Context: In the middle of the Covid-19 lockdown, two community-specific groups have renewed their opposition to the permanent settlement of Bru refugees from Mizoram in Tripura.
Background

• Bru or Reang is a community indigenous to Northeast India, living mostly in Tripura, Mizoram and Assam. In Tripura, they are recognised as a Particularly Vulnerable Tribal Group.
• In Mizoram, they have been targeted by groups that do not consider them indigenous to the state. In 1997, following ethnic clashes, nearly 37,000 Brus fled Mamit, Kolasib and Lunglei districts of Mizoram and were accommodated in relief camps in Tripura.
• Since then, 5,000 have returned to Mizoram in eight phases of repatriation, while 32,000 still live in six relief camps in North Tripura.
• In 2018, community leaders from the Bru camps signed an agreement with the Centre and the two state governments, providing for repatriation in Mizoram.
• But most camp residents rejected the terms of the agreement. The camp residents say that the agreement doesn’t guarantee their safety in Mizoram.
• The Centre, the governments of Mizoram and Tripura and leaders of Bru organisations signed a quadripartite agreement in January (2020) to let the remaining 35,000 refugees who have stayed back to be resettled in Tripura.
• The rehabilitation package offered included financial assistance of Rs4 lakh and land for constructing a house for Each family.

Current Scenario

• Amid the COVID-19 lockdown, two community-specific groups have renewed their opposition to the permanent settlement of Bru refugees from Mizoram in Tripura.
• This includes the Nagarik Suraksha Mancha, representing Bengali people displaced from erstwhile East Pakistan post-partition in 1947, and the Mizo Convention.
• “...the historical, social and circumstantial aspects of the migration of the Mizoram Reangs to Tripura and their subsequent anti-social activities after their arrival demand for total avoidance of their settlement in Kanchanpur Sub-Division. 
• Non-compliance to this request of ours can result in severe demographic imbalance, land crisis, social disturbance, communal conflict, and damage to the environment, amongst others,” the two organisations said in the memorandum.
• They also threatened an indefinite strike in the sub-division “as soon as the lockdown is over” if the government went ahead with the resettlement plan.
• The two organisations, however, clarified that they have no objection to the settlement of Brus in 22 other sub-divisions of Tripura. 
• They are opposing the proposal for accommodating a large number of Brus at five places under Kanchanpur Sub-Division because of land constraints and dwindling forest resources.

About Particularly Vulnerable Tribal Groups

• In India, tribal population makes up for 8.6% of the total population.
• PVTGs are more vulnerable among the tribal groups.
• They have declining or stagnant population, low level of literacy, pre-agricultural level of technology and are economically backward.
• In 1973, the Dhebar Commission created Primitive Tribal Groups (PTGs) as a separate category, who are less developed among the tribal groups. In 2006, the Government of India renamed the PTGs as PVTGs.
• In 1975, the Government of India initiated to identify the most vulnerable tribal groups as a separate category called PVTGs and declared 52 such groups, while in 1993 an additional 23 groups were added to the category, making it a total of 75 PVTGs out of 705 Scheduled Tribes, spread over 18 states and one Union Territory (A&N Islands) in the country (2011 census).
• Among the 75 listed PVTG’s the highest number are found in Odisha (13), followed by Andhra Pradesh (12).