Организация коренных народов Аруначал-Прадеш внесла четырех исследователей в черный список за нарушение этических норм

In mid-August, an organisation that represents an indigenous community in Arunachal Pradesh blacklisted four researchers from carrying out research in the Dibang Valley. The organisation, the Idu Mishmi Cultural and Literary Society, or IMCLS, is the “apex body” of the Idu Mishmi community in the valley. It stated in a press release that the researchers were blacklisted for violating the community’s “ code of research ethics ”, which it first published in 2024. In an emailed statement to Scroll, the society said that the researchers “resorted to discriminatory practices and ventured into community areas despite final consent and approval pending” from the community’s Research and Ethics Review Board, or RERB. The researchers were Rajkamal Goswami, affiliated with the Ashoka Trust for Research in Ecology and the Environment, or ATREE, Aavika Dhanda, who was formerly affiliated with the same organisation, Krushnamegh Kunte from the National Centre for Biological Sciences, and Fahim Khan, from the Indian Foundation for Butterflies Trust. In a text message response to queries from Scroll, Goswami said, “We hold ethical research practices in the highest regard, and fully support the IMCLS code in spirit and intent.” He added that ATREE “had taken cognisance” of the body’s decision, and were “seeking to understand the circumstances and events that led to this action”. The director of the National Centre for Biological Sciences, LS Shashidhara, told Scroll that the institution was “saddened” by the body’s decision. “Our researchers were making sincere efforts to obtain approval from the RERB of IMCLS, and there appears to have been some misunderstanding,” he said. Scroll also emailed Khan, seeking responses to the society’s move – this story will be updated if he responds. The society’s move has its roots in efforts in recent years by indigenous and tribal groups to protect their culture and land from what they say are exploitative practices of researchers, rooted in colonial methods. Outside India, such moves trace back to the late 1990s, when Indigenous communities in the global north and several African countries developed their own research guidelines or protocols to be followed by anyone conducting research with them or on their lands. Tribal studies scholars welcome the introduction of such guidelines in India as a step towards decolonising harmful and colonial research practices. “There was a time when most tribal communities in India were not literate, and researchers, often anthropologists, could visit them and do anything they wanted,” said Adivasi sociologist Virginuis Xaxa. “They would often misinterpret these communities, their customs and context. It was a form of violence on these communities.” Xaxa added that communities’ moves to develop “their own research protocols” was “a step towards their empowerment and self-determination”. Other communities The Idu Mishmi, is not the only Indian community to take steps recently to institute rules for researchers. On August 10, the tribal council of Little and Great Nicobar published a set of 13 guidelines for researchers working on the islands. The guidelines laid out several steps that any team of researchers that planned to visit an area that fell within the islands’ tribal reserves would have to follow. For instance, they would have to inform the chairman of the tribal council, and consult respective village captains before planning the visit. They would also have to submit several documents with the council, including details of the project and copies of tribal area permits issued to them by the relevant district administrations. Barnabas Manju, chairman of the tribal council, explained that the move was prompted by an unprecedented rush of researchers on the Nicobar islands. “In the last few years we have been noticing a lot more researchers on the island,” Manju said. “We worry what their research might result in.” The communities’ fears are particularly acute because, since 2021, the government has denotified protected areas for leatherback turtles and given permissions for lakhs of trees to be cut to make 166 sq km of the island available to develop the Great Nicobar infrastructure project. Community bodies see such protective moves as particularly crucial because at present there exist no dedicated laws or policies in India that pertain to research ethics for researchers working with tribal and other marginalised communities. While the bodies’ policies do not form official law, they are backed by both international and domestic conventions and laws to safeguard tribal and Indigenous communities, such as the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples, which India has endorsed, and the Scheduled Tribes and Other Traditional Forest Dwellers (Recognition of Forest Rights) Act, 2006. Community leaders of the Idu Mishmi and the Nicobarese said their guidelines were centred on the principle of free, prior, and informed consent, which has long underpinned the measures and policies of Indigenous communities across the world with respect to research, as well as administrative and legislative measures that impact them. Xaxa noted that researchers often “impose their own interpretations on Indigenous communities” while “failing to understand the community’s worldview”. The Idu Mishmi code seeks to safeguard not just members of the community and their resources, but also their “cultural and spiritual values, customary practices, traditional knowledge, beliefs including among physical and non-physical entities in the world”, he said. Similarly, the Nicobarese guidelines remind researchers that “what might be a research site for you is our home”. The guidelines thus seek to safeguard their neighbouring community the Shompen, “the trees, plants, birds and animals of the land, the nallahs, forest patches, rocky islets on the coast” and the “ancestral spirits who