Borendra Lal Tripura
Lecturer, AIUB
ADS & ALA Scholar
1. Prelude
Since the declaration of World Indigenous Decade by United Nations in 1993, the ethnic minority peoples of Bangladesh have been appealing to the government of Bangladesh and the majority Bengali community to recognize their identity as indigenous people. Though the progressive section of the majority Bengali community has positively responded to the appeal, the majority conservative section of the society is still hesitating to recognize it. In some cases, this section is rather fiercely opposing to the appeal of the disadvantaged ethnic minority peoples, which is evident from the reactions of some writers and actors such as Mohammed Zainal Abedin (2006), Mohammad Humayun Kabir (2006) and the television interviews of some government ministers in different times. They have used many irrational logics and information to reject the struggle and appeal of the minority peoples. Thus they have demonstrated their failure to realize the intrinsic message, meaning and spirit of the declaration of Decade of the World Indigenous People by the United Nations. The conservative position and views are dominant in the domain of public policy, which is revealed through the passive role and inaction of the government. Heclo (1972) said that “a policy may usefully be considered as a course of action or inaction rather than specific decisions or actions” (p.85). The course of inactions of Bangladesh government since the declaration of world indigenous decade in 1993 denotes the state policy clearly regarding the indigenous people of Bangladesh. It has been revealed more vividly through the television interviews of some government ministers and the abstention of Bangladesh from voting in adoption of United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples in the General Assembly of United Nations held on September 3, 2007, “which represent a genocidal refusal to face the facts” Cope and Kalantzis (1997, p.245).
In contrast to their opposition and unwillingness, the state recognition of the indigenous peoples would have far reaching positive impacts into the political harmony, social construction and nation building. Cope and Kalantzis (1997) in this regard, contended that the recognition of ‘identity and cultural differences’ is the “new basis for cohesive sociality, a new civility in which differences are used as productive resource and in which differences are celebrated. It is the basis for the post-nationalist sense of common purpose that is now essential to a peaceful and productive global order”(p.246). Bangladesh government, in this case, has taken an anachronistic stance, a stance for the interest of the majority people alone ignoring the urge and appeal of the minority people, which represents the nineteenth and twentieth century mentality “to pretend that there were no internal differences of any significance…indigenous peoples in the case…all were supposed to assimilate to the homogenous culture of the nation” (Cope and Kalantzis, 1997, p.245). Consequently, I intend to disseminate the spirit of the declaration of the United Nations here. In doing so, I would try to unpack the misconceptions of the conservative section of the society and would bring counter arguments in a view to reveal the true reality. In doing so, I would reinterpret and counter argue Zainal Abedin (2006) as a symbolic representation of the conservative section. At the same time, I will delineate and interpret the ground-lines of the true existence and identity of the indigenous peoples of Bangladesh. Moreover, I would bring forward a humanistic paradigm in presenting the quest and appeal to recognize the indigenous identity of the ethnic minority peoples of Bangladesh.
2. The Spirit and Message of the United Nations’ Declaration of the Decade of World Indigenous Peoples
In the prelude of the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples, it was clearly delineated that the declaration is adopted “Guided by the purposes and principles of the Charter of the United Nations”. This clearly implies the spirit and message of the ground for declaring the decade of the world indigenous peoples. Since 1950s it was noted and realized that the voice and cries of the ethnic minority peoples within nations and nation-state remained unheard to the world and their interests are usually neglected in state policy making and policy decision, which has been vividly expressed in the speech of General Assembly President Sheikha Haya Rashed Al Khalifa delivered in the Assembly House on UN on September 13, 2007 as she said, “indigenous peoples still face marginalization, extreme poverty and other human rights violations. They are often dragged into conflicts and land disputes that threaten their way of life and very survival; and, suffer from a lack of access to health care and education.”
So the need to establish a framework for protection of the ethnic minority peoples of the world was heartfelt by United Nations; in other words, by the combined conscience of the human races. This is the spirit and the intrinsic message of the Declaration of the Decade of World Indigenous Peoples. It can be easily synthesized that non-recognition of the indigenous peoples will only reveal the truth of marginalization and century long deprivation of the ethnic minority peoples, which reciprocally upholds the necessity of their recognition. The non-recognition also reveals the hegemonic intention and aptitude of the stronger community and government, which strongly implicates that there is no alternative than recognizing the indigenous people so as to protect them.
3. Definition, Interpretation and Misinterpretation of the Concept of “Indigenous People”
As it happens to all other disciplines and topics, the definition of the ‘indigenous people’ is also not universally accepted. As a result, we can find multiple definitions of the term and concept, but can any one deny the spirit and necessity of protecting the minority peoples, their language, culture, tradition and heritage, their rights to exist as distinct race(s) and flourish? Ideally the answer is ‘NO’, but practically ‘YES’ in some cases. How should we interpret the practitioners of ‘YES’ in this case? The only words that should interpret this kind of policy, practice and attitude are nothing but ‘hegemonic’, ‘coercive’, ‘repressive’ and ‘jingoist’.
I request Mohammed Zainal Abedin, the writer of “CHT tribes are not ‘Adivashis’ in Bangladesh” to see the following definition of ‘indigenous people’ or ‘adivasi’. It was very astonishing that he was looking for the meaning of ‘aborigine’ in dictionaries to prove that “CHT tribes are not ‘Adivashis’ in Bangladesh”. It can easily be inferred by any conscious reader that his purpose was not to research the truth. Otherwise he would not be relying on dictionaries to determine whether the people of Chittagong Hill Tracts (CHT) are indigenous people or not. People already know that some words are synchronized to some specific races, such as ‘aborigines’ to Australian natives, ‘Red Indian’ to American natives, ‘Maori’ to New Zealand natives, Eskimos to Alaskan native etc. So, if Zainal Abedin looks for the meaning of ‘aborigine’ and say that CHT people are not ‘indigenous people’, it will be irrational. Moreover, dictionary-meanings relevant to some particular ethnicities are firmly rooted to the colonial views of the early 17th century. What will Zainal say about the words like ‘savage’, ‘barbarian’ etc.? Dictionary makers have no views. They just present the existing meaning from the perspective of British Colonials, in this case. So, if Zainal refers to the dictionaries to prove that the native people of the particular land are ‘savage’ or ‘barbarian’, what can be more ironic and colonial than this?
However, I am citing the definition of ‘indigenous people’ as envisaged by the United Nations, ILO, World Bank and International Law:
The terms “indigenous peoples,” “indigenous ethnic minorities,” and “tribal groups” are used to describe social groups that share similar characteristics, namely a social and cultural identity that is distinct from dominant groups in society. United Nations human rights bodies, ILO, the World Bank and International Law apply four criteria to distinguish indigenous peoples:
(a)indigenous peoples usually live within (or maintain attachments to) geographically distinct ancestral territories; (b) they tend to maintain distinct social, economic, and political institutions within their territories; (c) they typically aspire to remain distinct culturally, geographically and institutionally rather than assimilate fully into national society; and (d) they self-identify as indigenous or tribal.
Despite common characteristics, there does not exist any single accepted definition of indigenous peoples that captures their diversity as peoples. Self-identification as indigenous or tribal is usually regarded as a fundamental criterion for determining whether groups are indigenous or tribal, sometimes in combination with other variables such as “language spoken,” and “geographic location or concentration.”
CHT people meet all the characteristics stated in the international conventions cited above to be identified as indigenous peoples.
4. The Conservative View, Historical Debate and Arguments for and against CHT People
As mentioned above, the conservative view is the dominant one in the discourse of recognizing or non-recognizing the indigenous peoples of Bangladesh. Many of the views are not only negative in this issue, but also coercive and hegemonic such as the ones mentioned earlier. As stated in the introduction, I am countering the view of Zainal Abedin (2006) as a symbolic representation of the conservative section. Zainal Abedin (2006) has taken a historical epistemological paradigm to hold his opinion, which was incomplete, erroneous and ambiguous. Historical approach is, by its nature, a paradoxical and confusing paradigm to discuss the rights of people, because we know what history is. History is the verses of winner and mightier. It is about the kings and queens, not about people. It is about the winner and not about the losers. So, history is about half truth and half lies. Thus it is not an acceptable approach at all in discussing the existence and rights of people. Moreover historical stance is a controversial and inadequate paradigm, which is very narrow and exclusive of modernism, internationalism and humanism and that is based on the doctrine of “might is right”, which does not show any respect to some great philosophy and idealism, e.g. fraternity, equality and liberty that human race realized through French Revolution. Historical stance is similar to living in the previous centuries and trying to solve the problem from the medieval point of view. If history could help, the Aborigines of Australia, the Red Indians of USA and the Maoris of New Zealand would rule the respective lands. Similarly, the Buddhists and Hindus would run Bangladesh, because it was ruled by the Hindu and Buddhist people in Maurya and Gupta Era before the Muslim invaded Bengal in the year 1204. Therefore, I would like to bring a modern, wide, international and humanistic perspective. However, I would like to unpack the ambiguity, paradoxes and irrationality of conservative views in the following sections of this paper.
