Chittagong Hill Tracts (CHT) is a military controlled area, where all the news are filtered by the military and the Bangladeshi government.CHT, where blood has shed for decades and hopes were burnt to ashes by the brutes, constitutes of people who want their voice to be heard. We are here to ensure that the voice of these unheard victims in CHT echo around the world despite the Bangladeshi government trying to suppress them in the biased state run media.
Our email : chtnewsupdate(at)gmail.com
Jumma Peoples Network-Korea (JPNK) submits memorandum to the prime minister Sheikh Hasina expressing it's strong reservation against the 15th amendment of the constitution of Bangladesh, article 6-2, that proclaims that "the people of Bangladesh shall be known as Bengalee"
------------------------------------------------
5th August, 2011
To
The Honorable Prime Minister, Sheikh Hasina
Government of the People’s Republic of Bangladesh
Prime Minister’s Office
Tejgaon, Dhaka
Subject: Concern regarding the 15thamendment to the National Constitution and strong reservation against the clause 2 of article 6.
Honorable Prime Minister,
We express our deepest concern regarding the contents of the 15thamendment to the National Constitution of Bangladesh, which was passed by the Parliament on 30thJune 2011. Our organization is very much disappointed that the parliament of Bangladesh exclusively represented by your party (Awami League) and pro-government law makers have passed the 15th amendment to the constitution that has already been rejected by the majority of the population, specially the civil society of Bangladesh. The Jumma Peoples’ Network-Korea( JPNK), also strongly reject the 15th amendment for the reason that the constitution, on the light of 15th amendment has failed to uphold the value of democracy and secularism and has failed to protect the very rights of the indigenous people or the people of other ethnicities and the believers of other religions rather than Islam.
We strongly reject the clause 2 of article 6 which proclaims that “the people of Bangladesh shall be known as Bengalese as a nation and the citizens of Bangladesh shall be known as Bangladeshi”. This article has not only derecognized the identity of the citizens of other ethnicities but also denied their rights over their own land. The amendment has even denied the existence of indigenous people living within the territory of Bangladesh. Constitutionally, terming all the citizens as “Bengalees” is naked and shameful imposition of “Bengali” nationalism on the non-Bengali population or the indigenous people living within its territory.
Honorable Prime Minister,
It came to our notice that Bangladesh’s Foreign Minister, Dr. Dipu Moni has blatantly denied the identity of the indigenous people of the CHT stating that it was a ‘misperception’ and ‘misrepresentation’ to refer to the ethnic groups in the Chittagong Hill Tracts (CHT) as ‘indigenous’ in reference to the report of the tenth session of the UN Permanent Forum on Indigenous issue. It is amazing that she (foreign minister) has campaigned for the indigenous people in the UN in 2008 when four party alliance government led by BNP was officially denying the existence of the indigenous people in Bangladesh. By denying the identity of the indigenous people foreign minister Dipu Moni and the Awami League (the ruling party) has lost its ideological legitimacy on governing the state.
As UN defines the term “indigenous people” are the people who have ‘strong link to territories and surrounding natural resources, distinct social, economic or political systems, language, culture and beliefs, form non‐dominant groups of society, resolve to maintain and reproduce their ancestral environments and systems as distinctive peoples and communities’. All these criteria are clearly fulfilled by the indigenous people from the CHT as well as the rest of the country.Moreover, these people also fulfill the criteria of indigenous populations as contained in the ILO Convention on Indigenous and Tribal Populations of 1957 (Convention No. 107), which Bangladesh ratified in June, 1972.
Dear prime minister,
Again, we would like to remind you of the sad history that the Ex. President Sheikh Mujibur Rahaman curved by advising the Jumma leaders to forget their own identity and become Bengalee in 1972 instead of accepting their demands for retention of autonomy in the Chittagong Hill Tracts. The history of 1972 has turned into another history of bloodshed and killings of 20,000 people in the Chittagong Hill Tracts for 25 years until signing the “Chittagong Hill Tracts (CHT) peace accord” in 1997. We would like to advise you to learn from the history.
We, by exercising our democratic rights as citizens of Bangladesh, would like to urge you with the followings in reference to the 15th amendment to the national constitution that was passed on 30th June 2011.
1) Review article 2 that mentions Islamic fundamentalist words in the beginning of constitution and article 2A that says the state religion of the republic of Bangladesh is Islam.(these articles are controversial that hinderreligious freedom and democracy)
2) repeal the clause 2 of Article 6 through which extreme Bengali nationalism were imposed on non-Bengali indigenous people.
3) Enact law to guarantee the constitutional recognition of the indigenous people
4)Demilitarize CHT and rehabilitate the Bengalee settlers in the plain districts.
5) Amend the Chittagong Hill Tracts manual law and ensure autonomy and safeguard the human rights in the region.
