The Adivasis of Assam, whose ancestors had settled down in the land 'around 150 years ago after they were forcefully brought from the states of Jharkhand, Madhya Pradesh, Chhatisgarh, West Bengal and Orissa, have been facing state sponsored crimes since independence of India. They had been enjoying their rights and privileges before there were states called 'India or 'Assam. State sponsored crimes against the Adivasis began with the enforcement of the Indian constitution, which denied them their status as Scheduled Tribe though they had been enjoying the same right during British rule. Thus, their identity was either confined to the tea-leaf, which they plucked, or as outsider (migrant) labourers. Consequently, inhuman treatment was perpetrated on them by the state as well as non-state actors. The ethnic cleansing of 1996-98, Beltola incident of 2007 and force eviction of 2010 are classic examples of state sponsored crimes against Adivasis of Assam. In fact, the state, whose prime responsibility is to protect and ensure the rights of everyone guaranteed by the Indian Constitution, has not only failed to meet its responsibilities - it has been discriminating against, exploiting and torturing the Adivasis of Assam. Ironically, the Forest Department has been carrying on eviction processes in Assam even after the enforcement of the Forest Rights Act 2006, which recognizes the rights of Adivasis over 'the forests and forest landsfrom where they ensure their livelihood. Crime against Adivasis: Lungsung forest block of Kokrajhar district falls under the Bodoland Territorial Autonomous District (BTAD) of Assam, and is an abode of the Adivasis. They have been living in the vicinity 'much earlier than 1965. However, the forest department claims that the Adivasis have encroached the forest, which is highly bio-diverse, and therefore they must be evicted from the vicinity. But the fact is that no such forest exists anymore in the vicinity where the Adivasis have been living for years. Despite that, the forest department launched an eviction move and had deployed the forest protection force for evicting the Adivasis located in the Lungsung forest areas. In this process, the forest protection force burnt 59 villages on October 30-31, 2010 and 8 villages were burnt again on November 22, 2010. Houses, clothes, and stored food grains were burnt down to ashes. In the move not a single house was spared. Consequently, 7013 Adivasis including 3869 adults and 3144 minors belonging to 1267 families were affected and out of them 3330 are males and 3683 are females. 2 year-old boy Mangal Hembrom died after struggling between life and death for more than 2 months as he was half burnt during the eviction process. 40 people who were leading the protests against the eviction were arrested, and later 7 of them (students) were released and the remaining 33 men were sent to Kokrajhar jail. However, after intervention they were also released. State sponsored crimes against the Adivasis of Assam had begun in '1950 by denying them the status of Scheduled Tribe (ST) in the Constitution of India However, crimes were meted out to the Adivasis on a large scale since '1996 in forms of ethnic cleansing, where 10,000 Adivasis had been killed, thousands of them were injured and more than 200,000 were made homeless and compelled to live in the relief camps for more than 15 years. Similarly, on November 24, 2007, about '5000 Adivasis comprising of men, women and children were attacked in Beltola of Guwahati while they were attending a peaceful procession in demand of Schedule Tribe 'status. They were attacked by the local people of Beltola including shopkeepers. Consequently '300 Adivasis were brutally wounded, hit by bamboos, iron rods and bricks. More than one dead, women were raped and a teenage girl Laxmi Oraon was stripped, chased and kicked. 'The police either remained mute spectators or joined the crowd in brutality. However, instead of protecting the Adivasis, the government justified the brutalities and laid the blame on the Adivasi organizations. It has also been intensifying crimes against them by carrying on eviction moves. According to the Executive Member of the Bodo Territorial Council, Santoshius Kujur, The forest department will continue the eviction process once the Assembly Election is over in the month of April 2011. If this is true, there would be a gross violation of human rights committed by the government. Pathetic conditions of relief and rehabilitation: The victims of Lungsung incident are living in appalling conditions. The government has not provided them anything in the name of relief and rehabilitation. After the incident, the Agriculture Minister, Mrs Protima Rani Brahma, visited the Lungsung forest areas and promised the victims that relief material would be provided. But the promised has remained unfulfilled. Ironically, the government put a condition to the victims that if they were ready to desert their villages, they would be given the relief materials. However, the government does not promise them their rehabilitation even if they desert the vicinity. The question is - do they have right to food, clothing and shelter? Meanwhile, some relief and rehabilitation work has been done by the NGOs, civil society and local community based organizations. The victims have been given eatables, utensils, clothes, medicines and tarpaulins but those are not enough. Presently, the most of the victim families are bound to live either under the open sky or tarpaulin covered small huts, which can be again burnt by the forest protection forces during their eviction move. Denial of identity, rights and justice: Historically, the Adivasis were brought to the state of Assam in three different circumstances. Firstly, the 'Adivasis in general and Santals in particulars were brought to Assam for their resettlement after the Santal Revolt of 1855.They were settled down especially in the 'western part, now in the north-west of Kokrajhar district. This settlement is recorded as in the year 1881. Secondly, in '1880 the tea industry grew very fast, numbers of tea gardens were started. As a result, there was scarcity of labourers in Assam therefore the planters appointed agents and sent them to different places for recruitment of labourers. Thus, the Adivasis were 'coerced, kidnapped and incited to come to Assam, live and work under appalling conditions. Thirdly, large scale land alienation for the development projects also pushed the Adivasis into Assam in search of livelihood, as there were many job opportunities in the tea gardens of Assam. Thus the Adivasis settled down in the state of Assam. Over a period of time, they also cleared the bushes and made cultivable land. However, these 'Adivasis were enjoying the Scheduled Tribe (ST) status during the British rules but when the Indian constitution was enacted, they were de-scheduled and considered as outsiders as then the Chief Minister of Assam opposed the scheduling of the Adivasis of Assam. Whereas, the same ethnic groups enjoy the status of Scheduled Tribe (ST), rights and privileges in their parental states i.e. Jharkhand, Chhatisgarh, Madhya Pradesh, Bengal and Orissa, they are denied the same in the state of Assam. The government merely recognizes them as either tea or ex-tea tribe and the people of Assam called them coolies, Bengali or labourers in a derogatory tone. This is a classic example of discrimination against Adivasis by the government. Conclusion: Indeed, the history of Assam suggests that the 'government was the problem not the solution for the Adivasis of Assam. State sponsored crimes against the Adivasis must come to an end. The Indian State has promised to right the historic wrongs through the Forest Rights Act 2006, and therefore the victims of Lungsung forest must be given relief and rehabilitation package along with entitlement to the land they have been cultivating for years. Countercurrents