It is apparent that Zainal Abedin’s perspective is very narrow as he has taken an ontological stance of Bengali Muslimhood within the framework of historical epistemology to view the issue, the identity of CHT people. He emphasized on the arrival and conquest of Muslims in Bengal in the year 1204. Subsequently, he raised the question, “Did Chakma or other tribes reach CHT before 1204?” I do not see any relation between the year of Muslim invasion to Bengal and the arrival of CHT people in CHT. He further tried to contend that ancient ‘Horical Region’ was a part of Bengal and CHT is that Horical Region. This is a revelation of his total ignorance about the history of CHT. CHT was never a part of ancient Bengal. It was incorporated in Bengal only in 1860 by the then British government. According to Brauns and Loffler (1990) “the Chittagong Hill Tracts (CHT) was first colonized, not by a kingdom or empire from the neighbouring plains, but by British imperialists” (p. 27). Willem van Schendel, Wolfgang Mey & Dewan (2001) stated, “In 1860 the British occupied it and made it a district of their colony of British India. It is they who named it 'Chittagong Hill tracts' ( Parbotyo Chottogram In Bengali) (p. 19). The same evidence is also found in Chakraborty (1977), Hutchinson (1978) and Devashish Roy (2002). Ishaq (1975), Serajuddin (1968) and Chakroborty (1977) stated that the British East India Company had converted the major chiefdoms and tribal confederacies of the region into British tributaries in 1787 through signing an agreement between the Chakma Raja Jan Bux Khan and the British Governor General, Lord Cornwallis after a decade-long guerrilla warfare. This region was named as Chittagong Hill Tracts in 1860, by the British Indian government ‘due to its proximity to’ Chittagong (Brauns and Loffler, 1990). Thus it was for the first ever time CHT was enjoined to the then Bengal. This historical evidence shows that the idea of some conservative writers such as Zainal Abedin (2006), Humayun Kabir (2006) and others is baseless and fabricated on the basis of their imagination. Zainal Abedin has further claimed that “All the Chakma kings showed their total allegiance to the Muslim rulers of Delhi………loyalty and allegiance to Muslim rulers……Rajas during the Muslim period were their subordinate.”
Subsequently, he argued that CHT people were subordinate to Bengal Shuvaders (Feudal Lords?). It does no way show the subordination of CHT people to then Bengal. It only shows his tendency of connecting himself with muslimhood, which is even irrelevant in discussing the historicity of CHT ethnicity. According to Zainal’s doctrine, then all sub-continental kingdoms must had been belonging to Bengal. The fact is- Bengal Shuvadars also went to express their allegiance to Delhi rulers similar to Chakma kings. He also claimed that CHT was not a ‘no man’s land’. So it must be a part of the ancient Bengal. What a funny logic! I would say, of course, it was never a ‘no man’s land’. It was always the land of CHT people. Even if some parts of the present CHT were to be belonging to any ancient country, it should be a part of Tripura Kingdom. Does Zainal Abedin have any idea about the physical, economic, human and cultural geography of CHT, especially the Khagrachari district? Every of the features of the region is similar to the then Tripura Kingdom. How can it be a part of another country, which is geographically, culturally, economically, linguistically and religiously different from it ignoring the country of similar people, similar culture? In this relation, I would also counter argue the claim of Sugata Chakma , who stated, “The Tripura state of today's India is the original home of the Bangladeshi Tripuras. Their ancestors migrated to CHT for secured life when their opponents rooted them out from Tripura. However, some of them entered CHT in search of food” (Sugata Chakma: Ibid: p. 57, cited in Zainal Abedin, 2006). This argument has presented a context which is totally unhistorical. He did not mention the time and reference. Moreover, there was no CHT before 1860; so how could the ‘ancestors’ of Tripura people come to CHT! Probably he wanted to say that Tripura people came to Chakma Kingdom. If this was the claim, I contend that this was not true, because the present boundary of Chakma circle (Rangamati Hill District and some parts of Dighinala Upojela of Khagrachari Hill District) was the border of ancient Chakma Kingdom. So coming of Tripura people to a territory (the present Khagrachari Hill District) outside Chakma Kingdom could no way be coming to Chakma Kingdom. So Tripura people only moved (if they really moved) from the present day Tripura State to its adjoining territory, which was neither a part of Chakma Kingdom nor a ‘No Man’s Land’. I only know that Tripura King, Dhorma Manikkya visited Dighinala, right outside Chakma Kingdom. He dug a big dighi (pond) there for the subjects living in the surrounding places. In addition, the adjoining regions such as Nowakhali, Chandpur, Comilla and parts of Chittagong District were territories of Tripura Kingdom. For historical evidence, any one can examine the documents of landownership of this region before 1947. Any one can also visit Comilla Town Hall, where the Picture and Scripture of Tripura King are still preserved as its founder. (See also Sandys, 1915 and Singho, 1897). Politically analyzing, in these circumstances, if Tripura kings were not stupid, present Khagrachari Hill District is supposed to be part of the then Tripura Kingdom. Not only this, the ancient map of Tripura Kingdom also covers the whole area of present Bangladesh unto Sundarban. Some Tripura villages still exist in Faridpur, Chandpur, Sylhet, Hobigonj, Comilla, and Chittagong district as a residue of ancient Tripura inhabitants. Historian Sandys (1915) stated that,
“The Tripura is the only ruling dynasty that has an era of its own. It dates from 590 AD, when Rajah Bira Raj Hamtorfa……extended his conquests beyond the Ganges” (Cited in Tripura, 2005, p.69).
The same evidence is also found in Singho (1897). This historical evidence implies that the border of Tripura Kingdom was spread unto the Ganges before 590 AD and it has been further extended beyond the Ganges by King Hamtorfa. It clearly proves that we are the true indigenous people of Bangladesh. So, Tripura people did not migrate to CHT or any part of present Bangladesh. We have been living in the same land; only the kings (rulers) and border have changed. So, on which ground, Zainal Abedin declares that “For Bangladesh they are settlers and we are ready to accept them as tribes, not as 'adivshais'?” Does it again remind us the notion of “might is right”? Nonetheless, he quoted Verghes (1996) as an attempt to claim that Bengali people are the ‘adivasi’ of CHT saying, “The CHT tribes migrated into the area between the 16th and 19th centuries with the Bengali settlements along the Chittagong coastal land” (p.374). Contrary to his claim, this historical information clearly shows the historical precedence of the settlement of CHT people in CHT. Though he does not understand, it says that Bengali people started living only in the coastal area of Chittagong within that period, whereas the CHT people started living in CHT (which was not a part of Bengal before 1860). Only very few Bengali people moved to CHT in mid 20th century, as the census of the year 1941 shows the 1.5% presence of Bengali people in CHT (Population Census 1941). So, who are the indigenous people of CHT?
I am quite surprised and hurt with his language, attitude and the intrinsic narrowness, where there is no room of generosity and sympathy for the decades-long suppressed CHT minority people, who are under the threat of extinction and struggling hardly for their survival and sustenance. I wonder why he is so much afraid and worried about the identity of CHT people as ‘adivasi’ or ‘indigenous people’! There is nothing to be scared for the Bengali people. The recognition of CHT people as ‘adivasi’ would not cost majority Bengali people anything. Neither would it force Bangladesh to separate CHT from its sovereignty. Neither did CHT people ever claim for it, though some Bengali people purposefully campaign the ‘five point demands of PCJSS’ as a movement of separation. Some of my university colleagues also asked me about it. As I answered to them, I am repeating it, five point-demands can never be a demand of separation; the demand of separation is always one point demand. The demand of CHT people is just a struggle for their survival and sustenance, which originated from the fear of extinction after the amendment of ‘Chittaging Hill Tracts Regulation Act, 1900’ about which Zainal Abedin seemed to be very satisfied and described the amendment as “nullified during Pakistan period”. Not only that, he recommends Bangladesh government for totally abolishing it along with the symbolic kingships, which he himself defined as ‘ornamental’. It discloses his extreme narrowness and coercive attitude and reveals his hegemonic aptitude, who is not even ready to allocate an ‘ornamental’ honor for CHT people.
