Three indigenous Marma villagers killed trying to save woman from rape

Pictures of the killed persons can be viewed here (CAUTION: Visually highly disturbing images: : http://chtnewsupdate.blogspot.com/2011/07/three-photos-of-lama-killing.html


On 30 July 2011 at around 12 noon three indigenous Marma villagers were killed as they tried to save a young Marma woman from getting raped by some Bengali settlers at Siletuya Paea of Rupashi union under Lama upazila (sub-district) in Bandarban district.

The victims were identified as (1) Mr. Aung Sha U Marma (70 years) s/o late Mong Chabai Marma, (2) Ms. Hla Powang Prue Marma (40 years) w/o Mongchasa Marma and (3) her minor son Mong Nue Ching Marma (5 years).

It is learnt that five Bengali settlers sneaked into a farm house in the village at noon and grabbed 15 year-old girl of Ms. Hla Powang Prue Marma and Mr. Mongchasa Marma, working in the farm house, and tried to rape her.

As the girl cried out for help, Aung Sha U Marma and Hla Powang Prue Marma went to the spot. The minor boy followed them. The miscreants attacked and killed them when they were trying to save her. The miscreants also killed the minor boy. The girl who was molested was admitted at Bandarban district hospital.

It is learnt that the police arrested Mohammad Musa for his suspected involvement in the murder. The incident has created panic in the area.

It is reported that Bengali settlers have been trying to grab Jumma villagers’ land for long time. 

------------------------------

courtesy: Kapaeeng foundation

Following is the report from chtnews.com:

Three Jummas hacked to death in Lama

A BENGALI settler youth hacked three members of a Jumma family to death for resisting his attempt to rape a girl in Lama under Bandarban district.

The incident took place yesterday, 30 July, in the village of Shilertua Nakyong-jhiri under Rupshi Para union.

The villagers later seized Abu Musha, the culprit, and then handed him over to the police. He is a son of Shahajahan from Rupshi Para Muslim Para in Lama. Their family settled in the area under a government-sponsored migration programme in the 1980s.

The slain Jummas have been identified as Hlameching Marma, 36, the girl’s mother; Aungsa-u Marma, her grandfather; and Mongnu Ching Marma, her brother.

Sources said the victim family lives in the remote village, about 10 kilometers off Lama Sadar (headquarters).

When Abu Musha went there, the girl’s (name withheld) father was not at home. He took full advantage of his absence and cleverly took all the daos (one-edged sharp knife) under his control.

Then he grabbed and tried to rape the young girl of the house. He also tried to kidnap her at dao’s point.

When her mother Hlameching Marma and her grandfather Aungsa-u Marma tried to resist him, Musha chopped them to death.

He also struck the girl with a dao, injuring her seriously. However, she was able to run away to safety.

Later, Musha turned to her younger brother and hacked him to death too.

The villagers caught Musha while running back home after the attack.

According to locals, there is a dispute over land between the girl’s family and Musha’s father and uncle.

They say land disputes have taken a serous turn after the in-migration of the settlers in the 1980s.

The cold blooded killing might have links to such land disputes, they added.

UPDF’s Choton Kanti Tanchangya has condemned the killing as “atrocious” and urged the government to ensure justice.

UPDF will stage demonstrations in Bandarban and Khagrachari tomorrow in protest against the killing.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------

In protest to this incident Hill student's organization PCP(Pahari Chatra Parishad) brought out processions in Rangamati, Bandadban and Dhaka demanding punishment for the culprit. Besides this,  UPDF backed up organizations Hill Students Council and HWF  (Hill's Women Federation) also brought out procession with the same  purpose infront of Dhaka Press club. However, the Police foiled it and  said they are allowed  to arrange a human chain only.

 protest rally in Rangamati. Photo credit: Journalist Himel Chakma.

 

protest in Dhaka. Photo courtesy: Natun Chakma

 Following is the news from BDnews24:

Three of a family killed in Bandarban

Bandarban, July 30 (bdnews24.com) – A Bangalee settler has been arrested allegedly for killing three members of a local family in Bandarban.

Wangchhau Marma, 65, his daughter Ramuching Marma, 36, and her son, five-year-old Mong Nuching, were killed around 12:30pm on Saturday in Betjhiri area of Lama upazila, police and witnesses said. But none could confirm the motive of the killings.

Arrestee Mohammad Musa, 20, son of Shahjahan Karbari, hails from Muslimpara of the same area.

Officer-in-charge of Lama Police Station Mohammad Hossain told bdnews24.com that the bodies were brought to the station and that a case would be filed in this regard.

District police superintendent Mohammad Kamrul Hassan confirmed the deaths and told reporters that the reason for the murders could be known after the interrogation of Musa.

Former mayor of Lama municipality Tajul Islam told reporters that after borrowing a chopper from him, Musa attacked Wangchhau when he was working in the field. Later, he killed the two others.

Musa was caught by locals when he was fleeing as Umaching, daughter of Ramuching, screamed, Tajul said. Umaching was a witness to the killings.

The family lived in a makeshift house on a hill in the area and was engaged in farming, he added.

------- courtesy: bdnews24 ------------------------

Following is the news from banglanews24:

3 of a tribal family slaughtered District Correspondent banglanews24.com BANDARBAN: Three members of an indigenous family were slaughtered by unknown assailants at Noapara of Ruposipara union in Lama upazila of the hill district on Saturday noon, in one of so many acts of savagery in recent times. The deceased were identified as Aung Cha U Marma, his wife Lamu Chu Marma and their son Mong Nu Ching. Lama thana OC Mohammad Hossain told banglanews that police arrested Abu Musa, son of Md Shahjahan, as a suspect in the triple murder. Lama upazila chairman Ismail Hossain and the officials of local administration went to the backwoods hamlet to recover the bodies, sources said. Ruposipara UP chairman Satring Fru Marma told banglanews, “A gang of miscreants swooped on the indigenous family with sharp weapons while they were working in the field at about 1:00pm. At one stage, the goons slaughtered them all.” Law-enforcing agencies and army troops were sent there to avert any backlash as a tense situation had been prevailing in the area till the filing of the report at 8:30pm. “We condemn the barbaric incident,” said United People’s Democratic Front leader Niron Chakma while talking to banglanews. ---------------------------courtesy: banglanews24-------------------------------------------

Foreign Minister’s remark demanded to withdraw by indigenous leaders, academics, rights activists.

On 29 July 2011 Indigenous peoples and academics and rights groups took to the streets in Dhaka denouncing the statements of the Foreign Minister Dipu Moni, about indigenous peoples and demanded to withdraw the ‘objectionable remarks which were discriminatory and disrespectful to indigenous peoples’

The demand was made in human chain programme organised by Bangladesh Adivasi Chatra Sangram Parishad (Bangladesh Indigenous Students Action Council) in front of the National Museum at Shahbag in Dhaka carrying placards reading slogans against the Foreign Minister and the 15th amendment to the constitution which did not address their longstanding demand for their constitutional recognition as ‘indigenous peoples’.