Sincerely,
President
General Secretary
Jumma People’s Network-Korea (JPNK)
Copy to:
1)Ban Ki- Moon, Secretary General of the United Nations
2)Chair, UN Permanent Forum on Indigenous Issues(UNPFII)
3)Chair, the CHT commission
4)Foreign ministers of EU
5)Foreign minister of the Republic of Korea
6)Foreign minister of the USA
7)Foreign ministers of SAARC(South-Asian Association for Regional Cooperation) states
State Policy, the Constitution and Equal Rights for Disadvantaged Groups
The playing field is not level for groups who had no role in national constitution-making, argues DEVASISH ROY WANGZA.
Constitution as the Supreme State Policy
National constitutions contain the broad principles of the supreme policy of a state. Other policies, contained in documents other than in constitutions, are policies of governments. The latter policies constantly change, unlike the former. Therefore, disadvantaged sections of citizens, seek to protect their rights by having express safeguard provisions included in their national constitutions. This is no exception in Bangladesh.
Minorities, adibashis and discontent with the 15th Amendment
Religious minorities and indigenous peoples, among other disadvantaged groups in Bangladesh, have been clamouring for acknowledgment of their rights in the constitution. We know that the aforesaid groups are unhappy over the recent constitutional reform. We know why; because their identity and rights have not been properly addressed therein. Even the few benevolent and benign matters that have been included therein have been compromised by the fact that (i) these are not directly enforceable in courts, being part of the fundamental principles section, rather than the one on fundamental rights, while (ii) negative stipulations on freedom of association, and (iii) a unilingual and uni-religious orientation of our national identity, undermine those matters.
Photo: PRITO REZA
Minorities adibashis and the 1972 and other pre-2011 constitutions
The original constitution of 1972 was secular and neutral with regard to religious identity, but not with regard to the ethnic and linguistic identity of non-Bengalis. The post-1975 constitution, on the other hand, got rid of Bangali nationalism, but imposed a Muslim orientation of national identity and state practices that made the adibashis and religious minorities feel equally insecure. And where are we now in 2011?
The Bangali national identity has been revived, while the provisions on state religion albeit with “equal status” to minority religions have been retained. So much for cultural pluralism and secularism in a country that produced great multicultural giants like Nazrul and Lalon!
Implementing constitutional measures
However, what I wish to discuss here is not what went wrong with our constitution, but despite these shortcomings, what can be done to further the rights of adibashis, minorities and other disadvantaged groups, including Tea Estate workers, Dalits and differently-abled people (disabled; sic!), based upon existing constitutional dispensations. I do not, however, suggest, that the demands of adibashis and secularist Bangalis for further and appropriate constitutional reforms is to be forsaken. I discuss that elsewhere in a forthcoming publication in another Dhaka daily.
Constitutional provisions, organic acts and other enabling measures
National constitutions vary in the way they include important state policy measures. Some are voluminous, with detailed provisions, like the Constitution of India. Others, like the Constitution of the Philippines, are relatively brief. In the Philippines, the legal system envisages the framing of 'organic acts', which spell out the details of the constitutional measures and provide “teeth” to constitutional provisions. The point is that, unless constitutional measures are supplemented by legislative, executive and other measures, they remain in name only. And let us remind ourselves of many worthy principles that were inserted in our constitution in 1972, and which have thankfully survived the various incisions, grafts and other additions that have been made to our constitution, but remain largely unimplemented. Let me cite one here: “It shall be a fundamental responsibility of the State to emancipate the toiling masses the peasants and workers and backward sections of the people from all forms and exploitation” (Article 14).
Implementing non-discrimination through judicial remedies
The Constitution of Bangladesh provides, among others, for the implementation of our fundamental rights and freedoms, including on non-discrimination and special provision clauses (articles 27, 28 and 29; read “affirmative action”) through writ actions in the High Court Division of the Supreme Court of Bangladesh, under article 102. These provisions, however, have seldom been invoked in court. And this is hardly surprising.
Photo: PRITO REZA
One really cannot expect that citizens from disadvantaged backgrounds away from the capital will be able to come to Dhaka, hire a lawyer and conduct their cases in the High Court. Obviously, we need to make these remedies available, closer to home. There are several ways of doing this, such as: (i) through the establishment of new constitutional courts in locations outside of Dhaka, (ii) by empowering existing district-level courts to try certain classes of cases in a specific and prompt manner; (iii) by establishing administrative bodies to hear and provide remedies against discriminatory acts, (iv) have constitutional and other bodies provide necessary advise to the government, and (v) establish special bodies to include adibashis in governance and development, particularly in the plains, such as in the manner discussed below.