4.1 Contradiction, confusion and ambiguity
Zainal Abedin’s view is very contradictory, ambiguous and confusing as he rejects the CHT Regulation Act, 1900 accusing that it was framed by ‘alien’ government’. As per this principles, then he should reject all the laws of Bangladesh, because all the judicial, civil and criminal laws including land reform and ownership (which is the greatest ever achievement of the commoners of the subcontinent that they never got from their native kings before) and education are based on the ‘alien’s frame’. Does he want to abolish all the frames? But contrary to his own notion, he possesses a high respect for the ‘alien’ Afghan rulers, who invaded Delhi. What can be more ambiguous than this?
He mentioned that the British Govt. did not initiate any development in CHT. Obviously he did not mention it to show sympathy to the CHT people or to advocate development for them. He did it as an excuse to ‘nullify’ the CHT regulation Act 1900.Though it is true that British Govt. did not do any significant development for CHT people except providing some administrative frames, establishing Chandraghuna Hospital and Rangamati Govt. High School, we were not unhappy about it, because the government did not mechanize or create any harm or problem for us. We lived happily and peacefully in our own independent way without any disruption of outsiders. They did not attempt any development activity to oust us from our homes, did not submerge our houses and properties under the water as did the Pakistani government in the name of development. So, we don not care about the so called development. Our identity, sustenance and existence, peace and autonomy are more important than the so called development.
Zainal Abedin claims that they lived here from ‘time immemorial’ and raised a hypothetical question, “if any foreigner, who may be the first comer, takes shelter in Sundarbans, or islands, will they become the ‘so called adivasi’ of Sundarbans?”
If I can add some variables in the case of Sundarbans to make it comparable to the situation of CHT, I would say ‘YES’ to his question. Let’s imagine that some ethnic races have been living in Sundarbans for many centuries with their own administrative system before any other people arrived there, the people of adjacent country had no access to it ever, neither did they have any relations with the people, the people never approved Sundarbans to be part of other country; but the people of the adjacent country became more powerful after many centuries and got hold of Sundarbans. Now they are saying that Sundarbans is a part of their country from time immemorial, they are the adivasi of Sundarbans, not the inhabitants. Is it not a terrific situation!!!! All people except him would certainly realize that the inhabitants of Sundarbans are the indigenous people of that place.
In the case of CHT, Zainal Abedin agreed, “Muslim did not capture the region from the tribals”. So, I guess they just claim themselves to be the owner of the territory without the consent and approval of the local people, who had their own kings and administrative system. It is a real case of the hypothetical Sundarbans-item. He also mentioned that Chakma king “even voluntarily inscribed the Arabic term ‘Allah-hu Rabbi’ in their coins”. On the basis of this inscription, he claimed that Chakmas are subordinate to them. What a childish and whimsical claim!!! If some king ‘voluntarily’ loves Islam religion in the medieval period during the peak time of Islamic expansion, how does it show that the kings are subordinate to Bengal? It is a common process that different religions of the human race expanded and shrinked in different historical periods. Many kings loved Islam and inscribed their coins with Arabic term ‘voluntarily’. It does not provide any evidence of their subordination to Bengal rulers.
Zainal Abedin used every bit of item and evidence as an effort to prove his narrow paradigm that CHT was a part of Bengal so that CHT people can not claim themselves as indigenous people of their territory. He argued that as Chakma language has close linguistic relationship with Bangla. So they might have been subjected to Bengal territory. On the same principle, does he want to include Assam into Bengal as well (because Asamese has closer linguistic ties with Bengali than Chakma language)? The truth is, in the medieval period, the feudal lords and kings used to prefer speaking in a language different from the commoners to impress them, to show that they are smarter and higher in status and superior in intelligence. Not only that many medieval kings of the world used to try to prove themselves as divine. You will be surprised to know that Bengali was used as the official language by many Tripura kings. That might be the case with Chakma. As they are very small minority, all of them became influenced by Bangla following the royal court and family.
5. The Rights to Identity and Representation- A Humanistic and International Paradigm
The world is becoming more and more enlightened and open because of the activities of United Nations and other international organizations; because of the technological development and rapid spread of information and knowledge; because of the internationalization of business and politics- in a word, for globalization. Bangladeshi people will not be opposite to the enlightened world. There are people who possess progressiveness and generosity, who value multiculturalism and diversity, respect and support the rights of minority, who believe in the most modern philosophy of human existence “unity in diversity” in Bangladesh, but this section is still minority within the majority Bengali community.
It has been a long practice in Bangladesh that they identify the ethnic minority peoples as ‘Upojati’ (tribes), which is totally unfamiliar and uncomfortable to the minority people. The words- ‘tribes’ or ‘upojati’- are derogatory and insulting words, which the ethnic minority people can not tolerate at all. Nonetheless, the majority people continue calling them ‘Upojati’, may be because they find distorted pleasure of repression in that. In contrast to the notion of the majority community, the minority peoples possess great pride and honor for themselves, which is true for all races. However, this is not a civilized notion to identify some community with some words, which they feel derogatory. This even does not fit with the notion of nation state, where every body is citizen with equal rights and status. We see that previously in the USA, the Afro-American people were called ‘Nigro’, but as they didn’t like it, they were called as ‘Black People’. Again as later they preferred not to be called as ‘Black’, but as ‘Afro-American’, people and government now identify them as ‘Afro-American’. What is the problem in showing respect to other people? I am deeply hurt when Zainal Abedin offers, “For Bangladesh they are settlers and we are ready to accept them as tribes, not as ‘adivasi’”. This is Zainal Abedin’s expression of extreme arrogance. How can a so-called educated person offer this kind of insulting proposal in the 21st century? This is the only thing he could offer to the ethnic minority people of CHT through out his paper. Apart from this he was all talking about abolishment. He could not even tolerate the very minimal allocation of the then British government for CHT people. He is also agonizing for the only gift of Bangladesh government to CHT people, the CHT Peace Accord, 1997 for what he advocated government to ‘void’. In a modern, 21st century Bangladesh, should we still bear the anachronistic mentality to stigmatize some community with such a humiliating identity? CHT people are in no means below any other community in dignity and status. It is the sole right of the CHT people how they prefer to be identified. It is not even government’s right to forcibly stigmatize some community with deprecating words which the pertinent community does not approve. Government is the guardian of all communities; it is not in power to please the majority people in the price of humiliation of the minorities. The 21st century government should no longer be the representative of the majority; it should be “a neutral arbiter of symbolic and cultural differences” (Cope and Kalantiz, 1997, p.246), who will represent the whole nation, not just the majority. Both the majority and minority people will spin around the ‘neutral arbiter’ with their own identity, language, culture and differences. And government must possess and recognize all.
We prefer to be identified as ‘adivasi’ (indigenous people) as it gives us a sense of attachment and affiliation to our land and culture. We also find assurance of sustenance and prosperity with this identity. It is now a global trend that ethnic minority people with some socio-cultural features are being identified as indigenous people. United Nations declared two decades dedicated to ‘indigenous people’ as an effort to protect the indigenous or tribal people. Is it not even the duty of Bangladeshi government and the majority Bengali people to save the ethnic minority peoples, to preserve their honor, their language, culture and distinct identity? Contrary to the responsible position, unfortunately, people like Zainal Abedin advocates abolishing the ‘ornamental’ designation of ‘Rajas’ accusing that Raja Devashish is taking advantage of the ‘portfolio’ in working home and abroad for CHT people. I wonder, what the problems are there if Raja works for CHT people!!! What is the problem if Raja works in home with government and the civil society for saving the dying CHT people from the suppression and coercion of jingoist people? UN is a body of nations (including Bangladeshis) - we should remember that it is United Nations, not United Countries. Now Bangladeshi nation includes the Bengali and other 45 small nationalities. If Bengali people can talk in UN, why can not the other communities? Is it because they are small? We know that some people do not want to allow other people talking in United Nations; they always want to ‘abolish’ others and prefer to uphold only themselves, which UN has fully realized and consequently formed a permanent forum for the minority people whose voice is not heard to the international communities. This is a symbol of humanist enlightenment of the international communities. Is it why Zainal Abedin is agonizing and seriously trying to abolish the designation of ‘Raja’? We should know that the world communities including Bengali communities are now more enlightened than the medieval period. Enlightened people no longer prefer to view the world and human race as segments. They view the world as a single ‘globe’ and the human races as the branches of a single tree, where the whole tree is affected if one branch is hurt or broken. Enlightened people feel it well how an incident in any part of the world moves and affects the world communities. If the globe is destroyed (e.g. for global warming, nuclear warfare, devastating natural calamities, e.g Tsunami and Cyclone Sidor.), all will be ‘abolished’ together. So, the only way is to learn- how to live peacefully and harmoniously, to respect each other, to prosper and help others prospering, to save oneself and others, to protect and preserve the knowledge of all big and small races; as every race have experience and knowledge; especially the knowledge of the so called ‘tribes’ are more sustaining and friendly for the sustenance of the world. That is why UN is trying to save all human races with especial attention to the ethnic minorities recognizing them as ‘indigenous people’. This is a message and spirit released from the combined conscience of the nations. Debating to prove some ethnicities as ‘tribes’ ‘not indigenous people’ is nothing but denying, as well as abolishing the spirit and inner message of united nations’ conscience to save all human races. As ethnic minority peoples are powerless and not usually in authoritative positions, UN has initiated some package deals for them. Now, what is the problem of the so called superior people -‘nations’ or ‘non tribes’- if the ethnic minority people receive some help from the international conscience? Please be generous and kind; support multiculturalism and diversity; help all the ethnic minority people to survive and prosper with their own distinct identity and culture. You will have no problem for giving some space to the little brothers, the CHT people and other minority peoples. If you, majority people support the charter of Universal Human Rights, ILO Convention, Universal Declaration of Human Rights and other international conventions in front of the international communities and if you decline the rights at home for the minority people, where is your humanity, generosity and enlightenment? If you always keep finding ways to say that the ethnic minority peoples at home are ‘tribes’ not ‘adivasis’; you will only fail to realize the spirit of the international enlightenment and conscience. The majority people may keep us deprived forever or even can eliminate us from Bangladesh devising different mechanisms, but one thing is obvious that you have to appeal to the international enlightenment over again for yourselves. How those people who reject the rights of weak people at home could appeal to the international humanity for themselves? Should the truth not be revealed to the enlightened and should the truth not feed them the same? As this is the omni transcendental doctrine of the universe, you can no way skip it out. This idea is the nucleus of all religions, laws and historical experiences of human being. How do you hope to skip it?