Speakers said such biased speech could only instigate the peoples of CHT to form a stern movement rather than finding a peaceful solution. The notion of microscopic population of the national minorities’ in Dipu Moni’s speech is totally ‘undemocratic’ and ‘disrespectful’. A democratic country should ensure minorities’ rights even they are microscopic population compared mainstream population.

The speakers also strongly criticised Dipu Moni’s defining of ‘indigenous peoples’ term based on dictionaries and said such flawed definition as a foreign minister, was ‘regrettable’ and ‘shameful’. They said, she proved her ignorance in front of foreign diplomats around the world. They questioned Foreign Minister saying that if the CHT has no indigenous population then how Raja Devasish Roy became a member of United Nations Permanent Forum on Indigenous Issues? 

Politician Haider Akbar Khan Rono said he as a Bangladeshi and a Bengali, protests against such statements. “As a Bangladeshi working for this country, I protest on behalf of all my Adivasi sisters and brothers, other friends and colleagues, who are working for the indigenous people towards the development of our Motherland.

Sanjeeb Drong, general secretary of Bangladesh Adivashi Forum claimed that Dipu Moni had expressed her solidarity regarding the ‘indigenous’ term in 2008. Election manifesto of the ruling party and the prime minister’s speech in 2009 also contains the term indigenous.         

Dhaka University Professor Robayet Ferdous criticised Foreign Minister as she said giving an special and elevated identity to enfranchise only 1.2 % of the total population of 150 million by disentitling the 98.8% cannot be in the national interest of Bangladesh. Robayet Ferdous said that such a notion was ‘undemocratic’ and ‘disrespectful towards other communities.’ He opined that a democratic country should ensure the rights of the minorities even if they account for less than 1 per cent of the population and should not practise ‘majority-ism’. 

Besides, Dr. H K S Arefin, Professor of Dhaka University, Mojammel Huque Tara, Central member of Workers party of Bangladesh, Dipayon Khisa of Kapaeeng Foundation, Golum Murtaza, editor of Saptahik , Mahmudul Haque Suman teacher of Jahangirnagar University, Obaidul Haque, Associate professor of Dhaka University, Tandra Chakma, human Rights activists, Jewel Chakma, Member CHT Hill Students Council, Dany Drong, President of Garo Student Union, Ananta Bikash Dhamai, Information secretary of Bangladesh Adivasi Chattra Songram Parishad among others also expressed their solidarity, at the human chain.

It is mentionable that on 26 July 2011, Foreign Minister told diplomats and journalists in two separate briefings that the minority people living in the CHT were ‘tribal and not indigenous.’ She also said that CHT peoples were 'asylum-seekers' and Bangalis are the true indigenous peoples of Bangladesh.

----
Courtesy:
Kapaeeng Foundation



Photo courtesy: Ananta Bikash Dhamai

Press Release by IJO on ECOSOC Meeting at UN

International Council for the Indigenous Peoples of CHT (ICIP-CHT)

12 Marcil, St. Constant, Quebec J5A 1R9, CANADA. Phone: 001-450-632-4657 and  Email: icip.cht2010@gmail.com

UN ECOSOC rejects Bangladesh Government’s challenge to UNPFII's mandate to deal with CHT Accord

The General Segment of the United Nations Economic and Social Council (ECOSOC), whose session started on 22^nd July, ended yesterday (29^th) in Geneva, Switzerland. ECOSOC is the parent body of several subsidiary bodies, including the UN Permanent Forum on Indigenous Issues (UNPFII), and reports to the UN general Assembly. 

After intense negotiations over the past three days and even up to the last minute of the agenda, the ECOSOC rejected the GoB’s requests and adopted the UNPFII report. Bangladesh had expressed its concerns over the PFII going beyond its mandate in dealing with the issue of the implementation of the CHT Accord of 1997, on the ground that there were no indigenous peoples in the Chittagong Hill Tracts (CHT). Statements in explanation of its position were made by the GOB, as by others among the fifty-four members of ECOSOC. However, the GoB lacking solidarity from other ECOSOC member-states, accepted to ‘compromise.’

A few of the many concerns raised by the GoB are to be included as ‘noted’; in the nature of a ‘footnote.’ However, ECOSOC, will not delete any paragraphs of the 10^th session report, as was pleaded by the GoB. ECOSOC will not distinguish between indigenous and tribal groups, as highlighted by the GoB, or take into account the GoB’s challenge of the jurisdiction of the PFII to deal with the CHT Accord of 1977 on the basis that the ethnic groups of the CHT were not indigenous, and hence outside the purview of the mandate of the PFII.

The UNPFII, in June, had called on the GoB, 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 indigenous peoples’ as per the 1997 CHT Accord. 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 units are taken from any, that are accused by indigenous Jumma people of violating human rights in the CHT.

Other country responses:

The USA seemed determined to protect the integrity of the UNPFII and this reflected a major shift in its international engagements with regard to indigenous issues under President Obama.

Mexico was the lead facilitator and played a very constructive role in the consensual decision. Bolivia highlighted PFII as the only space for dialogue on IP issues in the UN; France (EU) reaffirmed independent nature of PFII and reiterated that the report be adopted by consensus, albeit with a note, refers to a specific situation and does not set a precedent for ECOSOC to deal with reports of a subsidiary body; Australia supported the role of the PFII as a constructive forum for dialogue; in such complex situations as in the CHT, it stands ready to assist GOB/ and people of the CHT in dialogue; and Morocco welcomed adoption by consensus.

Reportedly, only China, Pakistan and Saudi Arabia, all three countries with the worst human-rights records in Asia, provided some support to the concerns raised by Bangladesh; Even though Russia showed some leaning towards GoB’s stance, they reiterated the importance of the role of indigenous peoples on the international human rights agenda.

FINAL & FULL TEXT ADOPTED BY ECOSOC CAN BE FOUND AT: http://www.unog.ch/unog/website/news_media.nsf/%28httpNewsByYear_en%29/EE007477BCA3B90FC12578DC003B50EE?OpenDocument

Published by ICIP-CHT (International Council for the Indigenous Peoples of CHT)

Media contact:

Prof Mong Sanu: +88 01730086301

Wasfia Nazreen: +88 01675588890

Press Release on ECOSCOC

Govt fails to amend UN report on indigenous people

David Bergman
31 July, 2011
The Bangladesh government was unsuccessful on Friday in removing two paragraphs from a report written by the UN’s Permanent Forum on Indigenous Issues, which had recommended in May that the government take far-reaching measures to ‘normalise’ the situation in the Chittagong Hill Tracts.

However members of the UN Economic and Social Council, which has been meeting in Geneva this month, did agree as a compromise, that its own report would ‘take note’ that the Forum should  ensure that it ‘adhere[s] to its mandate’ and that its studies are conducted in a fully independent, transparent, impartial and objective manner’.

The agreed text did not specifically refer to Bangladesh’s concerns.

Abul Kalam Abdul Momen, Bangladesh’s representative at the Council’s meeting, said that he had accepted the compromise ‘for the sake of consensus’ but ‘reiterated [the country’s] reservations and serious concerns about the report of the Permanent Forum on Indigenous Issues’.