New constitutional courts
In accordance with article 44(2) of the constitution, parliament may legislate to empower a court other than the High Court, to exercise all or any of the powers vested upon the High Court Division, to hear writ applications under article 102 “within the local limits of its jurisdiction”, as long as this is done “without prejudice to the powers of the High Court Division”. Therefore, district-level courts could be so empowered to exercise authority to provide remedies that are now only exercisable by the High Court. However, in this regard, parliament needs to be careful that it does not step on the toes of the High Court Division, as happened in the case of Anwar Hossain Chowdhury versus Bangladesh (1989, CLC, AD), in which the Appellate Division struck down the Constitution (Eighth Amendment) Act, 1989 as violative of the constitution (ultra vires). Through this law, the Jaitiyo Party-led government under President Ershad sought to establish permanent benches of the High Court Division at Barisal, Chittagong, Comilla, Jessore, Rangpur and Sylhet.
Vesting district-level judgers with special authority
With regard to certain matters, such as disputes over rural agricultural land of small areas, it is ridiculous that the entire spectrum of our court system needs be exhausted! In many cases, the litigation costs exceed the value of the land concerned and it may take several years to do that. Many cases linger beyond the generations! In many cases indigent litigants lost all their possessions to bear the litigation costs. A poster that was once popular among would-be barristers studying at the Inns of Court School of Law in London epitomises the situation. The poster shows two litigants pulling a cow, respectively, by its horns and its tail, while the lawyer milks the cow! I think that a future land tribunal at the district-level might be an efficacious remedy for adibashis of the plains, in addition to a Land Commission modeled along the lines of the CHT Land Disputes Resolution Commission. In fact, the same judicial officer could hear such land-related matters separately for adibashi-related matters and other land-related matters, on separate days.
Bearing in example the case of the milch cow in the London poster, it is also important that the Code of Civil Procedure does not apply in its entirety, for such cases. This will enable litigants to conduct their cases by themselves. Examples of such a system include the Chittagong Hill Tracts. In place of the Civil Procedure Code a simple system of civil litigation is provided in the CHT governmental courts. In the chiefs' and headmen's courts, legal representation is not allowed at all.
The proposed reforms, particularly in the plains, can be brought about through a law that specifically mentions that the concerned code will not apply to certain cases, or apply in a limited manner or with modification, as required. The paramount consideration being fairness and simplicity of procedure and the manner of providing evidence, saving of time, effort and costs. Appeals from such cases should only be allowed where the matter involves (a) complex constitutional issues; (b) other complexities of law; (c) patent error of law; (d) bias; and so forth.
Anti-discrimination boards
In various countries, such as the United Kingdom, in case of racial discrimination suffered in public employment, specially-authorized administrative bodies may compel public authorities to act in a non-discriminatory manner without requiring litigation in courts of law. Such boards, if established in Bangladesh, could take on matters of non-application of the adibashi/tribal quota in government jobs, for example, among other matters.
Appointment of ombudsperson and Adibashi Commission and strengthening of the Human Rights Commission
The 1972 Constitution provided for the appointment of an Ombudsperson, and an ordinary law too was passed to facilitate this. But we still don't have an ombudsperson. Our National Human Rights Commission which is severely under-staffed, under-funded and otherwise marginalised needs to be strengthened.
We have a neutral, efficient, and reasonably independent Election Commission and a Public Service Commission. We can take lessons from home and don't need to go elsewhere. India has a Scheduled Tribes Commission and a Scheduled Castes Commission. Nepal, similarly, is to have an Adibasi-Janajati Commission, a Dali Commission, a Women's Rights Commission, and a Muslim Commission. We can also establish similar commissions, staff them with appropriate people, provide a clear mandate, and above all, political support from the very top.
Lending a ear to the plains adibashis
Although the CHT has had its unfair share of violence and dislocation (including by the Kaptai Dam), its rugged and inhospitable terrain protected it from unrestricted migration over the centuries. Somewhat like in the case of our Bengal tigers in the Sunderbans, it is not the vigilance of our Forest Department that we must thank for the survival of these beautiful cats against surmounting odds but risks of coastal tides, attacks by felines and crocodiles, and robbers! The plains did not have that advantage, and now, the plains adibashis' settlements are small islands, minorities and marginalised. Unlike the CHT, where the offices of the chiefs, headmen and karbaries, and its district and regional-level councils, are formally recognised, the plains adibashis' traditional self-government systems are not recognised by the state. The plains Adibashis'numbers do not enable them to elect their fellow adibashis to local government bodies except at the lowest levels. The Special Affairs Division under the Prime Minister's Office, that once dealt with development matters of the plains adibashis, has ceased to function. It is therefore imperative to revive this Division and make it inclusive, democratic, transparent, and otherwise functional. It could be upgraded into a full ministry or a division within another ministry, for example. In addition, seats need to be reserved for the plains adibashis (and perhaps even the CHT paharis) in local government institutions. The commission chaired by former Adviser Dr. M M M Shoukat Ali so recommended, but to deaf ears so far. We could also take some ideas as appropriate - from India's Panchayati Raj system that combines elected, bureaucratic and traditional forms of governance and development in local governance.