6. Addressing the Diversity and Its Impacts
Ethnic and cultural homogeneity is a myth, not reality, which has been long practiced in the nation state system which cost the ethnic minority peoples around the world. Because of the assimilationist view of majority people, a hegemonic approach had long been adopted in ruling the state in many countries. But the world-view has changed and/or been changing because of the spread of technology, international trade, immigration and people’s mobility, opening of global job market and globalization, most of all, for more liberal view of the diversity of language, culture, society and ethnicity. Through the historical process of experiences, people have now wider understanding that every large and small nation possesses the value of their own language, knowledge, culture and identity, which they strive to carry, nurture and flourish. There is no harm to support them in nurturing their values and identity; the harm is in restricting and hindering them, which in many cases sparked into violent protests, struggles, movements and conflicts that cost the nation so much. If we take the example of CHT, how much did it cost the nation in the last two decades? What could we buy with the same cost? Do we want to keep spending to restrict and obstacle them or do we consider it wise to spend the same costs to support them in achieving their goals of preserving and flourishing their rights to identity, language, culture and values to integrate them with the mainstream society. We should, in this regard, remember that the old and outdated assimilationist view should carefully be avoided. Rather a modern and liberal approach of integration should be taken within the philosophy ‘unity in diversity’. In the same vein, the then prime minister of Australia, Paul Keating called for the nation in 1992 to adopt ‘productive diversity’ in terms of cultural and linguistic pluralism as it is beneficial resources in business, trade and tourism. Cope and Kalantzis (1997) argue that “the concepts of Productive Diversity are based on the negotiation of differences, valuing differences and cross-cultural negotiation.” (p. 128). They have further explained, “Pluralism as a principle of social order represents a new ethos of citizenship, from the micropolitics of team membership, to corporate citizenship, to citizenship of multicultural nation, to global citizenship” (p.185). It is human nature that they will fight for the recognition of their identity and culture, for accessing resource and prosperity. So, government must deal the issue of diversity positively with a sense of civility, humanity, modernity and in the light of international enlightenment, not with ‘old style nationalism’. Otherwise the perennial struggle will find its own natural way which may be “both disastrous possibilities and the positive possibility of constructing a new, pluralist society” (Cope and Kalantzis (1997, p.244). It is government’s responsibility to divert it into ‘positive possibilities’.
7. Conclusion
In conclusion, I clearly call for the government and the conservative section of the society to pay heed to the voice of the international conscience and enlightenment; support, stabilize and foster all big and small communities of the planet with appropriate recognition of their identity and distinctive culture. We must approach the post World War II and Post Cold-war perspectives in discussing peoples’ rights, dignity and status. All the great idealisms and concepts came up after World War II are combinedly formulated and accepted by almost all nations together, not by a sole nation (though minority representation were absent for many years). So, we have to view the most recent international notions, where the pertinent stakeholders are to be consulted before adopting any declarations and policy. In line with Cope and Kalantiz (1997), I also believe that adopting ‘civic pluralism’ and “negotiating diversity is now the only way to produce social cohesion; that a pluralistic citizenship is the most effective way of holding things together; and that an outward-looking, internationalist approach to the world is the only way to maintain the national interest” (p.262). I would, therefore, advocate to writers and researchers to abandon all the colonial, primitive and localized views, which were based on the principles of ‘might is right’, ‘kings are divine’ ‘kings are untouchable by laws’ ‘kings word is law’ and where all the rights, policies, status and meanings are forcibly imposed on the weak by the strong; rather adopt more international, broader, modern, humanist and enlightened notions, which will ensure peace, harmony, equality, liberty, dignity for all, as well as which will bind all the human races with ‘fraternity’. We must take a note on the changing view of the modern world, which is striving for a more humanism and humanistic approach, which is looking forward safeguarding and helping all big and small races. So, forget about dictionary meanings and localized history, rather look into the UN Charters, EU Charters, International conventions etc. Forget about the medieval history, and embrace modern Bangladesh. Let’s all discuss how we want to build up our motherland with all modern, civilized and humanist thoughts on the basis of the consultation to all big and small ethnic races, to ensure every one’s peace, prosperity and dignity. We must forget the so called history that was designed and architectured by the narrow, primitive, jingoist, repressive, autocratic and war-monger people, for the sake of greater benefits and wellbeing of mankind, for the sake of new design and architecture. We should remember the warning of Cope and Kalantiz (1997) as they state, “From London to Los Angeles, and even from Athens to Tokyo, cultural and linguistic diversity is increasingly a feature of the peoples who populate the streets, the schools and businesses. Those nations that are able to adapt and facilitate these differences are the ones that will go forward without blood on the street…Traditional notions of nation that construct national homogeneity by suppressing varieties of language and custom are no longer relevant” (p.262) in this century onward.
8. Bibliography
Brauns, C.D. and Loffler, L.G. (1990), Mru: Hill People the Border of Bangladesh.
Birkhauser Verlag, Basel, Boston, Berlin.
Chakroborty, R. L. (1977), Chakma Resistance to early British Rule. In Bangladesh Historical Studies: Journal of the Bangladesh Itihaas Samiti., Vol. II, pp. 133-156.
Cope, B. & Kalantzis, M. (1997), Productive Diversity. NSW: Pluto Press Australia Limited.
Heclo, H. (1972), Review Article: Policy Analysis. In British Journal of Political Science, Vol. 2, No. 1, pp. 83-108.
Humayun Kabir, Mohammad (2006),
Hutchinson, R. H. S. (1978), The Chittagong Hill Tract, Vivek Publishing House, Delhi.
ILO Convention, 1959
Ishaq, Muhammed (1975), Bangladesh District Gazetteers: Chittagong Hill Tracts, Ministry of Cabinet Affairs, Dhaka.
Singho, K. C. (1897), Tripurar Itihas (The History of Tripura), Agartola: Rajmala Prakashan.
Roy, Raja Devashish (2002), Indigenous Rights in Bangladesh: Land Rights and Self-Government in the Chittagong Hill Tracts
Sandys, E.F. (1915), History of Tripura. Agortola, India.
Serajuddin, A. M. (1968), The Rajas of the Chittagong Hill Tracts and their Relations with the Mughals and the East India Company in the Eighteenth Century. In Journal of the Asiatic Society of Pakistan, Vol. 8, No. 2.
Tripura, Provangshu (2005), Khagrachari Jelar Itihas (The History of Khagrachari District). Chittagong: Published by the Writer
United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples, 2007
UNDP and Indigenous Peoples: A Practice Note on Engagement
Willem van Schendel, Wolfgang Mey & Aditya Kumar Dewan (2001), "The Chittagong Hill Tracts Living in a Borderland" The University Press Limited, Dhaka.