He continued to inform the council meeting that, ‘The Forum acted outside its mandate in commissioning a study on the implementation status of the Chittagong Hill Tracts peace accord of 1997.’

He further stated that the study, ‘was conducted in a manner that raised questions of transparency, ethics, impartiality and objectivity relating to its conduct and contents’, claiming that, ‘the Special Rapporteur did not disclose [his] identity, mandate and objective while interacting with the authorities, which is a violation of established norms and practices’.

However Sanjeeb Drong, the general secretary of the Bangladesh Adivasi Forum, welcomed the decision of the Council not to amend the Forum’s report, and told New Age that the government should ‘take into account that most other countries did not support its stance’.

He also said that the government should not take the Forum’s report ‘in a negative way’ and should ‘take all necessary steps to uphold human rights in the CHT’.

The two paragraphs in the Forum’s report, which the government had wanted to be removed, had recommended that the Bangladesh government declare a timeframe for implementation of the 1997 CHT accord, undertake a ‘phased withdrawal’ of temporary army camps from the area, and form an independent commission to inquire into ‘human rights violations perpetrated against indigenous peoples including sexual violence against women and girls’.

It had also recommended that the UN Department of Peacekeeping Operations prevent military personnel and units that are violating human rights in the CHT from ‘participating in international peacekeeping activities’.

The Forum had made its recommendations after receiving a study on the status of the implementation of the CHT Accord, which was written by Lars-Anders Baer, the president of the Saami Parliament in Sweden.

According to diplomatic sources, the government of Bangladesh was forced to withdraw its proposal to have the paragraphs dropped from the report as there was insufficient support from the council’s members.

One diplomat said that members of the council ‘objected to this proposal as it would have set a very negative precedent’ to amend the substance of a submitted report.

The diplomat added that Bangladesh government’s representative had realized at the last moment that it would have been ‘embarrassing’ if the proposal was put to the vote, as it would have lost.

According to the official summary of the Council’s meeting on Friday, Bangladesh’s position was supported by China, Saudi Arabia and Pakistan.

China’s representative said that the indigenous people’s forum in Bangladesh ‘should not expand at will the concept of indigenous people and put ethnic minorities into the same category as indigenous people’.

On Tuesday last week, foreign affairs minister Dipu Moni gave a speech to foreign diplomats in Dhaka in which she argued that the CHT’s tribal people were not indigenous as they had not been ‘physically displaced and eventually dispossessed of their land by colonial/external settlers from a foreign nation’.

She went on to say that the ‘original inhabitants or first nationals of this soil are ethnic Bengalis by descent who constitute nearly 99 per cent of Bangladesh’s 150 million people’.

Her speech triggered off a round of diplomacy by the Bangladesh’s government to persuade members of Council that the Forum, which deals with indigenous people, has no jurisdiction to deal with Bangladesh as it had no indigenous people.
The foreign minister’s speech was described the following day as ‘incorrect and misconceived’ by Raja Devashish Roy, the chief of the Chakmas and a member of the UN’s Permanent Forum on Indigenous Issues.

He said that she was not correct in assuming that a people had to be displaced by colonial settlers or have had to live in one place for millennia to be considered indigenous.

The modern interpretation of the term, as used by the United Nations and other international agencies, he said, ‘includes groups hitherto regarded as tribal’.

.......................................................................................................
Courtesy: New Age

CHT Commission asks ECOSOC to adhere to UNPFII report

Staff Correspondent

International watchdog Chittagong Hill Tracts Commission on Friday called on the United Nations Economic and Social Council for not responding to the Bangladesh government’s objection to the report of the 10th session of the UN Permanent Forum on Indigenous Issues and to adhere to the report as it is.

The Bangladesh government raised objections to two of the paragraphs in the report which deal with the UN peacekeeping forces and wants them expunged.

The commission in a letter to the ECOSOC president, Lazarous Kapambwe, cited recent remarks of Bangladesh’s foreign minister Dipu Moni declining to give national minorities in Bangladesh the status of indigenous people and said that it had found the remarks discriminatory and disrespectful towards hill people.

It also said that Dipu Moni’s remarks reflected substantive and discriminatory misinterpretation of Bangladeshi laws and international human rights laws.

The letter said that UNFII member Devashish Roy, who is a traditional community chief in hill tracts and elected by indigenous communities in Asia, had lodged protests against Dipu Moni’s remarks which received nationwide support from national minorities and a wide section of mainstream civic forums of Bangladesh.

The commission also observed that ‘by making such objectionable remarks about the permanent forum’s report and about the indigenous peoples of the CHT, the foreign minister is also implicitly questioning the competence and expertise of the sixteen members of the Permanent Forum, which includes eight respected experts of indigenous origin and eight respected governmental experts elected by members of the ECOSOC.’

Citing newspaper reports, the letter, signed by the commission co-chairs Eric Avebury, Sultana Kamal and Elsa Stamatpoulou, said that the reason behind the foreign minister’s statements to journalists and the diplomatic community was in fact related to ECOSOC’s current session in Geneva where the UNPFII report would be discussed.

The commission said that the Bangladesh government was serious about the two paragraphs in the report that suggests human rights screening of military personnel deployed in the Chittagong Hill Tracts to be recruited in UN peacekeeping forces and wants the paragraphs expunged.

‘The CHT Commission would like to iterate its agreement with the recommendations made by the Special Rapporteur, including on the implementation of the provisions of the CHT Accord, and those addressed to the UN’s Department of Peace Keeping Operations that it should develop a mechanism to screen human rights violations committed by military personnel and that it should prevent human rights violators and alleged human rights violators within the security forces of Bangladesh from participating in international peacekeeping activities under the auspices of the United Nations,’ the letter said.

‘The CHT Commission hopes that the UN Economic and Social Council would adhere to its non-discriminatory approach and adopt the report of the 10th session of the Permanent Forum and all its recommendations, including those related to the Chittagong Hill Tracts Accord of 1997,’ it said.

--------------------------
courtesy: New Age

Following is the original statement of CHTC:

CHTCommission Statement ECOSOC

Jumma girl raped in Baghaichari

A 13-year old Jumma girl has been raped by a Bengali settler in Baghaichari under Rangamati district.

The victim (name withheld) is a student of class seven at Tulaban High School and stays with her relative Mono Ranjan Chakma in the village of Bhokto Para under Rupokari Union

The incident occurred at 11am on Wednesday, 27 July. According to sources, one Abdul Majid, 28, son of late Abu Hossain Gazi went to the house of Mono Ranjan Chakma and found the girl alone. Mono Ranjan and all his family members had gone to bazaar. She was about to set out for school to attend an exam.

Majid put a fifty Taka note in her hand and asked for sex. When she refused, Majid grabbed and raped her.

One day after the incident Majid was arrested by police.

In protest against the incident, Bangladesh Teachers Association’s Baghaichari chapter staged a human chain at Upazila headquarters yesterday. Teachers and students from different schools in the area took part in the programme.

