“University teachers, experts, newspaper editors and members of the civil society are hereby requested to remain careful in avoiding the term “Adivasi” (Indigenous) at discussions and talk-shows on International Day of the World’s Indigenous People.” Does that sound undemocratic, repressive or near to impossible for an official release? The Press Information Department (PID) of Bangladesh issued this release (reference No 2704) on August 7, 2014 in Bangla claiming that by dint of the Fifteenth Amendment of the Constitution there are no “Adivasis” in Bangladesh “at present”-there are only tribes (upajati) and minor races (khudro nri-goshthi).
Yes! It is the Constitution of the People’s Republic of Bangladesh “at present” which uses the term “minor races” completely alien to the international human rights regime of the time. Why should we be surprised? This sheer denialism of existence and rights of the Advasis in the Chittagong Hill Tracts and in the planes has been an integral part of our national and constitutional history.
When Adivasi leaders approached for constitutional recognition after liberation it was outrightly rejected by Sheikh Mujibur Rahman. While Manabendra Narayan Larma pressed the demand for recognition as “Upajati” in the Constitutional Assembly, Sajeda Chowdhury retorted saying it is more respectful to be known as Bangalee – a “nation,” rather than retaining a “sub-national” or “tribal” identity.
As evident from the assembly debate none of the Bangalee leaders were least concerned with this derogatory remark. The English equivalent of the term “Upajati” is tribal. Considering the then international regime, ie ILO Convention 107 of 1957, the use of the term “tribal” by Manabendra Larma was just and appropriate. But his statement could not escape the derogatory meaning of sub-nationality attached to the term by South Asian societies placing the adherents to a remote phase of civilisation of which Sajeda Chowdhury’s remark is a perfect example.
Since ILO Convention 107 aimed at assimilation of tribes or indigenous people with the mainstream, it failed to accommodate diverse community identities. With this change, the international community had to close the ILO Convention 107 for ratification and replaced it with the revised version ILO Convention 169 in 1989. Contrary to ILO Convention 107, ILO Convention 169 considers tribal and indigenous people as permanent societies. Instead of assimilation integration based on recognition and encouragement of diversity is emphasised.
Under the Convention, indigenous people are those who are regarded as indigenous for their descent from a population who inhabited the country or a particular region of the country at the time of colonisation or the establishment of present state boundaries, and who, irrespective of their legal status retain some or all of their social, economic, cultural or political institutions. The indigenous peoples in planes and hill areas in Bangladesh squarely fall within these boxes for their ancestors inhabited certain areas prior to British colonisation and despite constitutional and legal denialism, they retain at least some of their social, economic, cultural or political institutions.
The message of this international paradigm shift was well received in framing local demands. However, in the meantime, a series of government sponsored Banglaee in-migration ousting the indigenous people from their ancestral land in the CHT was carried out by General Zia. The CHT was also highly militarised in the name of quelling a rebel movement by the Shanti Bahini, the armed wing of the Parbatya Chattagram Jana Sanghati Samiti founded by Manabendra Narayn Larma.
The armed forces carried on widespread arson, displacement, rape, confinement and killing of the indigenous people. The indigenous people in the planes were also subjected to displacement and assimilation by Bangalees. Consequently Bangladesh remained one of the 18 states as party to ILO Convention 107, instead of ratifying ILO Convention 169. Needless to say Bangladesh is the only country in South Asia which is not a party to the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of the Indigenous People, 2006 which enshrines provisions for indigenous peoples’ informed consent, self regulation, indigenous institution and prosecution for state officials violating indigenous rights.
For the widespread massacre in the CHT, inquiry has been made against only 196 officials so far out of them only 96 were punished. In 2011, The United Nations Permanent Forum on Indigenous Issues recommended that the military personnel engaged in human rights violation in the CHT should not be recruited to the UN Peace Keeping Mission. In response, the then foreign minister of Bangladesh said that there were no indigenous people in Bangladesh. The minister said that the people in the CHT has been recognised as “ethnic minorities” instead of “tribes” and since they already enjoy a legal entity under the Constitution, tagging them as indigenous people will harm “national identity, image and territorial integrity of Bangladesh.”
Article 27A of Bangladesh Constitution inserted by the Fifteenth Amendment requires the state to “preserve and protect” the local culture and tradition of the “tribes,” “minor races,” “ethnic sects and communities.” It also says in Article 6A that “The people of Bangladesh shall be known as Bangalees as a nation and the citizens of Bangladesh shall be known as Bangladeshis.”
Can we call this recognition? Do we see the term “ethnic minority” among any of the four quoted terms which our intelligentsia from both Awami and BNP blocks refer to with pride? Following the statement of the foreign minister the government removed the word “indigenous” from all the laws, policies, documents, etc. Even a circular was issued to the local administration in the three hill districts that no government official should deliver any speech on the World Indigenous Day or no sponsorship or support should be given. This year’s release is just an addition to the entire block of denialism.
Our Constitution recognises equality before law and human dignity as inherent right of every citizen. While this right was being ruthlessly snatched away what did the safeguard of our constitutional rights – the Supreme Court do? It quoted a para from an earlier judgment (Anwar Hossain Chowdhury v Bangladesh, 1989) saying: “As to the unitary character of the state it is clear that in view of the homogeneity of her people having same language, culture, tradition and way of life within a small territory the state has been so organised as a unitary state by its founding fathers leaving no scope for devolution of executive, legislative and judicial powers on different regions to turn into province ultimately.” Ironically the petitioner was a Chakma having different language, culture, tradition and way of life within a small territory (Bikram Kishore Chakma v Land Appeal Board, 2001).
When the constitutionality of the CHT Peace Accord, 1998 was challenged in Mohammad Badiuzzaman and others v Bangladesh and others (2010), it became impossible for the court to stress in homogeneity and it cited the same paragraph by omitting the remark as to homogeneity.
Now what do you call this? Chicanery, mockery or imposed homogeneity? All three branches of the government, ie, executive, legislative and judiciary have put their hands together for more than four decades in denying the existence and rights of indigenous peoples in Bangladesh. To voice with them are the partisan intelligentsia who would ask why Manabendra Narayan Larma himself used the term “tribe” or “upajati” or that CHT people call themselves “Paharis” and not “adivasis.” Therefore, there is no question as to self-identification. To all of we say aloud – Adivasis do exist in Bangladesh – they have the same share in this land, air and water as we have. Why do you have to choke our voice – the new National Broadcasting Policy or the earlier Contempt of Court Act?