& çâÌæÚUæð´ ·¤è ¥ôÚU Îð¹Ùæ ÁæÚUè ÚU¹ð´ ¥ÍæüÌ ¥ÂÙð ÜÿØ ÂÚU ŠØæÙ ÚU¹ð´Ð ãæÚU Ù ×æÙð´, €UØô´ç·¤ ·¤æ× ·¤ÚUÙð âð ¥æÂ·¤ô ©gðàØ ·¤è Âýæç# ãôÌè ãñ ¥õÚU ÁèßÙ ·¤æ ¹æÜèÂÙ ÎêÚU ãôÌæ ãñÐ ÖÜð ãè ÁèßÙ ×ð´ ç·¤ÌÙè Öè ·¤çÆÙæ§ü €UØô´ Ù ¥æ°, çÁ™ææâæ ¥õÚU ©ˆâæã ÕÙæ° ÚU¹ð´Ð ŠØæÙ ÚU¹ð´, ÜÿØ ã×ðàææ ¥æÂ·Ô¤ Âæâ ãôÌð ãñ´ çÁ‹ãð´ ÂæÙð ·Ô¤ çÜ° ÂýØæâ ¥æÂ ·¤Öè Öè àæéM¤ ·¤ÚU â·¤Ìð ãñ´Ð

THE HOME MINISTRY DIRECTIVES ON CHT AFFAIRS

Big brother is watching you

Special Correspondent
**In free and independent Bangladesh, the government has essentially ordered the suspension of basic rights and imposed special restrictions on people's speech, movement and association for an indefinite period in a particular part of the country.**
IF you work on adivasi rights in the Chittagong Hill Tracts in some capacity, you may be familiar with an uncanny feeling that you are being followed. That your steps are being monitored, assessed and filed away for future reference, that your conversations with adit'asi communities and leaders are being overheard. Initially, you try to shake off this feeling thinking that you are being paranoid, but soon this eerie impression becomes a part of the way you interact with the people and civil and military administration in the CHT. You know that you may be stopped, interrogated, asked to declare your identity and purpose of visit, and even threatened by various powerful quarters at any moment, without any real justification, and that if they do so, there is likely very little you can do.
You need no longer wonder who's following you, because according to a recent government order, if you are visiting the CHT and want to work with or talk to local adivasi communities on any issue, you will be required to "ensure the presence of local administration and the military/BCB", so that your conversations can be duly supervised and censored by the government. This means that indigenous groups cannot seek support or advice, voice demands, challenge government poli-
cies or even share their life experiences with civil society watchdogs, academics, journalists, development practitioners and other national and international organisations, without surveillance and fear of severe repercussions. But does this also mean that if I were to visit my friend M. Chakma (name not disclosed for obvious reasons) now living in Rangamati, 1 won't be allowed to talk to her without an officer present? The report further dictates that "check-posts at the entrances of the CHT will be made more active." Let's take a moment to allow all that to sink in: in free and independent Bangladesh, the government has essentially ordered the suspension of basic rights and imposed special restrictions on people's speech, movement and association for an indefinite period in a particular part of the country. Incidentally, there are no restrictions on visitors talking to Bengali settlers in the area.
The order, signed by State Minister of Home Asaduzzaman Khan Kamal, and dated lanuary 18, 2015 charts out 11-point decisions on CHT affairs that are, for the most, part unconstitutional, undemocratic and in sharp contradiction to the CHT Peace Accord 1997. If previously foreign nationals had to inform the district administration of their visits, now they must seek permission from the Home Ministry a month in advance. Permission will be granted, states the report, only upon 'receipt of
a positive report from the intelligence agencies under the Home Ministry." In addition, foreign nationals will have to declare their arrival and present their travel itinerary to the Deputy Commissioner/Police Superintendent. And of course, they will then be shadowed throughout the visit by officials. If the rest of Bangladesh is accessible to foreign nationals with a visa, why must there be special provisions and systematic surveillance of foreigners visiting the CHT? If the move was to ensure ‘security’ for foreigners, then why would they have to go through a vetting process by intelligence agencies and inform a month in advance?
The report further states, "Other lawenforcing agencies will have to coordinate their work with the 24 Infantry Division who are responsible for the overall law and order enforcement in the CHT." This essentially means that the military will continue to be superimposed on the civil administration there. But why must this be in an area that is NOT an operational zone, nor an insurgency-infested region? The role of the military as well as BGB should be to protect the borders, as per their mandate, not to enforce law and order. One can only deduce that the government has forgotten that it ever signed a Peace Accord where it promised to withdraw all temporary military camps from the region. Seventeen long years since "peace" was officially "estab-
lished" in the region, why would we find the military still in charge of the civil administration, in sharp contradiction to the rest of the country?
While rights groups have been advocating for mixed policing (appointing more adivasi and women police, for instance) for a long time in order to address communal violence and tension in the region, the directive states that, "[m]easures will be taken to carry out a phased transfer of former members of Shanti Bahini employed in Police/Ansar in the CHT." This implies that an already overwhelmingly Bengali law enforcement will be made even more ethnically homogenous and unrepresentative. This would inevitably end up serving the interests of Bengalis living there as opposed to the adivasi communities.
There can be no denying that the CHT has become a hostile place, not just for the adivasi communities, but also for those visiting and working on adivasi rights. Last year, the CHT Commission delegation, consisting of some of the most venerable civil society members of Bangladesh, was attacked in the presence of law enforcement members. No one was arrested. A month later, when the CHT coordinator made a personal visit to the CHT, she was again assaulted. These attacks, carried out with complete impunity, were no doubt made to intimidate them and "teach them a lesson". The
latest directives send a clear signal that the government will not tolerate dissenting presence or activities in the CHT.
The instruction to "UNDP to send a report about the implementation progress and results of the 160 million USD development projects undertaken by them in the last 10 years" is also telling in this regard. While I am all for more accountability of UN institutions, the fact that only this programme was singled out from hundreds of projects, all of which are audited, evaluated and monitored at multiple levels through similar arrangements with the government, shows that the government wants to ensure that NCO activities in the region - which are never too radical to begin with - are now further diluted down and made 'kosher'.
Instead of implementing the CHT Peace Accord, the government, which has always professed to be pro-adivasi and pro-minorities, seems to be taking a hard-line stance of eradicating dissent through surveillance and even arms, if necessary. The discriminatory treatment of adivasi communities has now reached a new height with the imposition of these restrictions on freedom of speech, movement and association. This simply cannot go on in what we claim to be a democratic and inclusive Bangladesh.
The writer is a keen follower of CHT affairs.