Gyana Ranjan Chakma, headmaster of Tulaban High School; Arun Lal Chakma, headmaster of Baghaichari High School; Jamal Uddin, headmaster of Kachalong High School; Bhadra Sen Chakma, headmaster of Kachalong Girls School and Prashanta Moy Chakma, headmaster of Ugolchari High School spoke at the gathering, condemning the incident.

They demanded exemplary punishment for the culprit and safety and security for the girl students.

On the other hand, several hundred Bengali settlers led by Bangali Chattra Parisahd (Bengali Students Council) laid a siege to the house of Sudarshan Chakma, chairman of Baghaichari Upazila, demanding the release of the rapist.

They tried to divert the issue towards communalism and save the culprit. However, the unruly settlers had to disperse when the local administration intervened.

----------------------------------

source: chtnews.com

ASK Statement: PFII's 10th session report to UN ECOSOC

POSITION OF THE GOVERNMENT OF BANGLADESH REGARDING THE LACK OF LOCUS STANDI (LEGAL STANDING) OF THE UN PERMANENT FORUM ON INDIGENOUS ISSUES TO DEAL WITH ISSUES OF THE CHITTAGONG HILL TRACTS ACCORD OF 1997

14. Social and human rights questions

(h) Permanent Forum on Indigenous Issues

• Report of the Permanent Forum on Indigenous Issues on its tenth session

Statement prepared by Ain O Salish Kendra (ASK), an ECOSOC-accredited organization, Bangladesh

Dear Madam/Sir,

We are gravely concerned with the recent efforts taken by our honorable Foreign Minister to educate diplomats, foreign officials and media editors, on the ‘indigenous’ people of Bangladesh. The Government’s steps are misleading and highly derogatory.

In recent months, the Government of Bangladesh (GOB) is also known to have challenged and questioned the locus standi or legal standing of the UN Permanent Forum on Indigenous Issues (UNPFII) to deal with issues related to the Chittagong Hill Tracts (CHT) Accord of 1997 on the ground that the peoples of the CHT are not indigenous.

The GOB is reportedly going to request the UN Economic and Social Council (ECOSOC) - the parent body of the UNPFII – (i) to “delete paragraphs 102(a) and 103 of the tenth session of the UNPFII”; (ii) to “drop mentioning of the term ‘indigenous peoples’ from Para 102(c) and (d) as they are not indigenous peoples’”; (iii) to “scrutinize the procedural aspects of (asking for such a study) the Report by PFII as well as the contents of the report; and (iv) to refrain from “adopting” and/or “endorsing” the report of the UNPFII.

The above stand of the GOB is without lawful basis and discriminatory towards the indigenous peoples of the CHT, on the following, among other grounds:

1.     That, irrespective of the terminology used in the laws of Bangladesh to refer to the indigenous peoples of the CHT, it is established beyond doubt that the peoples of the CHT are indigenous in accordance with the provisions of the ILO Convention No. 107 on Indigenous and Tribal Populations, which was ratified by Bangladesh in June, 1972;[1]

2.     That the indigenous peoples of the CHT are referred to as ‘indigenous’ in several legal instruments, governmental policy documents and judicial pronouncements, including: (a) the CHT Regulation, 1900; (b) the Finance Acts of 1995 and 2010; (c) the Poverty Reduction Strategy (PRSP-2008, 2010); (d) a judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court of Bangladesh in Sampriti Chakma v. Commissioner of Customs & Others (5 BLC, AD, 29).

Therefore, the members of ECOSOC are kindly urged to adhere to the international norms of non-discrimination and refrain from accepting the position and request of the GOB as mentioned in paragraphs above. It is reiterated that the UNPFII is absolutely within its mandate on indigenous issues to deal with the CHT Accord of 1997 and other issues of the indigenous peoples of the CHT and other parts of Bangladesh.

---

1.     According to ILO Convention, article 1(b) ‘’members of tribal or semi-tribal populations in independent countries which are regarded as indigenous on account of their descent from the populations which inhabited the country, or a geographical region to which the country belongs, at the time of conquest or colonisation and which, irrespective of their legal status, live more in conformity with the social, economic and cultural institutions of that time than with the institutions of the nation to which they belong.’’

The original statement can be downloaded from the following link:

http://www.scribd.com/doc/61180374/ASKstatementECOSOC

Wasfia Nazreen

“I ain’t indigenous” – reflection of a Bengali

July 28, 2011

Dipu Moni, as the special guest speaking for Adibashi rights; 9 August 2008. Courtesy: Adibashi Forum

Once upon a time, the British called us ‘blacks’, and then later the Pakistani Army called us ‘inferior race.’ Time passes, it is 2011. As International Day of the World’s Indigenous Peoples approaches again this year, Bangladesh is stuck in a quicksand ditch trying to figure out ‘who’ the Adibashis or indigenous of our land really are in the first place! This goes back to the Bangladesh Nationalist Party era, when ministers were first heard saying “Bangladesh has no indigenous people”, but somehow that ideology has leaked into a few heads in the Awami League as well (we hope they are the minority within the party).

The past year saw an intense amount of debate on this issue, with its finale being delivered at the 10th session of the UNPFII (United Nations Permanent Forum on Indigenous Issues), when the First Secretary of the Government of Bangladesh, Iqbal Ahmed, declared in his speech, surely vetted and pre-approved by the home and foreign ministry in Dhaka: “There are no indigenous people in Bangladesh.”

And as the United Nations Economic and Social Council (ECOSOC), the parent body of UNPFII, gathers in Geneva as I type, certain government officials are again raising this issue. On 26th of July, our honourable foreign minister Dr Dipu Moni, held back-to-back meetings with senior diplomats and media editors to “deal with ‘misperceptions’ both at home and abroad about the ethnic minorities.”

“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. This is solely aimed at securing a privileged status for an established and legally-accepted entity, at the expense of national identity, image and territorial integrity of Bangladesh.” She said.

Promises and reality
Here is a question for our honourable foreign minister. If this is truly what she believes, why did she accept an invitation as the ‘Special Guest’ to World Indigenous Day, both in 2008 and 2009 (see picture)? Let us extend the question wider than our foreign minister, and ask the same question to our honourable prime minister as well.

Madam prime minister, did you forget the promise, in the 20-points Awami League election manifesto of 2008 (1), based on which the indigenous people and their Bengali supporters put their trust on you on the election day?

That manifesto included the following declaration: (Under “Our Promise, Work Programme and Declaration,” number 18.): “Terrorism, discriminatory treatment and human rights violations against religious and ethnic minorities and indigenous people must come to an end permanently.” The manifesto further stated: “Their entitlement to equal opportunity in all spheres of state and social life will be ensured. Special measures will be taken to secure their original ownership on land, water bodies, and their age-old rights on forest areas.”

The 2008 Awami League manifesto further stated: “All laws and other arrangements discriminatory to minorities, indigenous people and ethnic groups will be repealed. Special privileges will be made available in educational institutions for religious minorities and indigenous people. Such special privileges will also apply for their employment.”

And reading further in the same manifesto, we see: “The 1997 Chittagong Hill Tract Peace Accord will be fully implemented.”

