#Title
PHOTO: RASHED SHUMON
The recent debate on “Indigenousness” in the context of Bangladesh has thrown up many questions on the appropriateness of the “Indigenous” identity of the peoples of Bangladesh, particularly the Pahari (hill) peoples of the Chittagong Hill Tracts (CHT). The government line is that the Paharis are not indigenous to Bangladesh, while Bangalees are. On the other hand, the Jumma peoples and the Plains Adibashis insist that they are indigenous peoples.
Who is right? Who are the Indigenous—the Adibashis or the Bangalees? Or are they both indigenous?
An informed discussion on the subject will not be possible unless we clarify the context. The relevant context here is human rights and the framework necessarily has to be the one ascribed by that premier club of the world’s sovereign states: the United Nations. Although our former foreign minister is known to have cited dictionary meaning(s) of the term, “Indigenous,” quoting them to be those who “belong to a particular place rather than coming to it from somewhere else,” the debate cannot be settled by referring to dictionaries, but by looking at the term’s meaning as understood in the relevant UN instruments, processes, and other international human-rights mechanisms, while paying appropriate attention to the political and legal contexts of Bangladesh.
And, of course, we must not ignore history. Let us therefore explore the history of settlements in Bangladesh, and the implications of the recent amendments of the constitution.
Ancestral backgrounds of the Adibashis
The most pertinent question in this respect is, were there peoples living in different parts of Bangladesh—and not necessarily spread over all parts of Bangladesh—before the arrival of the currently dominant groups (the Bangalees) in those parts of the country?
Citing the government of Bangladesh’s communication to him, the UN Special Rapporteur Martinez Cobo wrote that the government regarded members of tribal and semi-tribal populations as Indigenous on account of their descent from populations which are settled in specified geographical areas of the country.
Thus, the question is, were the different Adibashi peoples settled in the different parts of the country such as the CHT (e.g., Chakma, Marma, Tripura), the Barind tract (e.g., Santal, Munda, Oroan), the Madhupur tract (Garo, Hajong) and so forth, before the Bangalees settled there?
Indigenousness of the CHT Adibashis (Jummas)
Historical records of the Portuguese, Mughals, and British, and oral and written accounts of the Jummas themselves clearly attest to the fact that all the 11 Jumma peoples were in existence in the CHT-Chittagong-Feni-Noakhali-Comilla region, not just in the hills but also in the plainlands, prior to conquest (in 1666, by the Mughals of a part of Chittagong, Feni-Noakhali, Comilla, etc., but excluding the present-day CHT).
Suniti Bhushan Qanungo writes: “In prehistoric times Chittagong was inhabited successively by the Austro-Asiatic and the Mongoloid groups of peoples.” He adds, “The Mughal conquest of Chittagong drove the Arakanese beyond the hill ranges, and vacated places were occupied by new settlers from within or outside the district. The Mughal government encouraged the colonisation in northwestern Chittagong, which had been depopulated during the Arakanese regime. The new colonisers, mostly the inhabitants of Noakhali-Tripura-Comilla region were the latest settlers in the district.”
Portuguese accounts refer to “Chacomas,” separately from Bengal, Arakan and Tripura in the mid-16th century. Migration of Jummas to and from present-day Bangladesh, the Indian states of Tripura and Mizoram, and Myanmar happened for centuries. It was not a one-off event. Thus, it is understandable why the CHT Regulation of 1900 defined an Indigenous person of the CHT as “Chakma, [Marma] or a member of any Hill tribe indigenous to the Chittagong Hill Tracts, the Lushai Hills, Arakan Hill Tracts, or the State of Tripura”.
In contrast, Bangalees were the last to settle in the CHT.
Most importantly, the CHT was not part of Bengal until after British advent. Eminent historians and sociologists therefore have noted, “In 1860, the British occupied the hills to the east of Chittagong and annexed them to their colonial empire. For the first time in their history, the Chittagong hills were administered from Bengal. Before that time, political power in the hills had been dispersed among many chiefs.”
Indigenousness of the Plains Adibashis
As in the case of the CHT, in the plains region as well, there is no record of Adibashis having displaced Bangalees and settled in their present locations. The Santal and Oraon made the Barind tract inhabitable and converted harsh terrain into paddy lands. Similar settlements were made by Rakhaing (Patuakhali-Barguna), Garo and Khasi (Mymensingh-Sylhet), but not by conquering and displacing Bangalees.