Zainal Abedin, M. (2006), CHT tribes are not 'Adivashis' in Bangladesh in Thomas Pine’s Corner (Online Journal). Accessed on August 10, 2007
Lecturer, AIUB
ADS & ALA Scholar
1. Prelude
Since the declaration of World Indigenous Decade by United Nations in 1993, the ethnic minority peoples of Bangladesh have been appealing to the government of Bangladesh and the majority Bengali community to recognize their identity as indigenous people. Though the progressive section of the majority Bengali community has positively responded to the appeal, the majority conservative section of the society is still hesitating to recognize it. In some cases, this section is rather fiercely opposing to the appeal of the disadvantaged ethnic minority peoples, which is evident from the reactions of some writers and actors such as Mohammed Zainal Abedin (2006), Mohammad Humayun Kabir (2006) and the television interviews of some government ministers in different times. They have used many irrational logics and information to reject the struggle and appeal of the minority peoples. Thus they have demonstrated their failure to realize the intrinsic message, meaning and spirit of the declaration of Decade of the World Indigenous People by the United Nations. The conservative position and views are dominant in the domain of public policy, which is revealed through the passive role and inaction of the government. Heclo (1972) said that “a policy may usefully be considered as a course of action or inaction rather than specific decisions or actions” (p.85). The course of inactions of Bangladesh government since the declaration of world indigenous decade in 1993 denotes the state policy clearly regarding the indigenous people of Bangladesh. It has been revealed more vividly through the television interviews of some government ministers and the abstention of Bangladesh from voting in adoption of United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples in the General Assembly of United Nations held on September 3, 2007, “which represent a genocidal refusal to face the facts” Cope and Kalantzis (1997, p.245).
In contrast to their opposition and unwillingness, the state recognition of the indigenous peoples would have far reaching positive impacts into the political harmony, social construction and nation building. Cope and Kalantzis (1997) in this regard, contended that the recognition of ‘identity and cultural differences’ is the “new basis for cohesive sociality, a new civility in which differences are used as productive resource and in which differences are celebrated. It is the basis for the post-nationalist sense of common purpose that is now essential to a peaceful and productive global order”(p.246). Bangladesh government, in this case, has taken an anachronistic stance, a stance for the interest of the majority people alone ignoring the urge and appeal of the minority people, which represents the nineteenth and twentieth century mentality “to pretend that there were no internal differences of any significance…indigenous peoples in the case…all were supposed to assimilate to the homogenous culture of the nation” (Cope and Kalantzis, 1997, p.245). Consequently, I intend to disseminate the spirit of the declaration of the United Nations here. In doing so, I would try to unpack the misconceptions of the conservative section of the society and would bring counter arguments in a view to reveal the true reality. In doing so, I would reinterpret and counter argue Zainal Abedin (2006) as a symbolic representation of the conservative section. At the same time, I will delineate and interpret the ground-lines of the true existence and identity of the indigenous peoples of Bangladesh. Moreover, I would bring forward a humanistic paradigm in presenting the quest and appeal to recognize the indigenous identity of the ethnic minority peoples of Bangladesh.
2. The Spirit and Message of the United Nations’ Declaration of the Decade of World Indigenous Peoples
In the prelude of the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples, it was clearly delineated that the declaration is adopted “Guided by the purposes and principles of the Charter of the United Nations”. This clearly implies the spirit and message of the ground for declaring the decade of the world indigenous peoples. Since 1950s it was noted and realized that the voice and cries of the ethnic minority peoples within nations and nation-state remained unheard to the world and their interests are usually neglected in state policy making and policy decision, which has been vividly expressed in the speech of General Assembly President Sheikha Haya Rashed Al Khalifa delivered in the Assembly House on UN on September 13, 2007 as she said, “indigenous peoples still face marginalization, extreme poverty and other human rights violations. They are often dragged into conflicts and land disputes that threaten their way of life and very survival; and, suffer from a lack of access to health care and education.”
So the need to establish a framework for protection of the ethnic minority peoples of the world was heartfelt by United Nations; in other words, by the combined conscience of the human races. This is the spirit and the intrinsic message of the Declaration of the Decade of World Indigenous Peoples. It can be easily synthesized that non-recognition of the indigenous peoples will only reveal the truth of marginalization and century long deprivation of the ethnic minority peoples, which reciprocally upholds the necessity of their recognition. The non-recognition also reveals the hegemonic intention and aptitude of the stronger community and government, which strongly implicates that there is no alternative than recognizing the indigenous people so as to protect them.
3. Definition, Interpretation and Misinterpretation of the Concept of “Indigenous People”
As it happens to all other disciplines and topics, the definition of the ‘indigenous people’ is also not universally accepted. As a result, we can find multiple definitions of the term and concept, but can any one deny the spirit and necessity of protecting the minority peoples, their language, culture, tradition and heritage, their rights to exist as distinct race(s) and flourish? Ideally the answer is ‘NO’, but practically ‘YES’ in some cases. How should we interpret the practitioners of ‘YES’ in this case? The only words that should interpret this kind of policy, practice and attitude are nothing but ‘hegemonic’, ‘coercive’, ‘repressive’ and ‘jingoist’.
I request Mohammed Zainal Abedin, the writer of “CHT tribes are not ‘Adivashis’ in Bangladesh” to see the following definition of ‘indigenous people’ or ‘adivasi’. It was very astonishing that he was looking for the meaning of ‘aborigine’ in dictionaries to prove that “CHT tribes are not ‘Adivashis’ in Bangladesh”. It can easily be inferred by any conscious reader that his purpose was not to research the truth. Otherwise he would not be relying on dictionaries to determine whether the people of Chittagong Hill Tracts (CHT) are indigenous people or not. People already know that some words are synchronized to some specific races, such as ‘aborigines’ to Australian natives, ‘Red Indian’ to American natives, ‘Maori’ to New Zealand natives, Eskimos to Alaskan native etc. So, if Zainal Abedin looks for the meaning of ‘aborigine’ and say that CHT people are not ‘indigenous people’, it will be irrational. Moreover, dictionary-meanings relevant to some particular ethnicities are firmly rooted to the colonial views of the early 17th century. What will Zainal say about the words like ‘savage’, ‘barbarian’ etc.? Dictionary makers have no views. They just present the existing meaning from the perspective of British Colonials, in this case. So, if Zainal refers to the dictionaries to prove that the native people of the particular land are ‘savage’ or ‘barbarian’, what can be more ironic and colonial than this?
However, I am citing the definition of ‘indigenous people’ as envisaged by the United Nations, ILO, World Bank and International Law:
The terms “indigenous peoples,” “indigenous ethnic minorities,” and “tribal groups” are used to describe social groups that share similar characteristics, namely a social and cultural identity that is distinct from dominant groups in society. United Nations human rights bodies, ILO, the World Bank and International Law apply four criteria to distinguish indigenous peoples:
(a)indigenous peoples usually live within (or maintain attachments to) geographically distinct ancestral territories; (b) they tend to maintain distinct social, economic, and political institutions within their territories; (c) they typically aspire to remain distinct culturally, geographically and institutionally rather than assimilate fully into national society; and (d) they self-identify as indigenous or tribal.
Despite common characteristics, there does not exist any single accepted definition of indigenous peoples that captures their diversity as peoples. Self-identification as indigenous or tribal is usually regarded as a fundamental criterion for determining whether groups are indigenous or tribal, sometimes in combination with other variables such as “language spoken,” and “geographic location or concentration.”
CHT people meet all the characteristics stated in the international conventions cited above to be identified as indigenous peoples.
4. The Conservative View, Historical Debate and Arguments for and against CHT People
As mentioned above, the conservative view is the dominant one in the discourse of recognizing or non-recognizing the indigenous peoples of Bangladesh. Many of the views are not only negative in this issue, but also coercive and hegemonic such as the ones mentioned earlier. As stated in the introduction, I am countering the view of Zainal Abedin (2006) as a symbolic representation of the conservative section. Zainal Abedin (2006) has taken a historical epistemological paradigm to hold his opinion, which was incomplete, erroneous and ambiguous. Historical approach is, by its nature, a paradoxical and confusing paradigm to discuss the rights of people, because we know what history is. History is the verses of winner and mightier. It is about the kings and queens, not about people. It is about the winner and not about the losers. So, history is about half truth and half lies. Thus it is not an acceptable approach at all in discussing the existence and rights of people. Moreover historical stance is a controversial and inadequate paradigm, which is very narrow and exclusive of modernism, internationalism and humanism and that is based on the doctrine of “might is right”, which does not show any respect to some great philosophy and idealism, e.g. fraternity, equality and liberty that human race realized through French Revolution. Historical stance is similar to living in the previous centuries and trying to solve the problem from the medieval point of view. If history could help, the Aborigines of Australia, the Red Indians of USA and the Maoris of New Zealand would rule the respective lands. Similarly, the Buddhists and Hindus would run Bangladesh, because it was ruled by the Hindu and Buddhist people in Maurya and Gupta Era before the Muslim invaded Bengal in the year 1204. Therefore, I would like to bring a modern, wide, international and humanistic perspective. However, I would like to unpack the ambiguity, paradoxes and irrationality of conservative views in the following sections of this paper.