“Thakur ghorey key rey? Ami kola khaini!”
It is, of course, no secret that Bangladesh government’s requests have been ongoing since the UNPFII in May, to remove some portions of the report published by the UNPFII, which called on the government, among others, 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 indigenous peoples’ as per the 1997 CHT Accord that this government signed. We would understand all these steps if it was a BNP government in power, but why are these actions coming from the same party that signed the Accord?

Furthermore, the UNPFII recommended that the UN Department of Peacekeeping Operations (UNPKO) review the military personnel and units who are being sent on UN missions (a source of great pride to all of us as Bangladeshis) to make sure no personnel or units are taken from any that are accused by indigenous Jumma people of violating human rights in the CHT (2).

According to an email I received from one official contacted by GoB, we hear that our government, after having challenged and questioned the locus standi or legal standing of the UNPFII to deal with issues related to the CHT Accord of 1997 on the ground that the peoples of the CHT are “not indigenous”, is reportedly going to request the UN ECOSOC  (i) to “delete paragraphs 102(a) and 103 of the report of the tenth session of the UNPFII”; (ii) to “drop mentioning of the term ‘indigenous peoples’ from Para 102(c) and (d) as they are not indigenous peoples’”; (iii)  to “scrutinize the procedural aspects of (asking for such a study) the Report by PFII as well as the contents of the report; and (iv) to refrain from “adopting” and/or “endorsing” the report of the UNPFII. And thus we understand the timing of our foreign minister’s session with journalists and foreign missions.

Let me remind our readers that out of the 16 independent experts at the UNPFII, eight are government-nominated and eight are indigenous-nominated. The members nominated by governments are elected by ECOSOC based on the five regional groupings of states normally used at the United Nations (Africa; Asia; Eastern Europe; Latin America and the Caribbean; and Western Europe and other states) (3). When one is questioning the Permanent Forum’s work, it is also questioning direct Government Representative’s work, as expert members! The country representatives, or Permanent Forum members that are government-nominated for this term, represent the following countries: Estonia, Iran, Australia, Russia, Congo, Guatemala, Guyana and Finland. So the GoB has challenged the above-mentioned governments of the countries involved, in addition to the expert mechanism of UNPFII!

What does the UN term as “indigenous?”
The UN system has developed a modern understanding of the term indigenous (4), the first clause of which says: “Self- identification as indigenous peoples at the individual level and accepted by the community as their member.” Aside from this, ‘Historical continuity with pre-colonial and/or pre-settler societies,’ ‘Distinct social, economic or political systems,’ ‘Distinct language, culture and beliefs,’ ‘Form non-dominant groups of society,’ are just some highlights — all of which apply to the inhabitants of CHT as well as the Adibashis of the plain lands of Bangladesh.

According to the UN the most fruitful approach is to identify, rather than define indigenous peoples and hence there is no set definition of indigenous peoples in the UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples. Similarly, the UN Declaration on the Rights of Persons belonging to Ethnic, Linguistic or Religious Minorities contains no definition of “minorities” groups. This is the usual custom and practice of the UN when dealing with such population groups. This is based on the fundamental criterion of self-identification as underlined in a number of human rights documents.

The aforesaid UN declaration is also based on the premise that “the term “indigenous” has prevailed as a generic term for many years. In some countries, there may be preference for other terms including tribes, first peoples/nations, aboriginals, ethnic groups, Adivasi, janajati. Occupational and geographical terms like hunter-gatherers, nomads, peasants, hill people, etc. also exist and for all practical purposes can be used interchangeably with “indigenous peoples.”” Tribal and indigenous are often used interchangeably, although in current discourses the term ‘indigenous’ is clearly favoured on account of disparaging connotations of ‘tribal’ in many cultures and contexts, Bangladesh included.

Our foreign minister was quoted as saying “Giving a special and elevated identity to enfranchise only 1.2 percent of the total population of 150 million by disentitling the 98.8 percent cannot be in the national interest of Bangladesh.” We, the Bengalis, the so-called intellectual, ‘superior race’, the MAJORITY and overwhelming politically, socially and economically dominant elite, are afraid of giving the just title to 1 percent of the population?

So what the foreign minister is saying is that by addressing the ‘historic wrong’ of NOT including the excluded, by recognising indigenous status, would ‘elevate’ their status? Actually, such an exercise would not ‘elevate’ their status, but merely draw attention to their historic and current exclusion and marginalisation. The international understanding of the term, ‘Indigenous peoples’, does not provide any status to indigenous peoples, that is superior to that of other peoples. Such a status merely outlines the context of providing citizens of indigenous descent with true equality and non-discrimination in context-specific ways.

We find it derogatory that an honourable minister of a country can say about indigenous people: “They came here as asylum seekers and economic migrants. The original inhabitants or first nationals of Bangladesh are the ethnic Bengalees by descent that constitute nearly 99 percent of the country’s 150 million people.” The above stand of the GoB is discriminatory.

Irrespective of the terminology used in the laws of Bangladesh to refer to the indigenous peoples of the CHT, it is established beyond doubt that the peoples of the CHT are indigenous in accordance with the provisions of the ILO Convention No. 107 on Indigenous and Tribal Populations, which was ratified by Bangladesh in June, 1972, the ILO Convention No 169 and the UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples.

As a Bangladeshi, a Bengali, I protest against such statements. As a Bangladeshi working for this country, I protest on behalf of all my Adibashi sisters and brothers, and other friends and colleagues, who continue to work for and with Adibashis towards the development of our Motherland.

On reflection, the government’s attempts to belittle the term “indigenous,” is helping the Adibashi cause in the bigger picture. At the end of the day, the UN (and all its relevant bodies) will still uphold its progressive understanding of indigenous peoples, but now every Jodhu, Modhu, Ram & Shaam is getting to know about the cause – of discrimination and exclusion of Adibashis and acute human rights violation perpetrated against them – that received very scant attention in the last 40 years or so in the international arena!

Now the average citizen of Bangladesh is getting to know about the cause. When the average citizen looks deeply into this issue, I am confident they will reach a conclusion that is very different from that of our foreign minister and our government.

* The author is indebted to research & e-debates amongst IP and progressive Bengali circles.
———————————–
Wasfia Nazreen is a development practitioner, a multi-disciplinary researcher and a member of DRISHTIPAT Writers’ Collective.
Footnotes:
(1) Election Manifesto of Bangladesh Awami League-2008 http://www.albd.org/autoalbd/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=367&Itemid=1

(2) http://jummacommunity.wordpress.com/2011/07/17/unpfii-10th-session-recommendations-on-bangladesh/
(3) Members of the United Nations Permanent Forum on Indigenous Issues; http://www.un.org/esa/socdev/unpfii/en/members.html
(4) Who are the Indigenous? www.un.org/esa/socdev/unpfii/documents/5session_factsheet1.pdf


-----------------------------the end-------------------------

courtesy: http://opinion.bdnews24.com/2011/07/28/%E2%80%9Ci-ain%E2%80%99t-indigenous%E2%80%9D-%E2%80%93-reflection-of-a-bengali/

Protest against FM's incorrect and flawed statement on indigenous identity

There will be a human chain tomorrow(July 29th) in protest of FM's incorrect and flawed statement on indigenous identity of the people of Chittagong Hill Tracts. Organized by Bangladesh Adivasi Forum.