As in the case of the CHT, the plains Adibashis were also present in Bangladesh from before there were written histories, imperial conquests, and colonisation.
Even today, despite the de-recognition, and subsequent non-recognition by the state, it is the traditional institutions that these peoples turn to for resolving their internal disputes and for carrying out other cultural activities (Manjhi: Santall, Nokma: Garo, Myntri: Khasi). They do not turn to the mainstream state-centric institutions, unlike the Bangalee peoples.
Indigenousness of Bangalees
Of course, Bangalees have also lived in different parts of the plains and delta areas for centuries. However, they have not ventured into the hill and forest areas until relatively recently. Going back to the earliest history of Bengal, prior to the arrival of the Indo-European and Dravidian-speaking peoples, the inhabitants of Bengal included several of the peoples who are claiming indigenous identity.
But the crucial point here is that by having assimilated into the dominant groups and adopting the dominant identity (regardless of the religious and nationalist aspects of that identity) Bangalees can no longer claim the Indigenous mantle as it is understood in the human rights context. The Indigenous concept only makes sense when the peoples are “non-dominant” in statecraft and otherwise.
Contrary to the popular belief portrayed in the media, having an “Indigenous” status does not give anyone privileges of any sort over and above that of other citizens. Essentially, it means the recognition of their full participatory rights as citizens, keeping in mind the exclusion and discrimination historically meted out to them in the process of state-formation, nation building and development, which Bangalees have enjoyed from the formation of the state. It also means the creation of an enabling environment, in which they may preserve their distinctive cultural identities, which are threatened on account of their marginal situations from the beginning of state formation.
Indigenousness in UN instruments and practices
According to the UN, the most fruitful approach is to identify, rather than formally define indigenous peoples and hence there is no set definition of indigenous peoples in the UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples. However, international laws do not define minorities either. The “working definition” of Indigenous peoples by José R Martínez Cobo has attained the status of a near-formal definition in the context of UN and international human rights jurisprudence. Cobo writes, “Indigenous communities, peoples and nations are those which, having a historical continuity with pre-invasion and pre-colonial societies that developed on their territories, consider themselves distinct from other sectors of the societies now prevailing on those territories, or parts of them. They form at present non-dominant sectors of society and are determined to preserve, develop and transmit to future generations their ancestral territories, and their ethnic identity, as the basis of their continued existence as peoples, in accordance with their own cultural patterns, social institutions and legal system.”
First and foremost, we should be examining the concept in relation to the ILO Convention on Indigenous & Tribal Populations (Convention No. 107) of 1957, which Bangladesh ratified in June, 1972, under the leadership of Sheikh Mujibur Rahman, about six months before the Constitution of Bangladesh was adopted.
As a collective entity, Bangalees live less in conformity with the “social, economic and cultural institutions” of the time of their pre-colonisation or pre-conquest period ancestors, and more in conformity with “the institutions of the nation to which they belong”, and hence they cannot be regarded as indigenous within the meaning of Convention 107.
In contrast, hill communities of the CHT, and Adibashi groups of the plains, “irrespective of their legal status” are quite the opposite. Traditional institutions in the CHT are formally recognised by law, and while those in the plains are not—still conform to their ancestral institutions’ traditions, norms, and mores.
In the case of “economic institutions”, Bangalees clearly do not retain very many practices of the pre-colonial or pre-conquest period, unlike Pahari groups, for example: collective forest management, subsistence-oriented jhum or “shifting” cultivation, etc.
It is clear from the wording of ILO Convention No. 107 that “indigenous” and “tribal” population groups are both referred to as “tribal or semi-tribal” populations. Therefore, Indigenous populations are those among the tribal and semi-tribal population groups who “[are descended] 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 concept of tribal and semi-tribal population groups has been related in this convention with “social and economic conditions [that] are at a less advanced [read disadvantaged] stage than the stage reached by the other sections of the national community,” and a “status [that] is regulated wholly or partially by their own customs or traditions or by special laws or regulations.”
The concept of indigenous peoples is meaningless in the case of Bangalees from a human rights perspective because Bangalees are at the helm of state power, while the Adibashis were, and still are, substantively, the “excluded” citizens, marginalised and disadvantaged.
This article was originally published on Forum, a monthly publication of The Daily Star, on September 5, 2011.
The full version of the article can be found on our website.