reside in these spaces”. The Idu Mishmi code The Idu Mishmi code was authored by community member Dr Tilu Linggi, and launched as a book by the chief minister of Arunachal Pradesh, Pema Khandu. The code states that the Idu Mishmi are the “first indigenous community” in Arunachal Pradesh to have their own “community research protocol”. It describes the protocol as a step towards “decolonising and decentralising research and empowering local communities” based on “self-determination, respect, consent and equity”. The society explained that the code was formulated after consultative community discussions in Dibang Valley about “several unethical and colonial practices of data appropriation and collection of geological and biological samples” that they had observed in the “Idu Mishmi areas in particular” and in “Arunachal Pradesh in general”. They further noted that the “unethical use” of data taken from their land, “has led to policy-making that has impacted the community in negative ways”, such as their erasure from epistemology. For instance, “renowned research institutions” have, under the guise of discovering new species, given “taxonomic classification to species in their own institution’s name”, despite these species already being familiar to the community. These concerns also extended to how governments classified lands that the community had historically used. The society stated that, “in the past the government had declared wildlife sanctuaries or protected/reserved areas without the consent of the community”. For instance, it described the notification of the Dibang Wildlife Sanctuary and the Mehao Wildlife Sanctuary by the state as “illegal” and a “betrayal” of the community. Under the code, researchers looking to pursue research on Idu Mishmi land have to purchase a copy of the book, submit their proposal and additional documents to the body and undergo several rounds of online discussions with the review board, which may seek clarifications and suggest modifications to the proposal. This process applies to all researchers, including those from the community itself. Researchers also have to obtain approval at the level of the village where the research will be conducted. Since the code was announced, the society said, it has received over 44 research proposals from India and abroad. In the statement to Scroll, they noted that “most proposals are approved”. The alleged violations In the email to Scroll, the society stated that NCBS researchers failed to attend a planned in-person meeting despite committing in writing to do so. Meanwhile, the ATREE researchers, they noted, “never sought official permission from the IMCLS” to conduct their research “despite repeated requests”. The society argued that such behaviour violated several principles of their community protocol. It also expressed displeasure with events that followed the researchers’ blacklisting, noting that they were “misleading reporters” and calling the development a “misunderstanding”. NCBS’s Shashidhara told Scroll that while the institution’s researchers were “preparing responses to the queries” raised by the Idu Mishmi body, “they stayed at the same location with due approvals from the concerned officials for trekking and accommodation”. He added, “No research activity was initiated. We remain committed to regulatory compliance and to conducting our work in accordance with IMCLS guidelines.” Further, he said, the institution would be taking “appropriate measures” to address the concerns raised by the society and “regain their confidence”. Goswami, meanwhile, explained that in the Dibang Valley, the work he was involved with focused “on supporting the members of the Mekola clan of the Idu Mishmi Indigenous community in formalising a Community Conserved Area on their clan lands”. He added, “We take the concerns raised around non-response seriously and have shared our full communication record directly with IMCLS. Based on our records, we responded to all communication received from them, and also attended all the meetings we were invited to. We have shared these details with IMCLS, and we are working to resolve all issues directly with IMCLS. We have reached out to the apex body for a dialogue.” Further, he noted, ATREE was “committed to respecting the guidelines and ethos of the communities we work with. Once we have a clear understanding of the situation, we will take appropriate steps to address IMCLS’s concerns and continue strengthening our community-led conservation work together.” In its statement to Scroll, the society said that while it did not intend to resort to “harsh measures” against researchers, if any proceeded with their work despite being blacklisted, they could face “legal repercussions”. Going forward Manju, the chairman of the tribal council of Little and Great Nicobar, meanwhile, noted that since the release of the guidelines, two researchers had complied with the initial steps and submitted all relevant documents with the Nicobarese community. “We hope that the guidelines make researchers and their institutions a little more careful about their work here,” he said. He explained that usually researchers take a member of the Nicobarese community with them, as an assistant to navigate the forests, and that this also helps the community monitor the researchers’ compliance of the guidelines. “If even after these guidelines they do not follow it, we will have to take a call on how they can make this more strict,” he said. The Idu Mishmi society emphasised that there was a need for broader policies in the country to address these questions. But given the current atmosphere where “most of the decentralised aspects of power are being delegitimised”, it stated, there remained “little hope” of such a development. Nonetheless, the communities’ own efforts were a precedent toward “regulating unethical, extractive or undisclosed research practices”, they said, while also “balancing academic and community interests”. We welcome your comments at [email protected].