Time: Friday, July 29 · 10:30am - 1:30pm
Location: Infront of Bangladesh National Museum, Dhaka, Bangladesh.

Find details on facebook: https://www.facebook.com/event.php?eid=225145787529718
 

Devashish slates Dipu’s views

David Bergman

A speech given by Bangladesh’s foreign affairs minister to diplomats on Tuesday, in which she contended that the people living in the Chittagong Hill Tracts were ‘tribal, not indigenous’, has been strongly criticized by the chief of the Chakmas who described her views as ‘incorrect and misconceived’.

New Age has learnt that the timing of Dipu Moni’s meeting with the top diplomats was linked to the government’s attempt later this week to persuade the United Nations Economic and Social Council to remove two paragraphs from a report of the United Nations Permanent Forum on Indigenous Issues.

The report, published in May, called on the 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 indigenous peoples’.

It also recommended that the UN Department of Peacekeeping Operations prevent the military personnel and units, that are violating human rights in the CHT, from participating in
international peacekeeping activities.

In her speech to the foreign heads of missions, which according to diplomats was hastily arranged, Dipu Moni stated that the CHT’s tribal people were not indigenous to Bangladesh as they had not been ‘physically displaced and eventually dispossessed of their land by colonial/external settlers from a foreign nation’.

She went on to say that the ‘original inhabitants or first nationals of this soil are ethnic Bengalis by descent who constitute nearly 99 per cent of Bangladesh’s 150 million people’.

Ethnic Bengalis have been the original inhabitants of this ‘ancestral’ land for 4,000 years or more, she claimed.

‘We ethnic Bengalis are not, I repeat not, colonial settlers who came to the land of Bengal in the passage of time, neither are we foreigners or non-indigenous to our own native land, and never will be,’ she added.

The CHT’s tribal people, in contrast, she told the audience, ‘are late settlers on Bengal’s soil’.

Moni finished her speech by arguing that it would not be in the ‘the national interest of Bangladesh’ to give ‘a special and elevated identity to enfranchise’ a group of people who constitute less than 2 per cent of the total population.

However, in a detailed four-page statement Raja Devashish Roy, the chief of the Chakma people and a member of the UN’s Permanent Forum on Indigenous Issues, strongly criticised the foreign minister’s speech.

He said that she was not correct in assuming that a people had to be displaced by colonial settlers or have had to live in one place for millennia to be considered indigenous.

‘The government is probably stuck in the early 20th century construction of the term “indigenous”, which was confined to America and Australia and New Zealand and which had involved colonial displacement,’ he said.

The modern interpretation of the term, as used by the United Nations and other international agencies, he said, ‘includes groups hitherto regarded as tribal’.

‘The misconceived, inaccurate and artificial distinction between “tribal” and “indigenous” is no longer relevant to the international human rights discourses,’ maintained the Chakma chief.

Devashish argued that the indigenous peoples of the CHT fulfil the criteria of being ‘indigenous’ by ‘being descendants of pre-colonial or pre-conquest societies’ and adhering ‘to pre-colonial or pre-conquest political, social and cultural institutions’ norms and customs’.

He also claimed that the foreign minister’s understanding of the history of the CHT was ‘substantially incorrect’.

He said that the Chakmas have lived in the area that they were now occupying from ‘at least the 1550s’ and that the ‘Bengali people are not known to have permanently resided in the region before the 19th century’.

‘Whenever [the Chakmas and other peoples] may have settled therein, these territories were not inhabited by Bengali people,’ he said.

Devashish also criticised the notion that enfranchisement of the relatively small numbers of CHT people would result in the ‘disentitlement’ of the vast majority.

‘It is inconceivable to think,’ he said, ‘that the mere recognition of the “indigenous” status of some citizens will “disentitle” or otherwise disadvantage other citizens in governance, political, economic or social spheres, especially when they constitute the overwhelming majority of the country’s population and constitute the political, social and economic elite of the country.’

The speech by the foreign minister follows the rejection by the government in May of a report on the Chittagong Hill Tracts Peace Accord, which was presented to the Permanent Forum on Indigenous Issues.

Referring to that report, the foreign minister said, ‘Unfortunately, once again, the ethnic Bengali nation remains a victim of global misperception about our ancient anthropological roots, our colonial history and our identity as a nation.’

The Bangladesh government hopes to be able to persuade the UN Economic and Social Council that
the UN Permanent Forum on Indigenous Issues should not have made any recommendations about
the CHT peace accord as it does not involve indigenous people.

------
courtesy: New Age

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------

 Following are the pictures from 2008; Dr. Dipu Moni attended a rally to celebrate UN's World indigenous day with country's indigenous leaders.

-------------------------------

Following is the news from The daily star:

Hills People

Raja Devasish rejects FM's statement

Chakma Raja Devasish Roy yesterday in a written statement refuted Foreign Minister Dipu Moni's claim that non-Bangalee hill-people of the Chittagong Hill Tracts are not "indigenous" but "ethnic minorities".

As the minister termed the hill-people as economic migrants, Raja Devasish said political, social, and economic causes of migration cannot be the basis of disentitlement to "indigenous" status.

Devasish, who is also a member of the United Nations Permanent Forum on Indigenous Issues, referred to the ILO Convention No 107 that Bangladesh ratified, and said to be qualified as "indigenous" a community does not have to have resided in a place for millennia.

A community need to have merely settled or lived in a place "at the time of conquest or colonisation" and need to have lived in conformity with the political, social and cultural institutions of pre-colonial times to qualify as "indigenous" -- according to the ILO Convention, he said.

While briefing diplomats on Tuesday in the auditorium of the foreign ministry, Dipu Moni said a special and elevated identity to enfranchise only 1.2 percent of the total population by disentitling the 98.8 percent cannot be in the national interest of Bangladesh.

Differing with the statement, Raja Devasish said the status of Bangalees as natives of Bangladesh is not challenged or questioned by the assertion of the "indigenous" identity of other ethnic groups.

Recognition as "indigenous" will not provide any privileged status to the non-Bangalee hill-people, he added.

He referred to the cases of Nepal, the Philippines, and Scandinavian and Latin American countries where recognitions of the "indigenous" population did not curb any rights of the non-indigenous people.

The foreign minister said in her briefing that in the constitution, through the 15th amendment, the present government categorised the non-Bangalee hill-people as "ethnic minorities" and no longer only as "tribal" people.

The Chakma raja differed and said the statement of the minister is incorrect as "there is no reference to 'ethnic minorities' in the constitution".

Raja Devasish said according to the latest amendment to the constitution, the new article 23A refers to "small nations/peoples", "small ethnic groups" and "small communities". Just because the constitution does not explicitly refer to minorities, it cannot be denied that minority groups exist; similarly it is incorrect to say that there is no "indigenous" people in Bangladesh, he added.

