Under these conditions, Indigenous women face heightened risks of gender-based violence, such as harassment, sexual violence and intimidation. However, survivors often face difficulties in accessing justice. They encounter discrimination, language barriers, limited legal support and a lack of information about their rights. As a result, many perpetrators are never held accountable, and Indigenous women are left without the support or remedies they need.

Violence against women in Asia

A tragic example occurred in 2025 in the Chittagong Hill Tracts of Bangladesh. An Indigenous schoolgirl was gang raped while returning home from her classes in the Guimara area. When communities protested to demand justice, three Indigenous youths were shot and killed by the army, and four others were injured. After the shooting, Indigenous-owned shops were looted and burned, and nearby homes were damaged. This incident shows the serious risks communities face even when they demand justice peacefully. Violence discourages survivors, and intimidation discourages their communities from demanding accountability.

In my own community in Okinawa, Japan, we live with the burden of a strong United States military presence. Over the years, many women, from young children to elderly women, have experienced sexual violence linked to military personnel. Some victims have even been murdered after being assaulted. Many rape cases are not prosecuted, and some victims withdraw their complaints because seeking justice can be extremely difficult.

In other countries in the region, armed conflicts in Cambodia, Myanmar and Thailand also expose Indigenous women to high levels of domestic violence, rape and human trafficking. These risks are worsened by poverty and limited access to education. Another example comes from land struggles in Indonesia: Indigenous Batak women have faced harassment and violence while resisting land grabbing by a pulp and paper company operating on their ancestral territory.

The role governments must play

To address these challenges, governments must strengthen legal and institutional systems that protect the rights of Indigenous women. Justice systems must be accessible and culturally appropriate for communities. Recognizing multiple legal systems, including Indigenous justice mechanisms, can help ensure that Indigenous women are able to seek justice through processes that respect their cultures, while upholding national and international human rights standards.

Governments must also support and empower Indigenous women’s organizations so they can participate in legal processes and advocate for their communities. Preventing gender-based violence must be a priority. Governments need to enforce stronger laws and policies to protect Indigenous women and girls, especially in areas affected by militarization and resource extraction. Survivors must have access to safe spaces, healthcare, mental health services and legal assistance so they can report violence safely and pursue justice.

Accountability is also essential. Governments, corporations and other actors operating in Indigenous territories must be held responsible for human rights violations. Indigenous women who defend their lands and communities often face threats, harassment and violence. Authorities must adopt a zero-tolerance approach to attacks against Indigenous women human rights defenders. Violations must be investigated, perpetrators prosecuted and victims provided with fair and culturally appropriate reparations.

Notes to improve access to justice

In addition to justice, Indigenous women must have access to meaningful reparations. These should address both economic and social harms, including compensation for lost livelihoods, support for healthcare and education and, where possible, the restitution of lands and resources. Supporting Indigenous women’s organizations and community initiatives is also essential, because Indigenous women play a central role in protecting their communities, cultures and environments.

It is necessary to understand that achieving justice requires addressing the root causes of violence and marginalization. Governments must recognize the rights of Indigenous Peoples to their lands, territories and natural resources, and ensure that development projects respect the principle of Free, Prior and Informed Consent.

Finally, governments must understand that Indigenous women must also be included in decision-making at all levels, from local governance to national policy discussions. Their leadership and knowledge are essential to create policies that truly reflect the needs and experiences of Indigenous communities.

The post Realities of indigenous women in Asia: sexual violence, impunity and the absence of public policies appeared first on Debates Indígenas.

Indonesia’s Indigenous women experience disproportionate levels of discrimination. More than one in three Indigenous women is raped during their lifetime, with maternal mortality rates higher than the national average. In Nepal and India, Indigenous women face caste-based violence while, in Bangladesh, Indigenous women are often targeted because of their distinct physical features and religious beliefs.