In conclusion
Modern states, in order to be truly non-discriminatory, must abide by the supreme principle of international human rights law on non-discrimination, which in English-speaking lawyers' jargon is known as jus cogens, or peremptory norms of international law and hence, non-derogable. Peremptory means something that cannot be questioned and must be obeyed, immediately. In order to adhere to that principle, the state must account for the history of discrimination suffered by indigenous peoples and other disadvantaged groups. These are the people who had no role in national constitution-making. They didn't frame the 'rules of the game', and therefore, the playing field is not 'level' for them. True fairness and non-discriminatory conduct can only be brought about by taking contextually-appropriate measures, which are within the ambit of our constitution, and regarded as special provisions. Otherwise, discrimination will continue by acts and omissions, by design or default. We also need to supplement such measures by adopting an Adibashi Development Policy, if we are to ensure that our constitutional provisions on non-discrimination do not remain as hollow words only, for adibashis, minorities and other disadvantaged groups.
Devasish Roy Wangza is the Chief of the Chakma in the Chittagong Hill Tracts, an advocate at the Supreme Court of Bangladesh (High Court Division) and an Expert Member of the United Nations Permanent Forum on Indigenous Issues.
The United Nations Economic and Social Council (ECOSOC) has accepted Dhaka's concerns on indigenous issue by consensus in its 2011 substantive session, said a foreign ministry press release yesterday.
Bangladesh raised concerns at the session over two paragraphs of the 2011 Permanent Forum on Indigenous Issues (PFII) Report about the use of the term “indigenous” in reference to Chittagong Hill Tracts Peace Accord.
The country also stated how a member of International Chittagong Hill Tracts Commission conducted its study on the peace accord “in a non-transparent and biased manner” and that PFII has “procedural inconsistencies in reflecting views of member states”.
At the session, ECOSOC underscored the importance of PFII's adhering to its mandate, taking account of the concerns of member states and ensuring that its studies are conducted in an independent, transparent, impartial and objective manner.
The session duly reflected this in its 2011 report while Bangladesh's concerns were explicitly shared in statements made by India, Pakistan, China, Russia, Saudi Arabia and Morocco, said the release.
The website of the United Nations office in Geneva showed that Bangladesh's proposal and concerns were supported by China, Russian Federation, Morocco and Saudi Arabia.
The press release also said ECOSOC's noting of the PFII report has no bearing or binding obligations on Bangladesh.
The manner in which a sovereign state categorises its citizens or a group of citizens remains its exclusive prerogative as per its constitution and national laws. It also remains outside the purview of any international forum including United Nations, said the release.
----------------------------------------------------
courtesy: the daily star
More details on this issue could be found out from the following links:
Some vested interest groups have invented the idea of Chittagong Hill Tracts becoming another East Timor. It is baseless and politically motivated, to continue the unrest in the indigenous-dominated areas, writes Lelung Khumi
IN APRIL I attended a diplomacy training programme on indigenous peoples, human rights and advocacy in Baguio city of the Philippines. The diplomacy training programme of the faculty of law at the University of New South Wales, Australia arranged the programme in partnership with the Asian Indigenous Peoples’ Pact and the Cordillera Indigenous Peoples’ Legal Centre. There were 41 indigenous participants from 15 countries of Asia Pacific. One of the participants was from East Timor. I was very curious to know how East Timor became independent from Indonesia, as we often read of comparisons between the Chittagong Hill Tracts and East Timor or South Sudan, how the CHT may go in their direction, in some of the newspapers.
One day, I asked the man from East Timor to have a discussion with me regarding the history of his country and he kindly accepted. So over a cup of coffee one evening he told me that East Timor had never been a part of any country. However, East Timor had been under the rule of Portugal for 460 years (from 1515 to November 28, 1975). Indonesia invaded the country on December 7, 1975 with the support of USA, Australia and Britain, just nine days after their independence from the Portuguese. The Indonesian government ruled East Timor until the United Nations insisted on having a referendum on August 30, 1999.
The excuse given for the three countries’ support to Indonesia, in invading East Timor, was that it was to become a communist country, which would spread communist policies. However, their hidden agenda was to exploit the oil and natural resources of East Timor.
Around sixty thousand joint troops were left when the Portuguese declared East Timor independent in 1975. However, the Indonesian army killed most of the troops before 1999, which left East Timor with around 260 troops in the end. After an hour’s discussion on the Indonesian government rule from 1975 to 1999, I realised the situation of East Timor can be compared with the current situation of Chittagong Hill Tracts in terms of political instability.
Injustice, killing, land grabbing, rape, arbitrary arrests, filing false cases and many other human rights violations committed against the leaders and civil society members of East Timor were very big issues until the country became independent. Nevertheless, the indigenous people of Bangladesh, especially of the CHT, have been experiencing similar discrimination and human rights violations because of unresolved political crisis, for decades.