It is apparent that Zainal Abedin’s perspective is very narrow as he has taken an ontological stance of Bengali Muslimhood within the framework of historical epistemology to view the issue, the identity of CHT people. He emphasized on the arrival and conquest of Muslims in Bengal in the year 1204. Subsequently, he raised the question, “Did Chakma or other tribes reach CHT before 1204?” I do not see any relation between the year of Muslim invasion to Bengal and the arrival of CHT people in CHT. He further tried to contend that ancient ‘Horical Region’ was a part of Bengal and CHT is that Horical Region. This is a revelation of his total ignorance about the history of CHT. CHT was never a part of ancient Bengal. It was incorporated in Bengal only in 1860 by the then British government. According to Brauns and Loffler (1990) “the Chittagong Hill Tracts (CHT) was first colonized, not by a kingdom or empire from the neighbouring plains, but by British imperialists” (p. 27). Willem van Schendel, Wolfgang Mey & Dewan (2001) stated, “In 1860 the British occupied it and made it a district of their colony of British India. It is they who named it 'Chittagong Hill tracts' ( Parbotyo Chottogram In Bengali) (p. 19). The same evidence is also found in Chakraborty (1977), Hutchinson (1978) and Devashish Roy (2002). Ishaq (1975), Serajuddin (1968) and Chakroborty (1977) stated that the British East India Company had converted the major chiefdoms and tribal confederacies of the region into British tributaries in 1787 through signing an agreement between the Chakma Raja Jan Bux Khan and the British Governor General, Lord Cornwallis after a decade-long guerrilla warfare. This region was named as Chittagong Hill Tracts in 1860, by the British Indian government ‘due to its proximity to’ Chittagong (Brauns and Loffler, 1990). Thus it was for the first ever time CHT was enjoined to the then Bengal. This historical evidence shows that the idea of some conservative writers such as Zainal Abedin (2006), Humayun Kabir (2006) and others is baseless and fabricated on the basis of their imagination. Zainal Abedin has further claimed that “All the Chakma kings showed their total allegiance to the Muslim rulers of Delhi………loyalty and allegiance to Muslim rulers……Rajas during the Muslim period were their subordinate.”
Subsequently, he argued that CHT people were subordinate to Bengal Shuvaders (Feudal Lords?). It does no way show the subordination of CHT people to then Bengal. It only shows his tendency of connecting himself with muslimhood, which is even irrelevant in discussing the historicity of CHT ethnicity. According to Zainal’s doctrine, then all sub-continental kingdoms must had been belonging to Bengal. The fact is- Bengal Shuvadars also went to express their allegiance to Delhi rulers similar to Chakma kings. He also claimed that CHT was not a ‘no man’s land’. So it must be a part of the ancient Bengal. What a funny logic! I would say, of course, it was never a ‘no man’s land’. It was always the land of CHT people. Even if some parts of the present CHT were to be belonging to any ancient country, it should be a part of Tripura Kingdom. Does Zainal Abedin have any idea about the physical, economic, human and cultural geography of CHT, especially the Khagrachari district? Every of the features of the region is similar to the then Tripura Kingdom. How can it be a part of another country, which is geographically, culturally, economically, linguistically and religiously different from it ignoring the country of similar people, similar culture? In this relation, I would also counter argue the claim of Sugata Chakma , who stated, “The Tripura state of today's India is the original home of the Bangladeshi Tripuras. Their ancestors migrated to CHT for secured life when their opponents rooted them out from Tripura. However, some of them entered CHT in search of food” (Sugata Chakma: Ibid: p. 57, cited in Zainal Abedin, 2006). This argument has presented a context which is totally unhistorical. He did not mention the time and reference. Moreover, there was no CHT before 1860; so how could the ‘ancestors’ of Tripura people come to CHT! Probably he wanted to say that Tripura people came to Chakma Kingdom. If this was the claim, I contend that this was not true, because the present boundary of Chakma circle (Rangamati Hill District and some parts of Dighinala Upojela of Khagrachari Hill District) was the border of ancient Chakma Kingdom. So coming of Tripura people to a territory (the present Khagrachari Hill District) outside Chakma Kingdom could no way be coming to Chakma Kingdom. So Tripura people only moved (if they really moved) from the present day Tripura State to its adjoining territory, which was neither a part of Chakma Kingdom nor a ‘No Man’s Land’. I only know that Tripura King, Dhorma Manikkya visited Dighinala, right outside Chakma Kingdom. He dug a big dighi (pond) there for the subjects living in the surrounding places. In addition, the adjoining regions such as Nowakhali, Chandpur, Comilla and parts of Chittagong District were territories of Tripura Kingdom. For historical evidence, any one can examine the documents of landownership of this region before 1947. Any one can also visit Comilla Town Hall, where the Picture and Scripture of Tripura King are still preserved as its founder. (See also Sandys, 1915 and Singho, 1897). Politically analyzing, in these circumstances, if Tripura kings were not stupid, present Khagrachari Hill District is supposed to be part of the then Tripura Kingdom. Not only this, the ancient map of Tripura Kingdom also covers the whole area of present Bangladesh unto Sundarban. Some Tripura villages still exist in Faridpur, Chandpur, Sylhet, Hobigonj, Comilla, and Chittagong district as a residue of ancient Tripura inhabitants. Historian Sandys (1915) stated that,
“The Tripura is the only ruling dynasty that has an era of its own. It dates from 590 AD, when Rajah Bira Raj Hamtorfa……extended his conquests beyond the Ganges” (Cited in Tripura, 2005, p.69).
The same evidence is also found in Singho (1897). This historical evidence implies that the border of Tripura Kingdom was spread unto the Ganges before 590 AD and it has been further extended beyond the Ganges by King Hamtorfa. It clearly proves that we are the true indigenous people of Bangladesh. So, Tripura people did not migrate to CHT or any part of present Bangladesh. We have been living in the same land; only the kings (rulers) and border have changed. So, on which ground, Zainal Abedin declares that “For Bangladesh they are settlers and we are ready to accept them as tribes, not as 'adivshais'?” Does it again remind us the notion of “might is right”? Nonetheless, he quoted Verghes (1996) as an attempt to claim that Bengali people are the ‘adivasi’ of CHT saying, “The CHT tribes migrated into the area between the 16th and 19th centuries with the Bengali settlements along the Chittagong coastal land” (p.374). Contrary to his claim, this historical information clearly shows the historical precedence of the settlement of CHT people in CHT. Though he does not understand, it says that Bengali people started living only in the coastal area of Chittagong within that period, whereas the CHT people started living in CHT (which was not a part of Bengal before 1860). Only very few Bengali people moved to CHT in mid 20th century, as the census of the year 1941 shows the 1.5% presence of Bengali people in CHT (Population Census 1941). So, who are the indigenous people of CHT?
I am quite surprised and hurt with his language, attitude and the intrinsic narrowness, where there is no room of generosity and sympathy for the decades-long suppressed CHT minority people, who are under the threat of extinction and struggling hardly for their survival and sustenance. I wonder why he is so much afraid and worried about the identity of CHT people as ‘adivasi’ or ‘indigenous people’! There is nothing to be scared for the Bengali people. The recognition of CHT people as ‘adivasi’ would not cost majority Bengali people anything. Neither would it force Bangladesh to separate CHT from its sovereignty. Neither did CHT people ever claim for it, though some Bengali people purposefully campaign the ‘five point demands of PCJSS’ as a movement of separation. Some of my university colleagues also asked me about it. As I answered to them, I am repeating it, five point-demands can never be a demand of separation; the demand of separation is always one point demand. The demand of CHT people is just a struggle for their survival and sustenance, which originated from the fear of extinction after the amendment of ‘Chittaging Hill Tracts Regulation Act, 1900’ about which Zainal Abedin seemed to be very satisfied and described the amendment as “nullified during Pakistan period”. Not only that, he recommends Bangladesh government for totally abolishing it along with the symbolic kingships, which he himself defined as ‘ornamental’. It discloses his extreme narrowness and coercive attitude and reveals his hegemonic aptitude, who is not even ready to allocate an ‘ornamental’ honor for CHT people.
4.1 Contradiction, confusion and ambiguity
Zainal Abedin’s view is very contradictory, ambiguous and confusing as he rejects the CHT Regulation Act, 1900 accusing that it was framed by ‘alien’ government’. As per this principles, then he should reject all the laws of Bangladesh, because all the judicial, civil and criminal laws including land reform and ownership (which is the greatest ever achievement of the commoners of the subcontinent that they never got from their native kings before) and education are based on the ‘alien’s frame’. Does he want to abolish all the frames? But contrary to his own notion, he possesses a high respect for the ‘alien’ Afghan rulers, who invaded Delhi. What can be more ambiguous than this?
He mentioned that the British Govt. did not initiate any development in CHT. Obviously he did not mention it to show sympathy to the CHT people or to advocate development for them. He did it as an excuse to ‘nullify’ the CHT regulation Act 1900.Though it is true that British Govt. did not do any significant development for CHT people except providing some administrative frames, establishing Chandraghuna Hospital and Rangamati Govt. High School, we were not unhappy about it, because the government did not mechanize or create any harm or problem for us. We lived happily and peacefully in our own independent way without any disruption of outsiders. They did not attempt any development activity to oust us from our homes, did not submerge our houses and properties under the water as did the Pakistani government in the name of development. So, we don not care about the so called development. Our identity, sustenance and existence, peace and autonomy are more important than the so called development.
Zainal Abedin claims that they lived here from ‘time immemorial’ and raised a hypothetical question, “if any foreigner, who may be the first comer, takes shelter in Sundarbans, or islands, will they become the ‘so called adivasi’ of Sundarbans?”
If I can add some variables in the case of Sundarbans to make it comparable to the situation of CHT, I would say ‘YES’ to his question. Let’s imagine that some ethnic races have been living in Sundarbans for many centuries with their own administrative system before any other people arrived there, the people of adjacent country had no access to it ever, neither did they have any relations with the people, the people never approved Sundarbans to be part of other country; but the people of the adjacent country became more powerful after many centuries and got hold of Sundarbans. Now they are saying that Sundarbans is a part of their country from time immemorial, they are the adivasi of Sundarbans, not the inhabitants. Is it not a terrific situation!!!! All people except him would certainly realize that the inhabitants of Sundarbans are the indigenous people of that place.
In the case of CHT, Zainal Abedin agreed, “Muslim did not capture the region from the tribals”. So, I guess they just claim themselves to be the owner of the territory without the consent and approval of the local people, who had their own kings and administrative system. It is a real case of the hypothetical Sundarbans-item. He also mentioned that Chakma king “even voluntarily inscribed the Arabic term ‘Allah-hu Rabbi’ in their coins”. On the basis of this inscription, he claimed that Chakmas are subordinate to them. What a childish and whimsical claim!!! If some king ‘voluntarily’ loves Islam religion in the medieval period during the peak time of Islamic expansion, how does it show that the kings are subordinate to Bengal? It is a common process that different religions of the human race expanded and shrinked in different historical periods. Many kings loved Islam and inscribed their coins with Arabic term ‘voluntarily’. It does not provide any evidence of their subordination to Bengal rulers.
Zainal Abedin used every bit of item and evidence as an effort to prove his narrow paradigm that CHT was a part of Bengal so that CHT people can not claim themselves as indigenous people of their territory. He argued that as Chakma language has close linguistic relationship with Bangla. So they might have been subjected to Bengal territory. On the same principle, does he want to include Assam into Bengal as well (because Asamese has closer linguistic ties with Bengali than Chakma language)? The truth is, in the medieval period, the feudal lords and kings used to prefer speaking in a language different from the commoners to impress them, to show that they are smarter and higher in status and superior in intelligence. Not only that many medieval kings of the world used to try to prove themselves as divine. You will be surprised to know that Bengali was used as the official language by many Tripura kings. That might be the case with Chakma. As they are very small minority, all of them became influenced by Bangla following the royal court and family.
5. The Rights to Identity and Representation- A Humanistic and International Paradigm
The world is becoming more and more enlightened and open because of the activities of United Nations and other international organizations; because of the technological development and rapid spread of information and knowledge; because of the internationalization of business and politics- in a word, for globalization. Bangladeshi people will not be opposite to the enlightened world. There are people who possess progressiveness and generosity, who value multiculturalism and diversity, respect and support the rights of minority, who believe in the most modern philosophy of human existence “unity in diversity” in Bangladesh, but this section is still minority within the majority Bengali community.
It has been a long practice in Bangladesh that they identify the ethnic minority peoples as ‘Upojati’ (tribes), which is totally unfamiliar and uncomfortable to the minority people. The words- ‘tribes’ or ‘upojati’- are derogatory and insulting words, which the ethnic minority people can not tolerate at all. Nonetheless, the majority people continue calling them ‘Upojati’, may be because they find distorted pleasure of repression in that. In contrast to the notion of the majority community, the minority peoples possess great pride and honor for themselves, which is true for all races. However, this is not a civilized notion to identify some community with some words, which they feel derogatory. This even does not fit with the notion of nation state, where every body is citizen with equal rights and status. We see that previously in the USA, the Afro-American people were called ‘Nigro’, but as they didn’t like it, they were called as ‘Black People’. Again as later they preferred not to be called as ‘Black’, but as ‘Afro-American’, people and government now identify them as ‘Afro-American’. What is the problem in showing respect to other people? I am deeply hurt when Zainal Abedin offers, “For Bangladesh they are settlers and we are ready to accept them as tribes, not as ‘adivasi’”. This is Zainal Abedin’s expression of extreme arrogance. How can a so-called educated person offer this kind of insulting proposal in the 21st century? This is the only thing he could offer to the ethnic minority people of CHT through out his paper. Apart from this he was all talking about abolishment. He could not even tolerate the very minimal allocation of the then British government for CHT people. He is also agonizing for the only gift of Bangladesh government to CHT people, the CHT Peace Accord, 1997 for what he advocated government to ‘void’. In a modern, 21st century Bangladesh, should we still bear the anachronistic mentality to stigmatize some community with such a humiliating identity? CHT people are in no means below any other community in dignity and status. It is the sole right of the CHT people how they prefer to be identified. It is not even government’s right to forcibly stigmatize some community with deprecating words which the pertinent community does not approve. Government is the guardian of all communities; it is not in power to please the majority people in the price of humiliation of the minorities. The 21st century government should no longer be the representative of the majority; it should be “a neutral arbiter of symbolic and cultural differences” (Cope and Kalantiz, 1997, p.246), who will represent the whole nation, not just the majority. Both the majority and minority people will spin around the ‘neutral arbiter’ with their own identity, language, culture and differences. And government must possess and recognize all.
We prefer to be identified as ‘adivasi’ (indigenous people) as it gives us a sense of attachment and affiliation to our land and culture. We also find assurance of sustenance and prosperity with this identity. It is now a global trend that ethnic minority people with some socio-cultural features are being identified as indigenous people. United Nations declared two decades dedicated to ‘indigenous people’ as an effort to protect the indigenous or tribal people. Is it not even the duty of Bangladeshi government and the majority Bengali people to save the ethnic minority peoples, to preserve their honor, their language, culture and distinct identity? Contrary to the responsible position, unfortunately, people like Zainal Abedin advocates abolishing the ‘ornamental’ designation of ‘Rajas’ accusing that Raja Devashish is taking advantage of the ‘portfolio’ in working home and abroad for CHT people. I wonder, what the problems are there if Raja works for CHT people!!! What is the problem if Raja works in home with government and the civil society for saving the dying CHT people from the suppression and coercion of jingoist people? UN is a body of nations (including Bangladeshis) - we should remember that it is United Nations, not United Countries. Now Bangladeshi nation includes the Bengali and other 45 small nationalities. If Bengali people can talk in UN, why can not the other communities? Is it because they are small? We know that some people do not want to allow other people talking in United Nations; they always want to ‘abolish’ others and prefer to uphold only themselves, which UN has fully realized and consequently formed a permanent forum for the minority people whose voice is not heard to the international communities. This is a symbol of humanist enlightenment of the international communities. Is it why Zainal Abedin is agonizing and seriously trying to abolish the designation of ‘Raja’? We should know that the world communities including Bengali communities are now more enlightened than the medieval period. Enlightened people no longer prefer to view the world and human race as segments. They view the world as a single ‘globe’ and the human races as the branches of a single tree, where the whole tree is affected if one branch is hurt or broken. Enlightened people feel it well how an incident in any part of the world moves and affects the world communities. If the globe is destroyed (e.g. for global warming, nuclear warfare, devastating natural calamities, e.g Tsunami and Cyclone Sidor.), all will be ‘abolished’ together. So, the only way is to learn- how to live peacefully and harmoniously, to respect each other, to prosper and help others prospering, to save oneself and others, to protect and preserve the knowledge of all big and small races; as every race have experience and knowledge; especially the knowledge of the so called ‘tribes’ are more sustaining and friendly for the sustenance of the world. That is why UN is trying to save all human races with especial attention to the ethnic minorities recognizing them as ‘indigenous people’. This is a message and spirit released from the combined conscience of the nations. Debating to prove some ethnicities as ‘tribes’ ‘not indigenous people’ is nothing but denying, as well as abolishing the spirit and inner message of united nations’ conscience to save all human races. As ethnic minority peoples are powerless and not usually in authoritative positions, UN has initiated some package deals for them. Now, what is the problem of the so called superior people -‘nations’ or ‘non tribes’- if the ethnic minority people receive some help from the international conscience? Please be generous and kind; support multiculturalism and diversity; help all the ethnic minority people to survive and prosper with their own distinct identity and culture. You will have no problem for giving some space to the little brothers, the CHT people and other minority peoples. If you, majority people support the charter of Universal Human Rights, ILO Convention, Universal Declaration of Human Rights and other international conventions in front of the international communities and if you decline the rights at home for the minority people, where is your humanity, generosity and enlightenment? If you always keep finding ways to say that the ethnic minority peoples at home are ‘tribes’ not ‘adivasis’; you will only fail to realize the spirit of the international enlightenment and conscience. The majority people may keep us deprived forever or even can eliminate us from Bangladesh devising different mechanisms, but one thing is obvious that you have to appeal to the international enlightenment over again for yourselves. How those people who reject the rights of weak people at home could appeal to the international humanity for themselves? Should the truth not be revealed to the enlightened and should the truth not feed them the same? As this is the omni transcendental doctrine of the universe, you can no way skip it out. This idea is the nucleus of all religions, laws and historical experiences of human being. How do you hope to skip it?
6. Addressing the Diversity and Its Impacts
Ethnic and cultural homogeneity is a myth, not reality, which has been long practiced in the nation state system which cost the ethnic minority peoples around the world. Because of the assimilationist view of majority people, a hegemonic approach had long been adopted in ruling the state in many countries. But the world-view has changed and/or been changing because of the spread of technology, international trade, immigration and people’s mobility, opening of global job market and globalization, most of all, for more liberal view of the diversity of language, culture, society and ethnicity. Through the historical process of experiences, people have now wider understanding that every large and small nation possesses the value of their own language, knowledge, culture and identity, which they strive to carry, nurture and flourish. There is no harm to support them in nurturing their values and identity; the harm is in restricting and hindering them, which in many cases sparked into violent protests, struggles, movements and conflicts that cost the nation so much. If we take the example of CHT, how much did it cost the nation in the last two decades? What could we buy with the same cost? Do we want to keep spending to restrict and obstacle them or do we consider it wise to spend the same costs to support them in achieving their goals of preserving and flourishing their rights to identity, language, culture and values to integrate them with the mainstream society. We should, in this regard, remember that the old and outdated assimilationist view should carefully be avoided. Rather a modern and liberal approach of integration should be taken within the philosophy ‘unity in diversity’. In the same vein, the then prime minister of Australia, Paul Keating called for the nation in 1992 to adopt ‘productive diversity’ in terms of cultural and linguistic pluralism as it is beneficial resources in business, trade and tourism. Cope and Kalantzis (1997) argue that “the concepts of Productive Diversity are based on the negotiation of differences, valuing differences and cross-cultural negotiation.” (p. 128). They have further explained, “Pluralism as a principle of social order represents a new ethos of citizenship, from the micropolitics of team membership, to corporate citizenship, to citizenship of multicultural nation, to global citizenship” (p.185). It is human nature that they will fight for the recognition of their identity and culture, for accessing resource and prosperity. So, government must deal the issue of diversity positively with a sense of civility, humanity, modernity and in the light of international enlightenment, not with ‘old style nationalism’. Otherwise the perennial struggle will find its own natural way which may be “both disastrous possibilities and the positive possibility of constructing a new, pluralist society” (Cope and Kalantzis (1997, p.244). It is government’s responsibility to divert it into ‘positive possibilities’.
7. Conclusion
In conclusion, I clearly call for the government and the conservative section of the society to pay heed to the voice of the international conscience and enlightenment; support, stabilize and foster all big and small communities of the planet with appropriate recognition of their identity and distinctive culture. We must approach the post World War II and Post Cold-war perspectives in discussing peoples’ rights, dignity and status. All the great idealisms and concepts came up after World War II are combinedly formulated and accepted by almost all nations together, not by a sole nation (though minority representation were absent for many years). So, we have to view the most recent international notions, where the pertinent stakeholders are to be consulted before adopting any declarations and policy. In line with Cope and Kalantiz (1997), I also believe that adopting ‘civic pluralism’ and “negotiating diversity is now the only way to produce social cohesion; that a pluralistic citizenship is the most effective way of holding things together; and that an outward-looking, internationalist approach to the world is the only way to maintain the national interest” (p.262). I would, therefore, advocate to writers and researchers to abandon all the colonial, primitive and localized views, which were based on the principles of ‘might is right’, ‘kings are divine’ ‘kings are untouchable by laws’ ‘kings word is law’ and where all the rights, policies, status and meanings are forcibly imposed on the weak by the strong; rather adopt more international, broader, modern, humanist and enlightened notions, which will ensure peace, harmony, equality, liberty, dignity for all, as well as which will bind all the human races with ‘fraternity’. We must take a note on the changing view of the modern world, which is striving for a more humanism and humanistic approach, which is looking forward safeguarding and helping all big and small races. So, forget about dictionary meanings and localized history, rather look into the UN Charters, EU Charters, International conventions etc. Forget about the medieval history, and embrace modern Bangladesh. Let’s all discuss how we want to build up our motherland with all modern, civilized and humanist thoughts on the basis of the consultation to all big and small ethnic races, to ensure every one’s peace, prosperity and dignity. We must forget the so called history that was designed and architectured by the narrow, primitive, jingoist, repressive, autocratic and war-monger people, for the sake of greater benefits and wellbeing of mankind, for the sake of new design and architecture. We should remember the warning of Cope and Kalantiz (1997) as they state, “From London to Los Angeles, and even from Athens to Tokyo, cultural and linguistic diversity is increasingly a feature of the peoples who populate the streets, the schools and businesses. Those nations that are able to adapt and facilitate these differences are the ones that will go forward without blood on the street…Traditional notions of nation that construct national homogeneity by suppressing varieties of language and custom are no longer relevant” (p.262) in this century onward.
8. Bibliography
Brauns, C.D. and Loffler, L.G. (1990), Mru: Hill People the Border of Bangladesh.
Birkhauser Verlag, Basel, Boston, Berlin.
Chakroborty, R. L. (1977), Chakma Resistance to early British Rule. In Bangladesh Historical Studies: Journal of the Bangladesh Itihaas Samiti., Vol. II, pp. 133-156.
Cope, B. & Kalantzis, M. (1997), Productive Diversity. NSW: Pluto Press Australia Limited.
Heclo, H. (1972), Review Article: Policy Analysis. In British Journal of Political Science, Vol. 2, No. 1, pp. 83-108.
Humayun Kabir, Mohammad (2006),
Hutchinson, R. H. S. (1978), The Chittagong Hill Tract, Vivek Publishing House, Delhi.
ILO Convention, 1959
Ishaq, Muhammed (1975), Bangladesh District Gazetteers: Chittagong Hill Tracts, Ministry of Cabinet Affairs, Dhaka.
Singho, K. C. (1897), Tripurar Itihas (The History of Tripura), Agartola: Rajmala Prakashan.
Roy, Raja Devashish (2002), Indigenous Rights in Bangladesh: Land Rights and Self-Government in the Chittagong Hill Tracts
Sandys, E.F. (1915), History of Tripura. Agortola, India.
Serajuddin, A. M. (1968), The Rajas of the Chittagong Hill Tracts and their Relations with the Mughals and the East India Company in the Eighteenth Century. In Journal of the Asiatic Society of Pakistan, Vol. 8, No. 2.
Tripura, Provangshu (2005), Khagrachari Jelar Itihas (The History of Khagrachari District). Chittagong: Published by the Writer
United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples, 2007
UNDP and Indigenous Peoples: A Practice Note on Engagement
Willem van Schendel, Wolfgang Mey & Aditya Kumar Dewan (2001), "The Chittagong Hill Tracts Living in a Borderland" The University Press Limited, Dhaka.
Zainal Abedin, M. (2006), CHT tribes are not 'Adivashis' in Bangladesh in Thomas Pine’s Corner (Online Journal). Accessed on August 10, 2007
Comments
Post a Comment
Please post your comment