The indigenous people of CHT fulfils the criteria of "indigenous" by being (i) descendants of pre-colonial or pre-conquest societies; and (ii) by adhering to pre-colonial or pre-conquest political, social and cultural institutions' norms and customs, among others, the Chakma king said.

About the minister's comment about "tribal people" of CHT migrating to Bangladesh, he said may be that is equally applicable to other Bangladeshi citizens that are of Bangla-speaking or Urdu-speaking origin belonging to the Islamic faith, who migrated from present-day India or Myanmar.

----------

courtesy: the daily star

Foreign Minister's statement flawed, says Raja Devasish

Dhaka, July 27 (bdnews24.com) – Raja Devasish Roy has termed the foreign minister's statement on the status of the Chittagong Hill Tracts (CHT) inhabitants 'incorrect' from various angles.

Reacting to the foreign minister's observations made on Tuesday, Chakma Circle Raja Devasish, in a CHT Commission press statement, says Dipu Moni's reference to the Constitution of Bangladesh, including its 15th amendment, is flawed.

He points out, "There is no reference to 'ethnic minorities' in the 15th amendment. In addition to 'indigenous', the new article 23A also refers to 'small races/peoples' (Khudro Jatishotta), 'ethnic minorities' (Khudro Nirgoshthi) and 'small communities' (Khudro Shomprodai)."

The statement says that the foreign minister's statement on the "enfranchisement" of 1.2 percent of the national population leading to the "disentitlement" of 98.8 percent of the national population is also incorrect and misconceived.

Raja Devasish says, "Constitutional recognition of the indigenous status of the excluded, marginalised and disadvantaged 1.2 percent of Bangladesh's population will provide a firm platform and legal basis to address the marginality of the members of these populations. It will not provide any privileged status to these groups or to their members.

"Recognition of the indigenous status of population groups in other countries, including Nepal, the Philippines, Scandinavian countries and Latin American countries did not disentitle non-indigenous groups. It is inconceivable to think that the mere recognition of the 'indigenous' status of some citizens would 'disentitle' or otherwise disadvantage other citizens in governance, political, economic or social status."

The foreign minister's statement about the CHT indigenous people being "asylum-seekers and economic migrants" may equally be applicable to other Bangladeshi citizens who are of Bengali- or Urdu-speaking origin.

The expert member of the UN Permanent Forum on Indigenous Issues (UNPFII) said, "The status of Bangalees as natives of Bangladesh is not challenged or questioned by the assertion of the indigenous identity of other ethnic groups. Non-indigenous does not mean 'settlers', at least not in Bangladesh and in several other countries of Asia.

"The indigenous people of the CHT meet the criteria of being 'indigenous' as (i) they are descendants of pre-colonial or pre-conquest societies and (ii) adhere to pre-colonial or pre-conquest political, social and cultural institutions' norms and customs, among others."

'ETHNIC MINORITIES', 'LATE SETTLERS'

Devasish Roy said, "The FM's reference to the CHT indigenous people as 'late settlers' and their recognition as 'tribal people' is substantially incorrect."

"The Chakma people, for example, are recorded in history as having lived in a country called 'Chacomas,' which was separate from Bengal, Arakan and Tripura, at least since the 1550s, within the boundaries of present-day Bangladesh, such as in the accounts of Portuguese geographers and historians."

"They may have lived in their present territories centuries before that date as did other indigenous people of the CHT and elsewhere in Bangladesh."

"In the CHT, Bangalee people are not known to have permanently resided in the region before the 19th century. No where in Bengal is there a record of the indigenous people or Adivasi settling at a place after displacing Bangalee people."

He asserted, "Wherever the indigenous people may have settled, those territories were not inhabited by Bangalee people at the time of their settlement.

"The CHT accord of 1997 and some laws of the British period and of the period after the signing of the accord do regard the indigenous people as 'tribal' or Upajati."

"However, the terms 'tribal' and 'indigenous' or 'aboriginal' have also been used interchangeably," says Chakma Raja.

The word 'indigenous' was used at different times such as in 'CHT Regulation 1900', 'Finance Acts of 1995 and 2010', 'Poverty Reduction Strategy Papers (PRSP-2008, 2019-10)' and 'Judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of Bangladesh in Sampriti Chakma vs Commissioner of Customs & Others'.

The word 'Adivasi' was also used in the statements of Sheikh Hasina, Khaleda Zia and Fakhruddin Ahmed, in goodwill messages on Indigenous Peoples' Day, he adds.

---------------------

courtesy: bdnews24

Statement of Raja Devasish Roy in protest of Dr. Dipu Moni's statement

STATEMENT OF RAJA DEVASISH ROY, CHAKMA CHIEF

& MEMBER, UN PERMANENT FORUM ON INDIGENOUS ISSUES

ON

THE STATEMENT OF THE FOREIGN MINISTER OF BANGLADESH,

DR. DIPU MONI

ON

THE INDIGENOUS STATUS OF THE PEOPLES OF THE CHITTAGONG HILL

TRACTS

AS

 MENTIONED IN THE REPORT OF THE 10^TH SESSION OF THE

UN PERMANENT FORUM ON INDIGENOUS ISSUES

&

AS REPORTED IN bdnews24.com on 26 July, 2011

(http://www.bdnews24.com/details.php?cid=2&id=201888&hb=top)

Dhaka, 27 July, 2010

I am constrained to have to make a statement controverting a statement of the Hon’ble Foreign Minister of Bangladesh, Dr. Dipu Moni, as reported in the bdnews24.com on 26 July, 2011 and in national daily newspapers of Dhaka on 27 July, 2011 – including the Prothom Alo and The Daily Star - regarding the indigenous status of the hill peoples of the Chittagong Hill Tracts (hereafter “CHT”), generally, and in reference to a report of the UN Permanent Forum on Indigenous Issues, at its tenth session at UN Headquarters in New York, in May, 2011.

The Hon’ble Foreign Minister is reported, among others, as having stated the following:

(i)             “In the constitution, all minorities were recognized generically as minorities, and through the 15th amendment, the present government has categorised them as 'ethnic minorities' and no longer only as 'tribal' people," she said.”;

(ii)            “Giving a special and elevated identity to enfranchise only 1.2 percent of the total population of 150 million by disentitling the 98.8 percent cannot be in the national interest of Bangladesh.";

(iii)           “[The] foreign minister said very well recorded recent history of the Indian subcontinent and the CHT region reaffirm that the tribal people of CHT migrated to Bangladesh between 16th and 19th centuries from neighbouring countries and Mongoloid nations. "They came here as asylum seekers and economic migrants." The original inhabitants or first nationals of Bangladesh are the ethnic Bengalees by descent that constitute nearly 99 percent of the country's 150 million people.”; 

(iv)          “The ethnic Bengalees are not colonial settlers, neither are they foreigners or non-indigenous to their own native land and never will be," she stressed.”;

(v)           “From an institutional and legal point of view, the 'ethnic minorities' or 'late settlers' residing in CHT region had been officially recognized as 'tribal' people in all historical documents and references of the Indian sub-continental and colonial documents, she added.”   