Indigenous women are also the disproportionate victims of human trafficking. A study by the National Human Rights Commission of Nepal showed that 49 % of the women survivors of  trafficking are Indigenous, followed by Dalit at 15 %. Madhesis account for 6 % and other ethnicities constitute the remaining 29 %. Indigenous Peoples, Dalits, and Madhesis are the most socially, politically, and economically marginalised and excluded communities in Nepal. Access to justice for victims of trafficking remains almost impossible. 

State violations and access to justice

In some countries such as Bangladesh and Myanmar, there is simply no access to justice but rather absolute impunity. While courts are known for setting the jurisprudence in India, in cases of human rights violations, prosecution of the perpetrators requires prior authorization from the government. Under Section 197 of the Criminal Procedure Code and Section 6 of the Armed Forces Special Powers Act of 1958, prior authorization is required from the executive authorities for the prosecution of public servants and law enforcement personnel.  In armed conflict situations, this authorization is often denied and access to justice thus effectively denied. 

In Nepal, Indigenous women were the victims of sexual violence during the Maoist conflict. In 2019, the UN Human Rights Committee (HRC) issued a landmark decision in the case of an Indigenous girl who was the victim of rape, torture and forced labour in 2002. At the age of 14, she was arrested by the Armed Police and the Royal Army and forced to work in the barracks on the construction of a temple. Over that time, she was raped multiple times and subjected to other forms of sexual violence, torture and inhuman treatment. Following the rape, she was not able to urinate and was bleeding profusely and yet received no medical assistance. The Major who raped her threatened to kill her if she told anybody about what had happened.  

In war-torn Myanmar, women have been targeted by the military. In March 2023, Free Expression Myanmar (FEM) reported that more than 300 women and girls, including nurses, students, teachers, activists, and others, had been killed since the coup. Further, the military had used sexual violence as a systematic weapon to punish pro-democracy protesters who were detained: 17 women and girls were raped and killed. In addition, the military junta had arrested 16,432 people, of whom 3,434 were women, and military prison staff often torture female political prisoners. As Myanmar is not party to most international human rights conventions, victims do not have access to justice.

Violence from the majority society

Across the Asian region, Indigenous women face violations from the majority non-Indigenous communities because of their distinct identities, cultural practices and religious beliefs. In most Asian countries, disaggregated data on violence against Indigenous Peoples is not collected, thereby making it impossible to understand the real scale of the violence. Specific laws are consequently not enacted to address access to justice. 

India has enacted progressive laws by making sexual offences specific crimes under the 1989 Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities Act). Article 3 criminalizes “words, acts or gestures of a sexual nature towards a woman belonging to a Scheduled Caste or a Scheduled Tribe, knowing that she belongs to a Scheduled Caste or a Scheduled Tribe” with fines and prison terms of no less than six months and up to five years. However, the crimes continue to take place: 1,137 cases of rape of Indigenous women in 2020, 1,324 in 2021 and 1,347 in 2022. Nevertheless, there is no denying that the law does provide the basis for access to justice.

India ha promulgado leyes progresistas al tipificar los delitos sexuales como crímenes específicos en el marco de la Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act de 1989. El artículo 3 criminaliza “palabras, actos o gestos de naturaleza sexual dirigidos contra una mujer perteneciente a una casta o tribu registrada, a sabiendas de que pertenece a una casta o tribu registrada”, con multas y penas de prisión no inferiores a seis meses y que pueden extenderse hasta cinco años. Sin embargo, los delitos continúan ocurriendo: 1.137 casos de violación de mujeres indígenas en 2020; 1.324 en 2021; y 1.347 en 2022. Aun así, no puede negarse que la legislación proporciona una base para el acceso a la justicia.

In Bangladesh, access to justice for sexual violence cannot be contemplated. Sexual predators are often posted to the Chittagong Hill Tracts region inhabited by Indigenous Peoples.

In Bangladesh, access to justice for sexual violence cannot be contemplated. Sexual predators are often posted to the Chittagong Hill Tracts region inhabited by Indigenous Peoples.

