
IWGIA - INTERNATIONAL WORK GROUP FO
Change language