The indigenous people of Bangladesh have been demanding recognition of their identity as ‘indigenous’ in the constitution of Bangladesh. They are not demanding an independent country, like the people of East Timor, but they are demanding constitutional recognition as ‘indigenous’, their right to exist and their rights of self-determination through the full implementation of the CHT Accord signed in 1997. The indigenous people of the CHT have never demanded a separate state. The indigenous people of Bangladesh demand to be included in the process of policymaking. In this manner, they will be constitutionally recognised citizens and can take part in the decision-making process of building their future in Bangladesh.
We think that some vested interest groups have invented the idea of Chittagong Hill Tracts becoming another East Timor. It is baseless and politically motivated, to continue the unrest in the indigenous-dominated areas. It will hamper the electoral manifesto-driven agendas of the current government which are to be implemented for the interest of the indigenous people.
The vested interest groups spread the rumour that the CHT will become another East Timor, to interfere in the development activities of Chittagong Hill Tracts by baselessly claiming that some international NGOs are involved in helping CHT become another East Timor, and to destroy the image of Bangladesh government in the international arena. However, the indigenous people of Bangladesh think that these are just the regular activities of those who want to increase the political unrest in the area, without any valid reasons.
After the signing of the CHT Accord in 1997, many national and international development agencies have come forward to help develop the socio-economic situation of the areas, which had been out of the light of development. The initiatives of the development agencies have created great opportunities for the indigenous people to be involved in determining their own future. Many educational facilities, socio-economic activities and health services have reached many remote places of the area, where government services had not been delivered for decades. The national and international development agencies have not only served the general CHT communities but also helped the educated local people of the area to serve their own communities through the developmental activities being implemented after the treaty. The consistency of the development is important for determining their fate.
Communities can only change their fate if they are directly involved in the developmental activities.
We, the indigenous people of Bangladesh, would like to urge the government not to pay attention to the claim of the vested groups of CHT becoming another East Timor, but take necessary measures to implement all agendas related to preserving the indigenous people of the country in accordance with their electoral manifesto.
_________________________
Lelung Khumi is a development activist.
Rejecting Bangladesh's concerns over a report on the Chittagong Hill Tracts Peace Accord of 1997 by the UN Permanent Forum on Indigenous Issues (UNPFII), the United Nations Economic and Social Council (ECOSOC) has adopted it.
In its general segment session ended on July 29 in Geneva, ECOSOC, the parent body of UNPFII, said that it would not delete any paragraph of the report, prepared by a UN rapporteur Lars-Anders Baer on the execution of the accord.
Bangladesh had expressed its concerns in the 10th session of UNPFII in May-end over the forum going beyond its mandate in dealing with the issue of implementation of the CHT accord on the ground that "there are no indigenous peoples in the region".
Bangladesh first secretary to the UN Iqbal Ahmed also raised objections over several points of the report including paragraphs 56 and 58A, which asks the Department of Peacekeeping Operations of the UN to develop a mechanism to strictly monitor and screen the human rights records of national army personnel prior to allowing them to participate in peacekeeping operations.
These paragraphs also recommend that the UN prevent human rights violators and alleged human rights violators in the security forces of Bangladesh.
Foreign minister Dipu Moni on July 26 said that Bangladesh was concerned that the 'tribal' people or ethnic minorities in the CHT region were being described as 'indigenous peoples' of the country.
They were wrongly called 'indigenous peoples' in the two paragraphs of the report, she stressed.
At separate meetings with ambassadors and media editors, she said, "The ethnic minorities in the CHT region have been clearly termed as 'Tribal' in the 1997 peace accord, but there are attempts by some vested quarters to establish them as 'indigenous' in some international and UN forums."
ECOSOC said it would not distinguish between indigenous and tribal groups, as highlighted by the Bangladesh government, or take into account its challenge to the jurisdiction of the forum to deal with the CHT peace accord, a statement by the International Council for the Indigenous Peoples of CHT (ICIP-CHT) said on Sunday.
The UNPFII at the end of its session had called on the Bangladesh government to undertake a 'phased withdrawal' of temporary army camps from the CHT, declare a timeframe for implementation of the peace accord and establish an independent commission to inquire into human rights violations perpetrated against the inhabitants of the region as per the 1997 CHT Peace Accord.
The Bangladesh government gave statements in support of its position, and so did the other fifty-four members of ECOSOC. But as Bangladesh lacked backing from other ECOSOC member-states, it went for a 'compromise.'
Some of the several concerns raised by Bangladesh would be included as 'noted', in the nature of a 'footnote', the statement said quoting the ECOSOC.
Reportedly, only China, Pakistan and Saudi Arabia supported some of the concerns raised by Bangladesh. Even though Russia showed some leaning towards Bangladesh's stance, they reiterated the importance of the role of indigenous peoples on the international human rights agenda.