Statement of the Chakma Chief & Member of the UN Permanent Forum on Indigenous Issues, Raja Devasish Roy, on the Foreign Minister’s Statement

”Ethnic Minorities”

i) The Hon’ble Minister’s reference to the Constitution of Bangladesh, including its 15^th amendment in 2011, is incorrect. There is no reference to “ethnic minorities”, or its Bengali version: “jatigoto shongkha-loghu” in the 15^th amendment or indeed to any “minorities” groups. In addition to “upajati” (“sub-nations”?), the amendment, in the new article 23A, refers to “small nations/peoples” (“khudro jatishotta), “small ethnic groups” (“khudro nrigoshthi”) and “small communities” (“khudro shomprodai”). Just because the constitution does not explicitly refer to “minorities”, it cannot be denied that minorities groups – whether based upon religious, ethnic or linguistic affiliation - live in Bangladesh. Similarly, it is incorrect to say that there are no indigenous peoples in Bangladesh.

”Enfranchisement & Disentitlement”

(ii) The Hon’ble Minister’s statement on the “enfranchisement” of 1.2 percent of the national population leading to the “disentitlement” of 98.8 per cent of the national population, is incorrect and misconceived. Constitutional recognition of the indigenous status of the excluded, marginalized and disadvantaged 1.2 per cent of Bangladesh’s population would provide a firm platform and legal basis to address the marginality of the members of these populations. It would not provide any privileged status to these groups or to their members. Recognition of the indigenous status of population groups in other countries, including Nepal, the Philippines, Scandinavian countries and Latin American countries did not disentitle non-indigenous groups. It is inconceivable to think that the mere recognition of ‘indigenous’ status of some citizens would “disentitle” or otherwise disadvantage other citizens in governance, political, economic or social spheres, especially when they constitute the overwhelming majority of the country’s population and constitute the political, social and economic elite of the country. Recognition of the indigenous status of peoples is only relevant when they do not constitute the dominant part of a country’s population. It is to address the marginality of of non-dominant population groups’ and their exclusion or marginalization in governance and development, and the discrimination suffered by them, historically and currently,       

”Asylum-Seekers & Economic Migrants”

(iii) The Hon’ble Minister’s statement about the CHT indigenous peoples being ”asylum-seekers & economic migrants” may be equally applicable to other Bangladeshi citizens that are of Bengali-speaking or Urdu-speaking origin (belonging to the Islamic faith, who migrated from present-day India or Myanmar). The political, social and economic causes of migration cannot be the basis of disentitlement to indigenous status or citizenship rights or freedom from non-discrimination. If it were to be, it would be discriminatory and violative of the tenets of non-discrimination that are enshrined in international human rights law as jus cogens (peremptory norms of international human rights law) and the fundamental rights clauses of the Constitution of Bangladesh on non-discrimination and special provisions. 

Bengalees not being “colonial settlers”, “foreigners” or “non-indigenous”

(iv) The Hon’ble Minister is equating the status of those not regarded as ‘indigenous’ as being “colonial settlers” and/or “foreigners”. While this might be the case in the Americas or in Australia, if at all, the current and progressive discourses on indigenous peoples’ rights do not necessarily construe those not regarded as indigenous to be “colonial settlers” and/or “foreigners”. The status of Bangalees as natives of Bangladesh is not challenged or questioned by the assertion of the indigenous identity of other ethnic groups. Non-indigenous does not mean “settlers”, at least not in Bangladesh and in several other countries of Asia. The indigenous peoples of the CHT fulfill the criteria of “indigenous’, among others, by being (i) descendants of pre-colonial or pre-conquest societies; and (ii) adherence to pre-colonial or pre-conquest political, social and cultural institutions’ norms and customs, among others.

The government is probably stuck in the early 20^th century construction of the term “indigenous”, which was confined to the Americas and Australia and New Zealand. This understanding has moved on, in United Nations, and in international human rights, development, environmental, Climate Change and other international processes to include groups hitherto regarded as “tribal’. The misconceived, inaccurate and artificial distinction between “tribal” and ”indigenous” is no longer relevant to the international human rights discourses. The identification of citizens other than as ‘indigenous’ or ‘adibashi” in Bangladesh is not going to exclude the application of international human rights instruments and processes to the groups identifying themselves as ‘indigenous’ or ‘adibashi’ in Bangladesh.

Recognition of 'Ethnic minorities', 'Late Settlers' as 'Tribal' people

(iv) The Hon’ble Minister’s reference to the CHT indigenous peoples as “late settlers” and of their recognition as “tribal people” is substantially incorrect.

The Chakma people, for example, are recorded in history as having lived in a country called “Chacomas”, which was separate from Bengal, Arakan and Tripura, from at least the 1550s, within the boundaries of present-day Bangladesh, such as in the accounts of Portugese geographers and historians. They may have lived in their present territories centuries before that date as well as did other indigenous peoples of the CHT and elsewhere in Bangladesh. In the CHT, Bengali people are not known to have permanently resided in the region before the 19^th century. Nowhere in Bengal is there a record of the indigenous peoples or adibashis having displaced Bengalee people and settled therein. Whenever they may have settled therein, these territories were not inhabited by Bengalee people at the time of settlement of the indigenous peoples. In order to qualify as indigenous peoples within the meaning of the ILO Convention No 107 – ratified by Bangladesh – they do not have to have resided therein for millennia – as in the case of indigenous peoples in the Americas or in Australia. The need to have merely settled/lived therein “at the time of conquest or colonization” (18^th-19^th centuries, for example) and lived in conformity with the political, social and cultural institutions of pre-colonial times is sufficient to qualify as indigenous according to the above convention.

The CHT Accord of the 1997 and some laws of the British period and of the period after the signing of the CHT Accord do regard the indigenous peoples as ‘tribal’ or ‘upajati’ (sub-nations). However, the ‘upajati” term is known to have been accepted under duress, as is confirmed by statements of representatives of the Jana Samhati Samiti (which signed the CHT Accord of 1997) in their public statements on the issue.  The terms “indigenous” or “aboriginal” have also been used interchangeably. Examples include the following:

“Aboriginal”

East Bengal State Acquisition & Tenancy Act, 1950  (protected in the First Schedule to the Constitution of Bangladesh)

“Indigenous”

§  CHT Regulation, 1900

§  Finance Acts of 1995 and 2010

§  Poverty Reduction Strategy  (PRSP-2008, 2019-10)

§  Judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court of Bangladesh in Sampriti Chakma v. Commissioner of Customs & Others (5 BLC, AD, 29)

“Adibashi”

§  Statements of Hon’ble Sheikh Hasina, Begum Khaleda Zia and Dr. Fakhruddin Ahmed, on goodwill messages on Indigenous Peoples’ Day

§  PRSP, 2005

§  Small Ethnic Groups Cultural Institutions Act, 2010

------------------------------------the end--------------------------

The original statement can be downloaded from the following link:

http://www.scribd.com/fullscreen/61043753?access_key=key-3xkagkypjfk4l4pgg1a