In Bangladesh, protesting rape committed by members of the majority Muslim community often leads to direct attacks from the State agencies upon the Indigenous Peoples. In 2025, three Indigenous youths were shot dead and four others injured by Bangladesh Army personnel in the upazila of Guimara, in the Chittagong Hill Tracts, while protesting the alleged gang rape of an Indigenous schoolgirl. After the shooting, many Indigenous shops were looted and set on fire at Ramesu while nearby houses were also vandalised.

In Bangladesh, under such circumstances, access to justice for sexual violence cannot be contemplated. Sexual predators are often posted to the Chittagong Hill Tracts region inhabited by Indigenous Peoples. On 25 February 2021, Abul Hasnat Mohammad Sohel Rana was jailed in a case filed of sexual harassment of an Indigenous student. After being released, he rejoined the school, which prompted protests. On 20 September 2024, Rana was beaten to death for allegedly raping an Indigenous student belonging to the Tripura community on the school campus but his killing led to another massive assault on Indigenous Peoples in the neighbourhood.

Violations within the community and Indigenous women’s access to justice

Indigenous women also face barriers to accessing justice within their own cultural practices. Inheritance is a critical issue.. As recently as 2025, the Supreme Court of India held that denying a female heir her right to property only exacerbates gender discrimination and that the law must eradicate this practice. Consequently, as per Article 14 of the Constitution relating to the right to equality, the Court determined that both a tribal woman and her legal heirs (her children) are entitled to an equal share in the ancestral property.

Among the Indigenous Chakma community, a Customary Law has been in place since 2014 by which certain people can be declared “Ek Goshchey”, meaning that no other members of the community are allowed to mix socially with the family. These “customs” are often invoked by self-proclaimed patriarchs to violate the rights of Indigenous women and girls. In several rulings, the Tripura High Court ruled the practice of declaring Ek Goshchey or the imposition of social boycotts by the Tripura Rejyo Chakma Samajik Parishad (Tripura State Chakma Social Council) to be unconstitutional.  

Across the communities, Indigenous women face a systematic denial of access to power. In Nagaland, men opposed the 33% reservation for women in the local government bodies, preventing elections from being held for 20 years. Elections were finally held on 26 June 2024, in compliance with a Supreme Court Order.

Digital abuses against Indigenous women and girls 

Violence in the real world is replicated on social media. As the digital space now plays an important role in modern society, Indigenous women and girls face increased risk of online hate and serious online harm at much higher rates than the general population. As many countries are still in the process of developing laws relating to cyber abuse, Indigenous women and girls remain largely beyond effective legal protection and access to justice.

The multiple forms of violence experienced by Indigenous women in Asia reveal a structural pattern of intersectional discrimination that combines gender, ethnic identity, tradition, religion and caste. Impunity, driven by a lack of political will, consolidates a context in which access to justice is the exception rather than the rule. Even where progressive legislation or landmark judicial rulings exist, their implementation faces deep resistance, both within state institutions and within the patriarchal structures of their communities.

In this context, it is essential to adopt comprehensive approaches that guarantee protection of the individual and collective rights of Indigenous women in Asia, while strengthening their political participation, economic autonomy and community leadership. This entails reforming discriminatory legal frameworks, collecting data on violence against Indigenous women, and ensuring culturally appropriate justice mechanisms. Without full recognition of their rights to land, inheritance, their bodies and their voices in the public sphere, it will not be possible to build democratic, plural and egalitarian societies.

The post Indigenous Women and Girls in Asia: Sexual Violence, Discrimination and the Right to Inheritance appeared first on Debates Indígenas.

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.

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.

The pursuit of self-governance in Asia requires progress in democratic processes.

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.

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.

Education is a key battleground for cultural survival, with indigenous scholars and activists leading initiatives to decolonize curricula.

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.

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.

Indigenous organizations support these efforts by facilitating dialogues among indigenous leaders, legal experts, and policymakers.

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.

Regional solidarity networks 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.

Regional solidarity networks support community-led efforts to defend land and territory.

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.   

The post The Struggle for Indigenous Self-Governance in Asia: A Democratic Alternative to Authoritarianism appeared first on Debates Indígenas.