"The region is still heavily militarised and there are reports that the military is carrying out gross violations of indigenous human rights," Lars-Anders Baer said while presenting his study report on the implementation of the CHT Peace Accord 1997.
The former UNPFII member said impunity prevailed in the area and stressed that the violators be brought to the justice.
The peace accord between the then Awami League government and Parbatya Chattagram Jana Sanghati Samity (PCJSS) ended the decade-long bush war between the local inhabitants and the army.
Of some 500 temporary army camps, 200 had been withdrawn by the governments in phases until 2007, and 34 in August and September last year. The six permanent cantonments are still there.
The general segment of the United Nations Economic and Social Council (ECOSOC) session rejected the official position of Bangladesh government on the non-Bangalee people of the Chittagong Hill Tracts (CHT), and adopted the report of the UN Permanent Forum on Indigenous Issues.
The Bangladesh government, represented by Abul Kalam Abdul Momen, raised its concern over the United Nations Permanent Forum on Indigenous Issues (UNPFII) going beyond its mandate in dealing with the issue of implementing the CHT Peace Accord, on the ground that there are no indigenous people in CHT.
The government also pleaded ECOSOC to delete some paragraphs of its10th session report.
But the request was not accepted following negotiations over the last three days of the weeklong session that ended on Friday in Geneva, Switzerland, said a press release of the International Council for the Indigenous Peoples of CHT (ICIP-CHT).
ECOSOC will not distinguish between indigenous and tribal groups, the release said.
ECOSOC is the parent organisation of UNPFII.
UNPFII assigned a special rapporteur, Lars-Anders Baer, who visited Bangladesh and independently undertook a study on the status of the implementation of the CHT Peace Accord 1997, and submitted a report to UNPFII during the 10th session of the forum in May this year.
In June, UNPFII called on the Bangladesh government to undertake a phased withdrawal of all temporary army camps from CHT, urged it to declare a timeframe for implementation of the CHT Peace Accord, and to establish an independent commission to inquire into human rights violations perpetrated against "indigenous peoples".
UNPFII further recommended that the UN Department of Peacekeeping Operations (UNPKO) review the military personnel and units who are being sent on UN missions, to make sure no personnel or unit is taken from any that are accused by "indigenous Jumma people" of violating human rights in CHT.
At the ECOSOC session Bangladesh had to accept a "compromise" due to lacking solidarity from other 53 member-states. However the concerns of Bangladesh raised at the meeting were included as "noted" in the nature of "footnotes", the release said.
The US, Bolivia, Australia, Mexico, and Morocco welcomed the report's adoption while only China, Pakistan and Saudi Arabia provided some support to the concerns raised by Bangladesh, the release added.
The Russian Federation supported the proposed draft amendment to the resolution, and stressed the importance of careful consideration of the definition of indigenous people, and careful interpretation of the UNPFII mandate.
The US said it believes the resolution is consistent with the mandate of the UNPFII.
The Economic and Social Council adopted a decision on the Report of the Permanent Forum on
Indigenous Issues on its tenth session and provisional agenda for its eleventh session, in which the
Council took note of the report of the Permanent Forum on Indigenous Issues on its tenth session and
took note of the importance for the Permanent Forum on Indigenous Issues to always continue to adhere to its mandate and take into account the concerns of United Nations Member States, indigenous peoples and all other stakeholders while dealing with particularly situations. The Council also noted that the Permanent Forum should continue to ensure that its studies were conducted in a fully independent transparent, impartial and objective manner and approved the provisional agenda for the eleventh session of the Permanent Forum.
Speaking on this issue were Mexico, Bangladesh, India, Bolivia, the United States, China, the Russian
Federation, Saudi Arabia, Pakistan, France, Australia and Morocco.
Action on resolution under social and human rights questions: Permanent Forum on Indigenous
Issues
SALVADOR TINAJERO (Mexico) said that a compromise package had been reached in negotiations to orally amend E/2011/54. This was the result of broad consultations and complex negotiations where all States had shown a large degree of flexibility. Mexico asked the Council to adopt the proposal.
SALVADOR TINAJERO (Mexico) orally amended the draft resolution.
The Council adopted, without a vote, as orally amended, a decision contained in report (E/2011/54) on
the Report of the Permanent Forum on Indigenous Issues on its tenth session and provisional agenda for its eleventh session, in which the Council takes note of the report of the Permanent Forum on Indigenous Issues on its tenth session; takes notes of the importance for the Permanent Forum on Indigenous Issues to always continue to adhere to its mandate and takes into account the concerns of United Nations Member States, indigenous peoples and all other stakeholders while dealing with particularly situation and also notes that the Permanent Forum should continue to ensure that its studies are conducted in a fully independent, transparent, impartial and objective manner; and approves the provisional agenda for the eleventh session of the Permanent Forum.
ABULKALAM ABDUL MOMEN (Bangladesh) said that for the sake of consensus Bangladesh had
accepted Mexico’s proposal. However, the delegation reiterated its reservations and serious concerns
about the report of the Permanent Forum on Indigenous Issues. The Forum had acted outside its mandate in commissioning a study on the implementation status of the Chittagong Hill Tracks peace accord of 1997 in Bangladesh. It had been brought to the attention of the Forum that the Government of Bangladesh had contrary views on this issue in line with its national views and policies. The Forum had shown total disregard to this principled position of a Member State. The study was conducted in a manner that raised questions of transparency, ethics, impartiality and objectivity relating to its conduct and contents. The Permanent Forum did not adequately respond to the concerns raised and considered the study to make its own recommendations. The Special Rapporteur did not disclose its identity, mandate and objective while interacting with the authorities in a violation of established norms and practices. It was the prerogative of the Council to send a strong and clear message against such a breach of conduct by Forum members.
In making its recommendations, the Forum went beyond its mandate to suggest actions of measures by
entities which was not admissible under the parameters of its terms of reference. The recommendations
addressed to the Government were detrimental to the efforts to implement the peace accords and
strengthen development efforts in the region. Bangladesh had agreed to the compromise text in order to avoid divisiveness within the Council and thanked delegations for their flexibility. Bangladesh requested that this statement was made part of the official records and informed that its Foreign Minister would subsequently submit a letter to the Council to further elaborate on the position of Bangladesh. Bangladesh respected the rights of indigenous peoples around the world. The work of the Forum had helped bring to the fore many shared concerns and challenges facing the indigenous peoples. Bangladesh had and would continue to follow its work with interest and engage in their deliberations a constructive manner.
GOPINATHAN ACHAMKULANGARE (India) said the Government of India was a strong supporter
of the protection and promotion of the rights of indigenous peoples and had supported the United
Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples in 2007. India had expressed its support for
people in independent countries who were regarded as indigenous on account of their descent from the
populations which inhabited the country, or a geographical region to which the country belonged, at the time of conquest or colonisation or the establishment of present State boundaries and who, irrespective of their legal status, retained some or all of their own social, economic, cultural and political institutions.
This was the exact definition used in the International Labour Organization’s Convention concerning
Indigenous and Tribal Peoples. India considered the entire population of the India at its independence
and their successors as indigenous. India was disappointed that many reports submitted to the Permanent Forum on Indigenous Issues by various United Nations agencies, funds and programmes had been using the term tribal interchangeably with indigenous in the Indian context. India reiterated that India had a clear understanding on the distinction of the two terminologies and had stated the same in various international forums, including at the United Nations General Assembly. The United Nations system should ensure that it used correct terminology in all public documents and reports. Increasingly, it had been observed in recent Forum meetings that various so-called indigenous gropus were using the platform to make statements and raise issues related to various other minority groups. This resulted in diverting the attention of the Forum from its core concerns of indigenous issues. India thanked all delegations for their consultative and cooperative engagement.
MAYSA URENA MENACHO. (Plurinational State of Bolivia) said that the Plurinational State of
Bolivia had acceded to the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples as well
as the International Labour Organization convention on this issue. The Plurinational State of Bolivia
would like to reserve it position with respect to E/C.19/2011/5 with regard to the mention of REDD+
and REDD++, given that it did not consider that the economic valuation of the forests was a solution for indigenous peoples. The marketing of carbon certificates for forests would bring to noncompliance of reducing emissions by developed countries and most resources would be appropriated by intermediaries and financial institutions, while only few resources would reach the indigenous populations and forests.
This would generate speculation concerning the trading of such certificates and establishing new forms of neocolonialism. The Plurinational State of Bolivia supported the Permanent Forum on Indigenous Issues since it was the only place in the United Nations where indigenous groups could participate in debates along with Member States, experts and other entities of the United Nations system and supported the recommendations made in relation to the rights of indigenous peoples, in particular those related to the international year of quinoa, the ancient practice of chewing coca leaf, a fund of voluntary contributions, the right to water, among others. The Plurinational State of Bolivia noted that for the first time in the history of the United Nations an international conference on indigenous peoples would be held. The modalities resolution of the high level plenary of the General Assembly denominated “World Conference on Indigenous Peoples” was a priority and the Plurinational State of Bolivia remained committed to bringing the voice and proposals of indigenous peoples to the preparatory events and to the conference in 2014.
JOHN SAMMIS (United States) expressed appreciation to all delegations for coming up with a consensus agreement. By taking note of the report, the United States underlined that it was not expressing support for the substance of the report and specific recommendations contained therein. The United States believed the resolution was consistent with the mandate of the Permanent Forum but did not set a precedent for future reports.
JIANG YINGFENG (China) welcomed the adoption by consensus of the resolution. China understood
and supported the concerns expressed by Bangladesh. China hoped that the Permanent Forum on
Indigenous Issues could work in accordance with its mandate in a practical and objective manner. It
should not expand at will the concept of indigenous people and put ethnic minorities into the same
category as indigenous people. The facts cited in the report should be substantiated. The report should
carefully take into consideration the views of countries concerned. Only in this way could the rights of
indigenous people be assured.
VLADIMIR YU ZHEGLOV. (Russian Federation) said the issue of indigenous people was an important part of the international human rights agenda. The Permanent Forum on Indigenous Issues was a key body in this area. The regional ethnic structures of the world differed and thus it was not possible to employ a one-size-fits-all approach. Generalizations might lead to mischaracterizations and conflicts. The Russian Federation shared the concerns of the delegation of Bangladesh and supported the proposed draft amendment to the resolution taking note of the report. Finally, the Russian Federation stressed the importance of careful consideration of the definition of indigenous peoples and careful interpretation of the Forum’s mandate.
AHMED SULEIMAN IBRAHIM ALAQUIL (Saudi Arabia) expressed support for the statement made
by Bangladesh concerning the report of the Permanent Forum on Indigenous Issues and said that Saudi
Arabia shared their concern. Saudi Arabia would like to thank delegations for their flexibility leading to the adoption of a decision on this topic.
AHMAD WARRAICH (Pakistan) welcomed the adoption by consensus of the proposal. The work of
the Permanent Forum on Indigenous Issues was important. Its main objective was to discuss indigenous issues. The report referred to non-indigenous issues and made political recommendations; this was unfortunate and went beyond the mandate of the Forum. Finally, Pakistan emphasized the importance of responsibility and impartiality in the work of the forum.
JACQUES PELLET (France) said France was satisfied that no vote was required. France thanked all
delegations, particularly Bangladesh, for reaching a compromise. France reaffirmed the independence of the Permanent Forum on Indigenous Issues and the language forged corresponded to a specific situation and did not set a precedent.
RUTH STONE (Australia) said Australia was pleased to reach a consensus on the text and avoid a vote. Australia encouraged a peaceful dialogue between Bangladesh and the Chittagong Hill Tracks. This was a complex and sensitive issue and Australia remained ready to assist. Australia appreciated that the Permanent Forum on Indigenous Issues remained independent.
ANAS ALAMI-HAMEDANE (Morocco) said Morocco shared the concerns expressed by Bangladesh
and welcomed the adoption by consensus of the text presented.
At the protest rally organised separately in Rangamati, Bandarban and Dhaka on 31 July 2011, leaders of Parbatya Chattagram Jana Samhati Samiti (PCJSS), Pahari Chhatra Parishad (PCP) and Hill Women's Federation (HWF) warned of tough movement if the government fails to ensure punishment to the killers of three indigenous men in Lama upazila under Bandarban district.
PCP protest rally in Rangamati. Photo credit: Journalist Himel Chakma.
It is mentionable that on 30 July 2011 at around 12 noon three indigenous Marma villagers were killed by a Bengali settler at Siletuya Para of Rupashi union under Lama upazila (sub-district) in Bandarban district in Chittagong Hill Tracts (CHT).
protest rally in Rangamati. Photo credit:Rano Nadektuk
The speakers also demanded trial of all murder and rape incidents in the CHT. They said that due to continue impunity, indigenous peoples are increasingly becoming victim of murder and rape by Bengali settlers and such heinous human rights violations would not go unabated if the CHT Accord was implemented in full.
They put up a seven-point demand including judicial inquiry and punishment of the killers, providing appropriate compensation for the victims' families, judicial investigation into all such incidents, rehabilitation the Bengali settlers outside the CHT, withdrawal of all temporary camps including de facto military rule ‘Operation Uttoron’ from CHT, full implementation of the CHT Accord without delay and constitutional recognition to the indigenous people as 'indigenous'.
PCP protest rally in Dhaka. photo courtesy: Batayan Chakma
PCP protest rally in bandarban. Photo: Pcjss Bandarban.
Sexual harassment in July 2011
It seems the violence against women in CHT is intensifying in a very systematic manner. For instances in July 2011-
On 5 July 2011: Alamgir, a Bangali settler attempted to rape a 13-year-old Mro girl in Lama under Bandarban district.
On 27 July 2011: A 13-year-old Jumma girl was raped by a Bengali settler named Abdul Majid in Baghaichari under Rangamati.
On 27 July 2011: A Bangali settler Zakir Hossain attempted to rape an 18-year-old Marma girl while she was on her way home from college. She was saved after she screamed for help.
On 30 July 2011: A 13-year-old Marma girl was attempted to rape by a Bengali settler in Lama under Bandrarban district.
For more media report of Bangla newspapers on Lama triple killing, please visit below link:
