পার্বত্য ভূমিবিরোধ নিষ্পত্তি ও ভূমিকমিশন চেয়ারম্যানের ব্যবস্থাপত্র

সংবিধান সংশোধন ও আদিবাসীদের সাংবিধানিক স্বীকৃতির দাবীটি এখন সবচেয়ে আলোচিত হয়ে দাঁড়িয়ছে।ঠিক সেই মুহুর্তে দৈনিক ‘প্রথম আলো’গত ২৫ আগস্ট “পার্বত্য ভূমিবিরোধ নিষ্পত্তি আইনে ছয়টি ধারা সংশোধন ও বিরোধহীনভূমি জরিপ হবে” মর্মে একটি সংবাদ ছাপিয়েছে।আজকে ২৮ আগস্ট যখন এ লেখাটি তৈরী করছিলাম, তখন ‘প্রথম আলো’তে ভূমিবিরোধ নিষ্পত্তি বিষয়ে একটি সম্পাদকীয় চোখে পড়ল।এতে বিরোধহীনভূমিতে জরিপ করলে সমস্যা থাকার কথা নয় উল্লেখ করে বিষয়টিতে আদিবাসী নেতাদের সমর্থন জানানো উচিত এবং সব আশংকা দূরীকরণের জন্যে প্রশাসনের তরফে প্রয়োজনীয় পদক্ষেপ নেওয়া প্রয়োজন বলে মন্তব্য করা হয়েছে।জানিনা, উল্লেখিত সংবাদ ও ‘প্রথম আলো’র সম্পাদকীয়টি আমাদের পার্বত্য নেতারা কিভাবে আমলে নিচ্ছেন।তবে গত ২৫ আগস্টে প্রকাশিত সংবাদে কয়েকটি উল্লেখযোগ্য দিক রয়েছে।সেগুলো আলোচনার দাবী রাখে। যেমন,

(১)সংবাদে বলা হয়েছে, পুরোনো আইনে বন্দোবস্ত, বিরোধনিষ্পত্তি, পুনর্বাসিত শরণার্থী, দখল-বেদখল ও আবেদনের পদ্ধতি নিয়ে যে অসংগতি রয়েছে তা দূর করার জন্যে ভূমিবিরোধ নিষ্পত্তি কমিশনের ছয়টি ধারা সংশোধনের জন্যে সরকার উদ্যোগ নিয়েছে।

(২)ভূমি সচিবের উদ্ধৃতি দিয়ে বলা হয়েছে, পার্বত্য এলাকার যেসব ভূমি নিয়ে কোন সমস্যা নেই, সেই অংশে সরকার জরিপের উদ্যোগ নিচ্ছে।তবে এ ব্যাপারে পার্বত্য নেতাদের মতামত নেওয়া হবে বলে জানান।

(৩) পার্বত্য চুক্তিতে ভূমিবিরোধ নিষ্পতির পরে ভূমিজরিপের কথা স্পষ্টভাবে বলা হলেও ভূমিকমিশন চেয়ারম্যান বিচারপতি (অবঃ) খাদেমূল ইসলাম চৌধুরী আবারও জোর দিয়ে বললেন, “আগে জরিপ করতে হবে,তারপর ভূমিবিরোধ নিষ্পত্তি। জরিপ কার্যক্রম শুরু না হলে পার্বত্য চট্টগ্রামে শান্তি,স্থিতিশীলতা, সামাজিক, অর্থনৈতিক উন্নয়নে সরকারের সব উদ্যোগ ব্যর্থ হয়ে যাবে”।

Justice (retd) Khademul Islam Chowdhury, Chairman, CHT Land Commission, and Mr. Jatindra Lal Tripura, MP and Chairman, Task Force on Rehabilitation of Refugees and IDPs.

এ লেখায় ১ নং বিষয়ে বিস্তারিতভাবে বলার প্রয়োজন নেই।কেননা,ভূমি বিরোধ নিষ্পত্তি কমিশনের আইনে বিসমিল্লায় গলদ ছিল,সে কারণে এ কমিশন দীর্ঘ একযুগ সময়েও কোন কাজ করতে পারেনি।অন্যদিকে বারবার সরকার পরিবর্তন হলেও এ যাবত কোন সরকারই আইন সংশোধনে কোন কার্যকর উদ্যোগ নেয়নি।যদি আওয়ামী নেতৃত্বাধীন বর্তমান মহাজোট সরকার পার্বত্যচুক্তির মূল চেতনার সাথে সংগতি রেখে ‘ভূমি বিরোধ নিষ্পত্তি কমিশনের আইন’ সংশোধন করে এবং সেভাবে কার্যকর পদক্ষেপ গ্রহণ করে তাহলে সাধুবাদ জানাতে হবে।তবে শেষটা না দেখা পর্যন্ত এখনও আশান্বিত হওয়ার কোন কারণ নেই।

এদিকে ভূমিবিরোধ নিষ্পত্তি কমিশন আইনে সংশোধন হোক আর নাই হোক উপরে উল্লেখিত ২ নং ও ৩ নং বিষয়ে কিছু আশংকা রয়েছে সেগুলো একটু আলোচনা করা প্রয়োজন।উক্ত দু’টো বিষয়ই ভূমি জরিপ সংক্রান্ত।গত বছর দায়িত্ব নেওয়ার পর থেকেই ভূমিকমিশন চেয়ারম্যান খাদেমুল সাহেব একটি প্রশ্নের জন্ম দিয়েছেন, ‘কোনটা আগে - ভূমি জরিপ নাকি বিরোধ নিষ্পত্তি? এ প্রশ্নের সাথে সরকার আরো একটি প্রশ্নের জন্ম দিতে যাচ্ছে,‘ভূমি জরিপ কোথায় থেকে শুরু হবে?বিরোধহীন ভূমি থেকে নাকি বিরোধপূর্ণ ভূমি থেকে?

আইনি কিতাবে যাই লেখা থাকুক, খাদেমুল সাহেব তো আগেই একটা ব্যবস্থাপত্র দিয়ে রেখেছেন, আগে ভূমি জরিপ করতে হবে।তারপর ভূমিবিরোধ নিষ্পত্তি হবে। এবার এ কথার সাথে আরো একটি ভয়ংকর কথা যোগ করলেন, “জরিপ কার্যক্রম শুরু না হলে পার্বত্য চট্টগ্রামে শান্তি, স্থিতিশীলতা, সামাজিক, অর্থনৈতিক উন্নয়নে সরকারের সব উদ্যোগ ব্যর্থ হয়ে যাবে”। ভূমি জরিপ তো পার্বত্য চট্টগ্রামে অনেক যুগ ধরে হয় নি; তাহলে কী ধরে নেবো খাদেমুল ভূমি কমিশনের চেয়ারম্যান হওয়ার আগ পর্যন্ত পার্বত্য চট্টগ্রামে গৃহীত সব সরকারী উদ্যোগ ব্যর্থ হয়েছিল? ‘ভূমি জরিপ’ না হলে ‘সরকারের সব উদ্যোগ ব্যর্থ হবে’-খাদেমুলের এ বক্তব্য পড়ে ভাবছিলাম তিনি কিভাবে পার্বত্য ভূমিবিরোধ নিষ্পত্তি ‘ব্যবস্থাপত্রে’ নতুন নতুন ‘অনুপান’ জুরে দিচ্ছেন।মনে পড়ল,মারমা ভাষার প্রবাদ বাক্যটা “ল্যূমা ল্যূ হিরে চিগা মা চিগা হিরে”(মানুষের মধ্যে মানুষ আছে কথার মধ্যে কথা আছে)(মারমা ভাইবোনেরা ভুল হলে শুদ্ধ করে দেবেন)।প্রশ্ন জাগে মনে, সরকার ও খাদেমুলের আপাত: নিদোর্ষ ‘কথা’গুলোর মধ্যে কী ‘কথা’ আছে, আর ভূমি কমিশন চেয়ারম্যান ‘খাদেমুলে’র মধ্যে কোন ‘খাদেমুল’ আছে? বিশ্লেষণ করে দেখা যাক ভূমি জরিপের “ল্যূমা ল্যূ হিরে চিগা মা চিগা হিরে” কথাটা।

মনে হচ্ছে, সরকার একটু চালাকি করে এগোতে চায়। ভূমি জরিপ ‘আগে’ হবে বা ‘পরে’ হবে সেরকম কিছু না বলে সরকার এখন বলছে পার্বত্য নেতাদের মতামত নিয়ে ‘বিরোধহীনভূমি’ জরিপ হবে।পার্বত্য নেতারা কী মতামত দেবেন জানিনা। কিন্তু আমার মনে অনেক প্রশ্ন জাগে,বিরোধহীনভূমিতে কেন আগে জরিপ শুরু করা প্রয়োজন? বিরোধহীনভূমিতে জরিপ করার উদ্দেশ্য কী? কোনগুলোই বা বিরোধহীনভূমি? সরকারের “বিরোধহীনভূমিতে জরিপ” কিংবা খাদেমুলের “আগে ভূমি জরিপ করতে হবে” এরকম কথার মধ্যে আরো কিছু কথা আছে বলে মনে হয়। সেগুলো হলোঃ

১. খাদেমুলের মত “ভূমি জরিপ আগে হতে হবে” এরকম কিছু না বললেও সরকার পরোক্ষভাবে খাদেমুলের ব্যবস্থাপত্র অনুসরণ করতে চাচ্ছে।সরকার হয়তো মনে করছে যে কোন ভাবে জরিপ শুরু করা গেলে সেটা যে কোন প্রকারে শেষ করা যাবে।প্রয়োজনে সেনা-পুলিশ-বর্ডার গার্ড নিয়োগ করে হলেও সেটা শেষ করা যাবে।

২. ভূমিবিরোধ নিষ্পত্তির লক্ষ্যে জরিপের কথা বলা হলেও সরকারের বা খাদেমুলের উদ্দেশ্য অত্যন্ত আন্তরিক ও সৎ উদ্দেশ্যপ্রণোদিত একথা বিশ্বাস করার কোন কারণ নেই। সেরকম বাস্তব প্রমাণ তাদের কাছ থেকে এখনো পাওয়া যায়নি।‘বিরোধহীনভূমি’ বলতে কী বুঝায় সেটা পরিস্কার না করে ভূমি জরিপ শুরু করার চেষ্টাটা একটি কুটচাল ছাড়া আর কিছুই হতে পারে না।

৩. ‘বিরোধহীন ভূমি’তে জরিপ করার অনুমোদন দেওয়ার অর্থ হলো বিরোধ নিষ্পত্তির আগে জরিপ করতে দেওয়া।অন্যদিকে বিরোধ নিষ্পত্তির আগে ভূমি জরিপ করার পেছনে সরকার বা খাদেমুলের কয়েকটি উদ্দেশ্য থাকতে পারে। যেমন, ক) জরিপের মাধ্যমে কোথায় কোথায় কী কী ধরনের, কী পরিমাণের জমি আছে, সরকারী ভাষায় কোথায় কোথায় খাসজমি আছে, কোথায় কোথায় পাহাড়, বন ও নদীনালা আছে, কোথায় কোথায় কী পরিমাণ বন্দোস্তকৃত ও অবন্দোস্তকৃত জমি আছে সেগুলো চিহ্নিত করা যাবে;খ) জরিপের মাধ্যমে সব ভূমি চিহ্নিত করার উদ্দেশ্যের পেছনে একটি অন্তর্নিহিত বার্তা আছে। সেটা হলো ভূমিবিরোধ নিষ্পত্তির বিচারকালে যদি কোন সেটেলার অবৈধ দখলদার হিসেবে প্রমাণিত হয়, তাহলে তাকে ব্যক্তিমালিকানা বহির্ভূত সরকারী জমি অর্থাৎ খাসজমিতে বসতি দেওয়ার ব্যবস্থা করতে ভূমি কমিশন (অর্থাৎ খাদেমুল) আগেভাগে প্রস্তুত। এ যুক্তির পেছনে গত ফেব্রুয়ারীতে বাঘাইছড়িতে সংঘটিত সাম্প্রদায়িক ঘটনার কথা উল্লেখ করা যায়।যতদূর জানি,বছর তিনেক আগে সেনাক্যাম্পে কাজ করার জন্যে শ্রমিক প্রয়োজন এমন অজুহাতে সেনাবাহিনীরা কিছু সেটেলার পরিবার সেখানে নিতে চেয়েছিল। কিন্তু সেখানকার পাহাড়ীরা সেটা চায়নি, এবং প্রতিবাদ করেছিল।প্রতিবাদের মুখে সেনাবাহিনী তখন তা করতে না পারলেও বছর খানেক পরে কিছু সেটেলার পরিবার নিয়ে গিয়েছিল।তখন সেনাবাহিনী যুক্তি দিয়েছিল,“বাঙালিরা (সেটেলাররা) সরকারী (বনবিভাগের) জমিতে ঘর তুলেছে, পাহাড়ীদের জমিতে নয়”।পাহাড়ীদেরকে বাড়াবাড়ি না করার জন্যে তারা হুমকি দিয়েছিল।অবশেষে ২০১০-এর ফেব্রুয়ারীতে তা পাহাড়ী-বাঙালি দ্বন্দে রূপ নেয়।

৪. বাঘাইহাটের ঐ ঘটনার সাথে সাযুজ্য রেখে বলা যায়, ভূমি কমিশনের খাদেমুলের ভেতরে ‘সেনাবাহিনীর চেতনাসম্পন্ন খাদেমুল’ রয়েছে। প্রকাশ্যভাবে না বললেও বিচারপ্রক্রিয়ায় অবৈধ দখলদার হিসেবে প্রমাণিত সেটেলারদেরকে তথাকথিত সরকারী ‘খাস’জমিতে পুনর্বাসনের ব্যবস্থা করার চিন্তা তার মনের মধ্যে রয়েছে। ঠিক বাঘাইছড়ির সেনাবাহিনীর মত সরকার তথা খাদেমুলও পরে হয়ত বলবেন,“পাহাড়ীদের ভূমিতে নয়,সরকারী খাসজমিতে বাঙালিদের (সেটেলারদের)বসতি দেওয়া হবে”।খাদেমুল সাহেব সেটা আইনগতভাবে পাকাপোক্ত করার সুযোগ নিতে চাচ্ছেন ।এ ধরনের উদ্যোগকে অনেকে ‘পাহাড়ী-বাঙালির সহাবস্থানে’র নীতি হিসেবে বলে থাকেন।এরকম ‘সহাবস্থানের নীতি’বাস্তবায়নের অংশ হিসেবে সরকার তথা খাদেমুল ভূমি জরিপকে বিরোধ নিষ্পত্তির পূর্বশর্ত হিসেবে বিবেচনা করছেন।

৫. ভূমি জরিপের অর্থ হলো পুরো পার্বত্য চট্টগ্রামকে কাগজের টুকরো দিয়ে ব্যক্তিগত সম্পক্তিতে পরিণত করা, এবং ভাগবাটোয়ারার ব্যবস্থা করা।একবার জরিপ হয়ে গেলে পাহাড় আর পাহাড় থাকবে না, জঙ্গল আর জঙ্গল থাকবে না।আদিবাসীদের প্রথাগত ভূমি বলে আর কিছুই থাকবে না। জমি চুরি, ও ভাগবাটোয়ারার লড়াই শুরু হবে। সেই লড়াইয়ে নিরীহ জুমচাষী কিংবা সেটেলাররা জমি ভাগ পাবে কি না বড় সন্দেহ রয়েছে।সেই লড়াইয়ে বিগত তত্ত্বাবধায়ক সরকারের সাবেক উপদেষ্টা মেজর জেনারেল (অবঃ) আব্দুল মতিন ও সাংসদ অলি আহম্মদদের মত রাঘাব বোয়াল ও জেনারেলরা, সাধারণের মধ্যে অসাধারণরা ক্ষমতার জোরে ও কলমের খোঁচায় সাধারণ মানুষের প্রথাগত ভূমি কেড়ে নেবে, কখনো বা চুপিসারে চুরি করবে একথা নিশ্চিত করে বলা যায়।ক্ষমতাবানদের ভূমি দখলের অবাধ প্রতিযোগিতা শুরু হবে। তাদেরকে তখন কেউই প্রতিরোধ করতে পারবে না।

ভূমি জরিপের ঘোমটার ভেতর এসব খেমটা নাচের কথা অবশ্যই বিবেচনায় রাখা প্রয়োজন।তা না হলে ভূমি জরিপের মাধ্যমে আরো নতুন নতুন সংকট সৃষ্টি করা হবে।তাই এ মুহুর্তে ব্যাপক আকারের ভূমি জরিপ, সেটা বিরোধহীন ভূমিতে হোক আর বিরোধপূর্ণ ভূমিতে হোক- কোনভাবে কাম্য হতে পারে না।

এবার ভূমি কমিশনের চেয়ারম্যান খাদেমুলের ব্যবস্থাপত্রের নতুন ‘অনুপান’ (জরিপ কার্যক্রম শুরু না হলে পার্বত্য চট্টগ্রামে শান্তি, স্থিতিশীলতা, সামাজিক, অর্থনৈতিক উন্নয়নে সরকারের সব উদ্যোগ ব্যর্থ হয়ে যাবে)-এর দিকে একটু দৃষ্টি দেয়া যাক।খাদেমুলের এ ‘অনুপান’টা পার্বত্য চট্টগ্রাম রোগের সাথে সংগতিপূর্ণ নয়।তিনি যা বলেছেন তা কোন গবেষণালব্দ তত্ত্ব নয়,তার ভাববিলাসী মনের কল্পনা মাত্র।পার্বত্য চট্টগ্রামের শান্তি, স্থিতিশীলতা, সামাজিক ও অর্থনৈতিক উন্নয়নকে কেবল একটিমাত্র দিক ‘ভূমি জরিপে’র সাথে সংশ্লিষ্ট করেছেন,যা একদেশদর্শীতায় দুষ্ট।তাই খাদেমূলের ব্যবস্থাপত্র বেশি বিশ্লেষণের প্রয়োজন নেই।তবে পার্বত্য চট্টগ্রামে শান্তি, স্থিতিশীলতা প্রতিষ্ঠা করতে হলে, ব্যরিস্টার রাজা দেবাশীষ রায়ের ভাষায় বলতে হয়, খাদেমূলকে আমিন-কানুনগো’র কাজ করার চিন্তা বাদ দিতে হবে এবং সৃজনশীল কাজের কথা ভাবতে হবে।খাদেমুল সাহেবকে তার ব্যবস্থাপত্রে আরো কিছু ‘অনুপান’ বিবেচনায় নিতে হবে, তা না হলে তিনি ‘পার্বত্য ভূমিরোগ’ সারানোর ব্যাপারে কোন কার্যকর পদক্ষেপ নিতে পারবেন না।

১। পার্বত্য চট্টগ্রামের নেতৃবৃন্দ ভূমিজরিপের বিপক্ষে নন; তবে তারা খাদেমুলকে চুক্তির প্রতি সম্মান প্রদর্শন করার কথা বলছেন। চুক্তিতে স্পষ্ট বলা আছে,কখন ভূমি জরিপ হবে।অর্থাৎ মাঠে ময়দানে উত্তেজক বক্তব্য না রেখে ভূমি কমিশনের চেয়ারম্যান হিসেবে খাদেমুলকে ভূমি কমিশনের সব সদস্যের সাথে বসে ঐক্যমতের ভিত্তিতে সিদ্ধান্ত নিতে হবে কমিশন কী কী কাজ করবে।

২। ভূমিকমিশনের আইনে বিসমিল্লায় যে গলদ হয়েছে সেটা সংশোধনের উদ্যোগ নিতে হবে। কমিশন চেয়ারম্যানের একক কর্তৃত্বের মধ্যে ভারসাম্য নিয়ে আসতে হবে।

৩। ভূমি জরিপ নয়, কমিশনের প্রথম কাজ হওয়া উচিত কোথায় কোথায় বিরোধ আছে সেগুলো চিহ্নিত করা।এরপর ভূমি কমিশন আইন অনুসরণে সেগুলো মীমাংসার জন্যে কার্যপদ্ধতি নির্ধারণ করা।এক্ষেত্রে এক একটি কেস ধরে ভূমি কমিশন শুনানী করতে পারে।সেটা মীমাংসা করতে গিয়ে যদি কোন জরিপের প্রয়োজন হয়, তৎক্ষণাৎ বিরোধপূর্ণ ভূমিতে জরিপ করা যেতে পারে। এক্ষেত্রে জেলা/উপজেলা ভূমি অফিস সহযোগিতা দিতে পারে।এর জন্যে ঢাকঢোল বাজিয়ে সারা পার্বত্য চট্টগ্রামে ভূমি জরিপ শুরু করার প্রয়োজন পড়ে না।

৪।ন্যায়বিচার ও ক্ষতিপূরণের বিষয়টি বিবেচনায় রাখতে হবে। যেসব সেটেলার পরিবার অবৈধ দখলদার বলে বিবেচিত হবে তাদেরকে পুনর্বাসনের ব্যবস্থা করতে হবে।কিভাবে পুনর্বাসন হবে সে ব্যাপারে পুরো ভূমিকমিশন ও সরকারকে ঐক্যমত্যে পৌঁছতে হবে।খাদেমুলের একতরফা ‘সহাবস্থানের নীতিতে’ পুনর্বাসনের চেষ্টা করা হলে শান্তি প্রতিষ্ঠিত হতে পারবে না।

৫। শান্তি ও স্থিতিশীলতা বজায় রাখতে হলে পার্বত্য চট্টগ্রামে সামরিকায়ন বন্ধ করতে হবে।অপ্রিয় হলেও সত্য, সাম্প্রদায়িক ও জঙ্গীবাদী শক্তির মদদ দাতা হলো সেনাপ্রশাসনের একাংশ। তাই পার্বত্য চট্টগ্রামে শান্তি ও স্থিতিশীলতা আনতে হলে সেনাবাহিনীর নিরপেক্ষ ভূমিকা নিশ্চিত করতে হবে এবং গণতান্ত্রিক প্রশাসনের কাছে কর্তৃত্ব হস্তান্তর করে বেসামরিক প্রশাসনকে শক্তিশালী করতে হবে।

৬। আইনশৃংখলা রক্ষা ও উন্নয়নের জন্যে চুক্তি মোতাবেক মিশ্র পুলিশবাহিনী গঠন করতে হবে। জনশৃংখলা রক্ষা ও নিরাপত্তা বিধানের এ দিকটি উপেক্ষিত থাকলে উন্নয়ন কার্যক্রম পরিচালনা তথা ন্যায়বিচার প্রতিষ্ঠা করা কঠিন হবে।

আরো অনেক সুপারিশ রাখা যায়। তবে খাদেমুলকে মনে রাখতে হবে শান্তিপ্রতিষ্ঠার প্রথম ও প্রাথমিক পূর্বশর্ত হলো পারস্পরিক আস্থা, শ্রদ্ধা ও বিশ্বাসের পরিবেশ গড়ে তোলা।কিন্তু তিনি কমিশনের চেয়ারম্যান নিয়োজিত হওয়ার পর থেকেই কমিশনের অন্যান্য সদস্যদের কোন তোয়াক্কা না করে একটার পর একটা বিতর্কিত কথা বার্তা বলে বেড়াচ্ছেন।ভূমি জরিপ না হওয়ার কারণে নয়,তার নিজের একগুঁয়েমী ও একদেশদর্শী দৃষ্টিভঙ্গির কারণে পার্বত্য চট্টগ্রামে শান্তি ও স্থিতিশীলতা বিনষ্ট হতে পারে।আরো একটি বিষয় উল্লেখ করতে হয়, খাদেমুলের নির্দেশিত ব্যবস্থাপত্র পার্বত্য চট্টগ্রামের আদিবাসী সংস্কৃতির সাথে সংগতিপূর্ণ নয়।ভূমি জরিপ করা হলে আদিবাসীদের প্রথাগত ভূমি হতে বিতারণের আরো এক নতুন যুগ সূচিত হবে।দুঃখ হবে চিরস্থায়ী। বিচারপতি (অবঃ) গোলাম রাব্বানীর ভাষায়, “সমতলভূমিতে মাঠ জরিপ শেষে ইংরেজ আমলে তৈরি রেকর্ডের মতো ভূমি কমিশন কর্তৃক পার্বত্য চট্টগ্রামে তেমন রেকর্ড করা ন্যায়ত কিংবা আইনত অসিদ্ধ এবং তেমন করার উদ্যোগ নিলে আদিবাসীদের দুঃখ-যাতনা স্থায়ী হয়ে যাবে” (কালের কন্ঠ, ১৬ আগস্ট) ।

তাই আদিবাসী নেতাদের উচিত হবে সরকার তথা খাদেমুলের ব্যবস্থাপত্র ঘৃণাভরে প্রত্যাখান করা। খাদেমুলের সাথে কাজ করতে না পারলে তাকে ‘বাই বাই’ বলা উচিত।

Of Constitutional Recognition for the Adivasis in Bangladesh

Like other countries of the world, the adivasis of Bangladesh celebrated the 9th August, the international day of the world’s indigenous peoples, with a theme on ‘the right to culture and identity’. The national dailies in Bangladesh published news features and analyses into the theme with due importance. At different seminars and workshops, the adivasi leaders raised a suite of demands; however, the demand of constitutional recognition has gained momentum over all of them. Although all leaders have raised voices for constitutional recognition, we are yet to be clarified of a few questions. Will the adivasi issue get priority on the list of constitutional amendments? How does the amendment look like? Is it through revision to the existing clauses or adding new clauses to the constitution? Do the adivasi leaders have a common understanding of what ‘rights for the adivasis’ could be incorporated into the constitution, while amending it?

A meeting of the Parliamentary Caucus on indigenous affairs chaired by Rashed Khan Menon, MP (middle).
Photo by Abhilash Tripura

No one can deny the fact that the list of the adivasis’ problems is long. Correspondingly the demand list is too. But all demands invariably will not be accommodated in the constitution. Given this reality, I would propose the adivasi leaders to put the constitutional recognition on the top of their priority action list during the AL-led grand alliance government’s tenure. To me, the attainment of constitutional recognition will largely depend on fulfilling the three interrelated hypotheses, which must be considered by the adivasi leaders. First, despite the parliament has the sovereign power in making laws, the constitutional recognition for the adivasis will depend on the very will of the prime minister. Hence, her consent is the first and foremost necessary. Second, the adivasi leaders must have a common understanding and consensus on what rights could be proposed to the government; and third, a strong mass people’s opinion has to be formed through making advocacy with the supportive elements including the special parliamentary body on constitutional amendment and the parliamentary caucus on indigenous issues. But the tough question is: who will ring the bell? Obviously it is the adivasi leaders, who must take the gauntlet up first.

According to the sources of different dailies, the government already has constituted a special parliamentary body on constitutional amendments with the deputy leader of the house Sajeda Chowdhury in the chair. This body is expected to start its works without delay in accordance with the Supreme Court’s judgement over the fifth constitutional amendment. It is not clear yet whether the parliamentary body will consider the adivasis’ issues other than the court’s findings and observations.

As concerns the first hypothesis, we can infer a thesis from the present Bangladesh political culture that the inclusion of constitutional recognition for the adivasis in the parliamentary body’s amendment agenda will categorically depend on the prime minister’s ‘yes’ or ‘no’. At this backdrop, all adivasi leaders, who I refer to are the five elected adivasi MPs from AL, CHT Regional Council, three Hill District Councils (HDCs) and three Circle chiefs, regardless of their political affiliation or ideological stance, have to agree on only one issue - constitutional recognition for the adivasis. They must work together to convince the prime minister into her saying ‘yes’ to this issue. At the same time, they must make concerted efforts to draw support for the issue from the special parliamentary body on constitutional amendments; the parliamentary caucus on indigenous issues; the cabinet members and leaders of the opposition, who are supportive to the adivasi cause.

It is also noteworthy that simply the prime minister’s or the special parliamentary body’s good intention will not work well. Hence, to achieve the goal of constitutional recognition will largely depend upon the well-prepared homework by the adivasi leaders.

Thus the second hypothesis stipulates that the adivasi leaders first have to do own homework. During the homework, they have to prioritise their demands. Obviously there is a long list of demands that include a roadmap for implementation of the CHT Accord; recognition as adivasi in lieu of ‘small ethnic groups’ (khudro nrigosthi); the rights to language, culture and traditional lands; reservation of seats for the three constituencies in the CHT as well as the local government councils, where the larger adivasis population lives; formation of a national commission on adivasi affairs; and a separate land commission for the adivasis in the plain regions. But the big challenge lies ahead of them is how to get these demands incorporated into the constitution? Given the long ‘wish list’, the adivasi leaders must be strategic in placing the demands to the special parliamentary body, whether it is making the amendments or revisions to the existing clauses or adding new ones to the constitution. It is high time for them to agree on ‘what rights’ will be proposed under the rubric of ‘constitutional recognition’.

In defining the strategies, the adivasi leaders might consider the example of the Indian constitution, which applied a three-pronged strategy to ensure the rights of the Scheduled Tribes (ST). These strategies are 1) protective arrangements which provide the ‘tribals’ with reserved seats in the parliament as well as local government councils, and the minority commission to protect the interests of the minority people; 2) affirmative actions that guarantee the tribal people’s rights to have access to education and employment; and 3) development resources. Under this strategy provision, the Indian government is obliged to earmark a special allocation of its national budget for the development of ‘backward’ areas.

In Bangladesh, we have got ‘affirmative action’ provisions under the clauses 28 & 29 of the constitution, but they suffer from clarity. On the other hand, the successive Bangladeshi governments did not make any laws or policies to elaborate those clauses in favour of its adivasis. Hence, it is imperative for the adivasi leaders to analyse these affirmative clauses in order to make them more favourable for the adivasis. To be more realistic in setting strategies, they must consult the constitution experts. Another aspect of the Bangladesh constitution is also notable that it does not have any provisions on the protective arrangements and development resources exclusively for the adivasis. Therefore, to enforce the rights of the adivasis, especially their collective rights over lands and resources, language and culture, and economic development, the constitution must include some provisions with special reference to the adivasi issues. To this effect, the demand for a national commission on indigenous affairs is justifiable. Simultaneously the CHT Accord must be provided with a constitutional safeguard.

The third hypothesis stipulates that the issue of constitutional recognition has to be recognised as ‘national responsibility’ not only by the adivasi leaders, but also by the ruling party Awami League and its alliances such as the Jatiya Party (JP) and the leftist parties. If the ruling party and its alliances do not feel of such responsibility, all cries for constitutional recognition by the adivasi leaders will end up to ‘wild-goose chase’. As such, the adivasi leaders must make all out efforts to draw supports from the ruling party and its alliances for constitutional recognition. Yet there are challenges ahead, as many of the ruling party’s law-makers including civil-military bureaucrats are unaware of indigenous issues or they do have prejudice against the adivasis. It is needless to explain that these civil-military bureaucrats do have more influence over the policy-making process. The political bureaucrats sometimes cannot overlook their views. Keeping this reality into account, the adivasi leaders must focus on launching multi-level ‘diplomacy’ with different political actors, civil-military bureaucrats and relevant stakeholders towards creating a congenial and favourable atmosphere rather than showing a political gimmick in the street. At this point, already there exist some favourable forces such as some friendly law-makers and cabinet members within the ruling party and the parliamentary caucus on indigenous issues headed by the progressive leftist leaders like Rashed Khan Menon MP and Hasanul Huq Inu MP, who are very much supportive to the adivasis. The adivasi leaders could capitalise on their good offices to go ahead with the ‘diplomacy’ program into forming a strong opinion for constitutional recognition; but they must first decide on the strategies collectively. However, the question is: who, among the adivasi leaders and representative organisations, will do what towards fulfilling the afore-mentioned hypotheses?

In response to the afore-mentioned question, I would propose that Bangladesh Adivasi Forum (BAF), as a representative organisation in the whole Bangladesh, must play the role of a vanguard right now. However, to ensure its political legitimacy of representation, and to chalk out a realistic program of actions, it must closely work with the indigenous people’s organisations across the country. To direct the actions into an achievable goal, BAF could consider appointing a ‘working group’ with honourable, acceptable and independent individuals who have expertise on the relevant fields. This working group should be constituted not only with indigenous persons, but also with renowned non-indigenous persons who are more sensitised with the adivasi issues. The working group could be entrusted with specific tasks such as studying the constitution and preparing a framework of ‘what rights’ could be included within the scope of ‘constitutional recognition’. If necessary, the working group could continue dialogues with the relevant stakeholders including the parliamentary bodies like the special body on constitutional amendments, and the parliamentary caucus on indigenous affairs. In addition to the working group, the adivasi leaders could nominate a respectable and impartial person as a ‘goodwill ambassador’, who will act as a bridge between the policy-makers in the government and the opposition party and the adivasi leaders. Thus he or she will help to draw supports for the constitutional recognition by reducing the differences between them. To bring all these ideas into action, BAF should take hold of the steering in the drive of constitutional recognition of the adivasis.

The present government has some three years to go. At this point of time, the adivasi leaders bear in mind that all, whatever they wish to do, have to be accomplished during the present government’s tenure. If they miss the chance, the dream for constitutional recognition likely will never come to true; because no one can guarantee an adivasi friendly government with such absolute majority, as the present government has had it, in the future. Another point to note is that the demand for constitutional recognition of the adivasis is not a brainchild of BAF, PCJSS or UPDF, but it is an aspiration which is a precondition for establishing an inclusive democracy and thereby establishing a just and equitable society in Bangladesh on the whole. Therefore, the common adivasis now long for an ideal situation, where the adivasi leaders regardless of their political ideology or political affiliation with AL, BNP, PCJSS or UPDF, and giving up all their egos and personal disliking to each other, speak together in one voice – the “constitutional recognition for the adivasis now or never”. We are eagerly looking forward to their historic role at this juncture of history.

"SAVE US FROM TOTAL EXTERMINATION" - A NON-STOP REVERBERATION ON MY MIND

Today I was surfing on internet. Suddenly I came across a few photos posted on the Flickr by International Work Group on Indigenous Affairs (IWGIA). Many photos were placed up on there. One of the folders contained photos exclusively from the Chittagong Hill Tracts (CHT), Bangladesh. I was clicking on the photos one by one. To my surprise, I got a few photos of jumma refugee camp at Thakumbari, Tripura state of India. These photos were taken by Jenneke Arens. A lot of thanks go to Jenneke for the photos.

By seeing these photos I lost in reverie and got 20 years back to 1990, when I was a refugee boy at Thakumbari refugee camp in Tripura state of India. I clearly remembered and visualised the long sheds, where we refugees spent our days in inhuman condition. I forgot the exact date, but I still remembered that day in 1990, when a team from the Chittagong Hill Tracts Commission visited the refugee camps in Tripura. Then I was a boy and student of class eight. The name of our school was 'Thakumbari Refugee Camp Model High School'. Our Headmaster was Akshoy Moni Chakma. I clearly remembered, our Headmaster got us, the students make a dais on the school premises.

Next to the school there was a hostel for students. As there was no environment for study at home (actually congested long sheds), many students (mainly the boys) used to live in the hostel. Shri Monoj (Subesh Kumar Chakma), a PCJSS leader who was posted in Thakumbari refugee camp, was there for full-time to look after the students. I called him Aju (grandfather). I learned English and Bengali grammar with him. He was very fond of me. He encouraged and inspired me a lot to study more and more. He used to explain the motto, "knowledge is power" and many other things.

Shri Monoj acted not only as a hostel super, but also a guardian for the students. He lived in a small bamboo house next to the hostel. He used to help the students with learning. He was a very strict hostel super. Every body had to follow the house-keeping rules very strictly. If anyone, who breached any rule, could not escape a hard punishment. Out of both fear and respect of him, students paid attention to their studies. I strongly believe, no one of the students of that time would forget him.

I clearly remembered, Shri Monoj used to be busy with writing memorandum and the messages for the placards, if any high profile delegation, ministers or dignitaries were due to refugee camp. I visualised that scene that prior to the CHT Commission team's visit to Thakumbari refugee camp, Shri Monoj called in a few students, who had good handwriting, to write the slogans up on the placards. I was one of them. Some wrote the slogans on white paper sheets, while some others fixed those pieces of papers with the bamboo sticks. We wrote many slogans. Still I remembered the slogan I wrote, "SAVE US FROM TOTAL EXTERMINATION" on the pieces of plain paper sheets. Today, the photo below reminded me of the memories of twenty years back. That time, I did not understand the meaning of 'extermination'. So, I had to consult a dictionary to get the meaning of it. Since then I have never forgot this word.

jumma children in Thakumbari refugee camp holding placards:"save us from total extermination",
"save humanity in CHT", Tripura state, India, photo: Jenneke Arens, IWGIA (1990).

On the day when the CHT Commission visited Thakumbari refugee camp, we the students along with other mass people stood in queues on two sides of the road. There were long queues. Children greeted the CHT Commission team in a traditional way of greetings by folding two hands (see the photo below).

jumma children greeting the CHT Commission in Thakumbari refugee camp
photo: Jenneke Arens, IWGIA (1990).

I can still visualise the faces of people. There was so much ethusiasm among refugees that 'foreigners' were coming to see the situation on the spot; what a sub-human life the refugees were leading in the camps. They had an expectation that those foreigners would put up the sufferings of refugees to the 'world community'. They had an expectation that the 'world community' would come forward to rescue the refugees, and indigenous jumma people from the clutch of oppression by the Bangladesh army and the Bengali settlers in the CHT of Bangladesh. The placard reads, "REPEAL DISTRICT COUNCIL IN CHT". The then military-backed Ershad government introduced the Local Government Council for three hill districts in 1989 against the will of the CHT people; while PCJSS opposed the Local Government Council. In this backdrop, there were high level of tensions, and conflicts across the whole CHT. Indigenous people were displaced in thousands. Many of them were compelled to take refuge in Tripura state of India. There was a strong demand for cancellation of the local government council system. 

In the eye of my mind, I still can see the scene of the meeting held on the refugee camp high school premises between the CHT Commission team and Jumma Refugee Welfare Association led by Upendra Lal Chakma, former MP. On behalf of the refugees, Akshoy Moni Chakma, Headmaster of the Thakumbari Refugee Camp Model High School read out the memorandum to the CHT Commission; while Upendra Lal Chakma spoke on the situation of the CHT. People gathered there in thousands on the school premises. We, the students of the high school were also present. I did not understand English that much. I did not understand what Upendral Lal Chakma said in his speech, except a few words and sentences. I understood one few sentences, which Upendra Lal Chakma uttered emotionally, "we the jumma people are on the verge of total extermination"; "Save us from total extermination." That day, I did not understand English that much, but I got inspired from Upendra Lal Chakma to learn English.  

Late Upendra Lal Chakma, former MP and Chairman of the Jumma Refugee Welfare Association,
Photo: Japan CHT Committee.

Upendra Lal Chakma is no more in this world, but his leadership role for the greater interest of the jumma refugees should never be blurred. He will be remembered by jumma refugees with due respect for good. 

Today, by seeing the photos on IWGIA's Flickr, I turned to be nostalgic. I was wondering whether anybody had taken photos of the long long sheds (known as shibir, not home), where the jumma refugees spent their days in inhuman condition, which was not worthy for living. At those sheds,  the jumma refugees shed their tears in sorrows and pains. The jumma refugees spent many days and nights with family members by starving, and sometimes half-fed. I saw, many lost their beloved ones there. Those long shibirs now could tell many stories of weal and woes of refugee life. I asked to myself: "did any jumma took snaps of those long shibirs? If anybody did so, would he or she share some photos with us? If I get those photos, I could show them to my future generations; I could tell them the stories and history of being refugee in Tripura state of India. Is there anybody to provide the historical elements for jumma history?     

Today I have remembered again: I lost my home long ago; as of today I am like a refugee, and a homeless person. Still I cannot forget the jumma children's cry, "SAVE US FROM TOTAL EXTERMINATION". 

  

The United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples: Support for the 3rd UN Seminar on Treaties, Agreements and Other Constructive Arrangements between States and Indigenous Peoples

United Nations Human Rights Council

Expert Mechanism on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples, 3rd session

July 12 – 16, 2010, Geneva, Switzerland

Agenda Item 4

The United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples: Support for the 3rd UN Seminar on Treaties, Agreements and Other Constructive Arrangements between States and Indigenous Peoples

Global Indigenous Peoples’ Caucus Statement presented by

Raja Devasish Roy

I am Devasish Roy, from the Chittagong Hill Tracts, Bangladesh a member-designate to the UNPFii for its term starting in 2011.

Congratulations to you, Mr. Chairperson, on your assumption of chairpersonship. Warm greetings from the Global Indigenous Peoples’ caucus.

The members of the Global Indigenous Peoples Caucus participating in the 3rd session of the UN Expert Mechanism on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples, representing all regions, note with appreciation the report presented here on the 2nd UN Seminar on Treaties Agreements and Other Constructive Arrangements held in November 2006 in the territories of the Maskwacis Cree in Alberta Canada.

In particular we want to express our support for its recommendation to hold to a 3rd United Nations Seminar on Treaties, Agreements and Other Constructive Arrangements between States and Indigenous Peoples, with the support and cooperation of the Office of the High Commissioner on Human Rights. We note with appreciation the invitation of the Maori of Aotearoa (New Zealand) in this regard. In this way, important advances can continue to be made regarding implementation, consideration of developments and good practices, and implications of the adoption of the UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples by the UN General Assembly. This includes the growing endorsement of the Declaration, including by UN member states that had voted against, or had abstained from voting, during the adoption of the Declaration by the General Assembly.

The Global Indigenous Peoples Caucus takes this opportunity to affirm its support for the recommendations contained in the final report of the UN Study on Treaties, Agreements and Other Constructive Arrangements between States and Indigenous Populations [E/CN.4/Sub. 2/1999/20] by Special Rapporteur Dr. Miguel Alfonso Martinez. We look forward to continued work to advance their implementation in partnership with States and the UN system.

However, we also take this opportunity to state that we do not necessarily agree with certain provisions contained in the body of this report under the category of “Some Key Points of Departure”, in which the validity of the claims of ‘indigenousness’ by peoples within Asia and Africa were questioned. If I just add now, in my personal capacity, that this matter was raised by indigenous participants from Asia, Africa, Arctic, North America and other regions at the Working Group on Indigenous Populations in 1998 and at the first expert seminar on the subject in 2003.

I return, Mr. Chairperson to the statement of behalf of the caucus:

We again affirm the validity, soundness and relevance of the recommendations contained in this report. However, we wish to put on record the right to self-identify of the Indigenous Peoples of Asia, Africa, Eastern Europe and all other regions. Equal application of the rights of indigenous peoples of all regions, including Indigenous Peoples in Asia and Africa, is vital to take forward the process of implementing Treaties, Agreements and Other Constructive Arrangements on a global level.

Important advances have taken place in the international arena since the completion of this report including the adoption of the UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples and the growing participation of indigenous peoples’ delegations, from Africa, Asia and other regions of the world in the UN Permanent Forum on Indigenous Issues, the Expert Mechanism on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples and in other UN and international fora including as expert members.

Mr Chairperson,

The development of human rights law is progressive. This is an underlying principle of international human rights law, as is the universal application of such rights without any form of discrimination.

The Global Indigenous Peoples Caucus affirms the importance of the continued work on the matter of Treaties, Agreements and Other Constructive Arrangements for all Indigenous Peoples as well as for States and the UN System, based on the aforesaid Treaty Study but also looking forward in the light of new developments and understandings from that same perspective of progressive development of international human rights law.

We anticipate that the 3rd Seminar will be an important opportunity for all of us to advance this work. We look forward to discussing the provisions of the UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples pertaining to implementation of Treaties, Agreements and other Constructive Arrangements. Also of particular interest for Indigenous Peoples of all regions will be discussions on the development of frameworks for negotiation, redress, restitution and conflict resolution, based on the affirmation in the preamble of the Indigenous Peoples’ Declaration that [I QUOTE]“treaties, agreements and other constructive arrangements, and the relationship they represent, are the basis for a strengthened partnership between indigenous peoples and States” [UNQUOTE].

Thank you Mr. Chairman

Indigenous peoples and the right to participate in decision-making

HUMAN RIGHTS COUNCIL

EXPERT MECHANISM ON THE RIGHTS OF INDIGENOUS PEOPLES

UNITED NATIONS OFFICE, GENEVA, THIRD SESSION

12-16 July, 2010

Agenda Item 3:

Study on indigenous peoples and the right to participate in decision-making

Statement by Devasish Roy, Chakma Chief (Chittagong Hill Tracts, Bangladesh: devasish59@yahoo. com) on behalf of the

A s i a I n d i g e n o u s P e o p l e s C a u c u s

Mr. Chairperson,

Congratulations to you on your chairpersonship and warm greetings to all. Let me start by thanking the members of the Expert Mechanism, particularly the lead authors, EMRIP members John B. Henriksen and Jannie Lasimbang, for their well-researched, analytical and substantive work in the Progress Report (A/HRC/EMRIP/ 2010/2). We agree with the contents of the report, which seeks promote the decision-making rights of indigenous peoples. We also commend the work of the Secretariat (A/HRC/EMRIP/ 2010/3) particularly where they draw our attention to the general comments and recommendations adopted by several UN treaty bodies with regard to the right of indigenous peoples in decision-making.

Through this intervention, we would like to draw your attention to four specific areas of indigenous peoples’ role in decision-making, some of which have been mentioned in the concerned reports, and in Special Rapporteur James Anaya’s address to the Forum yesterday, and in several of his other engagements and communications. These are indigenous peoples’ role in: (i) national constitution- making; (ii) the electoral process; (iii) through their own traditional and other institutions and representatives; and (iv) state executive support to these roles. We reiterate that these rights emanate from the right to self-determination of peoples, which right the UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples clarifies beyond any that, that it applies equally to indigenous peoples, whether or not the state in which the indigenous peoples live ratified the two human rights covenants of 1966 (the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights and the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights) or not.

INDIGENOUS ROLE IN CONSTITUTION- MAKING

One distinguishing feature of indigenous peoples worldwide is the historical process of denial of their role in national constitution- making (and to a lesser degree, in other law-making and policy-making processes). Apart from some notable exceptions in Latin America, and recently, in Nepal, most national constitutions the world over either contain no provisions proposed by indigenous peoples, and if they do contain some, these largely concern relatively mundane matters. This is a continuous and continuing challenge for indigenous peoples and governments. If the modern nation state is compared to a house, then the concerned national constitution could be regarded as the architectural plan. Now if we are to add new rooms to such a house, to accommodate us, we can only do that if the existing plan can accommodate the new rooms. Otherwise, we will be only moving the furniture around or have to sleep in the verandah. Thus, it is vital that indigenous peoples are provided fair and substantive opportunity to help re-write the national constitutions in an inclusive manner, taking the UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples as a basis with guidance from other international human rights norms and standards. Only then will the playing field be a little more level and democracy and participation more meaningful.

INDIGENOUS PEOPLES’ ROLE IN THE ELECTORAL PROCESS

Despite some advances made in indigenous peoples’ role in the electoral process in several countries, there are an equal or larger number of situations where indigenous peoples’ role in the political process has become even more marginal than before. Even in the situations where indigenous peoples’ populations constitute a substantive part of an electoral constituency (which is not the case for most indigenous peoples), majoritarian orientations of political parties’ priorities and the domination of money, muscle and numbers vitiate against indigenous persons being elected. Even where they are elected, they are often subjected to pressure from party hierarchies and prevented from playing a substantive role in the decision-making process. This also happens in countries with large indigenous populations, including in Latin America, and in South and Southeast Asia. It is therefore crucial that safeguards for indigenous participation and reserved seats in elective institutions are introduced or retained and strengthened (such as those as in Aotoroa-New Zealand and Northeast India).

INDIGENOUS PEOPLES’ DECISION-MAKING IN MAINSTREAM POLITICAL AND DEVELOPMENTAL PROCESSES THROUGH THEIR OWN TRADITIONAL AND OTHER INSTITUTIONS AND REPRESENTATIVES

In the countries where indigenous peoples’ traditional and other institutions have been and continue to be de-recognized by the state, their situation of marginality in decision-making is even sharper (such as in several parts of South, Southeast and East Asia). It is therefore vital that traditional and other non-elected indigenous structures be formally recognized in mainstream local and national decision-making processes in addition to providing appropriate avenues for electoral representation bearing in mind the difficulties and disadvantages faced by indigenous peoples in the electoral process.

STATE SUPPORT FOR DECISION-MAKING IN HYBRID OR OTHER STATE-INDIGENOUS DECISION-MAKING INSTITUTIONS AND PROCESSES

While it is vital that indigenous peoples’ internal decision-making processes are protected, strengthened and fostered, it is equally vital to ensure that indigenous leaders’ and other representatives’ role in decision-making processes have the full and formal support of the legislative, judicial and executive arms of the governments of the states in which they live. This should include support to (i) the solely indigenous-membered institutions, (ii) indigenous and non-indigenous “hyrbrid” institutions and (iii) non-indigenous membered state institutions that provide substantive consultative roles to indigenous peoples that give indigenous peoples a real choice to provide or withhold consent, adhering to the right and principle of Free, Prior and Informed Consent.

Thank you, Chairperson.

CHT Commission submits report on the recent violent conflicts in Khagrachari

REPORT OF THE CHITTAGONG HILL TRACTS COMMISSION’S
MISSION IN BANGLADESH
August 10-18, 2009

This report sets out the activities of the CHT Commission on its third mission to Bangladesh on August 10-18, 2009, following steps taken by the Awami League-led Government to implement provisions of the CHT Accord of 1997. The report also follows up on the issues and recommendations raised in the report of the CHT Commission’s second mission in Bangladesh in February 2009.

The third mission aimed at assessing the situation in the CHT with regard to ongoing reports of human rights violations and monitoring the implementation of the different provisions of the CHT Accord. It also aimed at following up on recommendations made during the previous missions and engaging in dialogue with concerned parties.

Accordingly the mission held high-level meetings with the Prime Minister and concerned Ministers, the CHT Land Commission and the Law Commission. It also met brigade commanders, senior police officers, political party and civil society representatives and interviewed victims of human rights violations among the indigenous peoples in the CHT. The delegation also conducted field visits to Bandarban, Rangamati and Khagrachori districts, interviewing and holding discussions with both indigenous peoples and Bengalis, including victims of human rights violations and forcible land grabbing. For the full list of meetings held, see Annex 1.

The following is a brief account of the issues discussed with the various concerned parties during the third mission and the recommendations put forward by the CHT Commission. These recommendations to the Government are intended for its immediate consideration, and focus upon solving the land disputes in the CHT, enhancing the powers of the civil administration in the CHT and protecting human rights and ensuring access to justice in the CHT.

I. The full implementation of the CHT Accord 1997

In 1997, the Government of Bangladesh and Parbatya Chattagram Jana Samhati Samiti (PCJSS) signed the CHT Accord, which ended an almost two-decade long armed struggle for autonomy for the region. The Accord promised

(i) land rights to the indigenous people;

(ii) revival of their cultural identities;

(iii) rehabilitation of internally displaced people and repatriated refugees;

(iv) withdrawal of military from the CHT, with the exception of permanent military establishments; and

(v) self-government through regional and district councils.

Most of the provisions, however, remained either unimplemented or only partially implemented, thereby maintaining the CHT as an area characterized by severe human rights violations and militarization.

With the Awami League-led Government’s pledges in connection with the December 2008 election to fully implement the CHT Accord and to secure their rights and to undertake special programmes to preserve the language, literature, culture, and unique lifestyles of the indigenous communities, hopes were raised that all the provisions of the CHT Accord would finally be implemented without furher delay.

True to its election manifesto, the Government has taken important measures to implement the CHT Accord. These include specifically the setting up of the National Committee for Implementation of the CHT Accord, re-establishment of the Land Commission and the Task Force on Rehabilitation of Returnee Jumma Refugees and Internally Displaced Persons, the cancellation of plantation leases that have not been properly developed, and the withdrawal of temporary military camps. This has generated a sense of momentum, which the CHT Commission appreciates and encourages.

Unfortunately, it remains unclear how and when the various provisions will be implemented. No steps have been taken to develop a time-bound action plan in consultation with indigenous peoples in the CHT to ensure that all the provisions in the Peace Accord are implemented and in an appropriate sequence. The development of a time-bound action plan has been strongly recommended by several concerned parties, including the Human Rights Council in its Universal Periodic Review of Bangladesh, the CHT Commission and indigenous peoples in Bangladesh.

The CHT Commission is concerned about the reports of renewal of hostilities between the different internal groupings in the CHT. With the Government’s initiatives to implement the remaining provisions of the CHT Accord it is as imperative as ever that the indigenous peoples in the region act in unity.

Recommendations:

• The Government should take immediate steps to develop a time-bound action plan for the implementation of all provisions of the CHT Peace Accord in consultation with indigenous peoples in the CHT.
• The CHT Commission further recommends that the financial costs for implementing the CHT Accord and making its implementing bodies fully functional be worked out and included in the budget of the Ministry of Chittagong Hill Tracts Affairs to be handed to the Ministry of Finance before the next budgetary review in December 2009.

II. Land disputes

As noted by the CHT Commission in its report from the second mission to Bangladesh and as evidenced from the discussions held with civil society in the CHT, one of the main problems in the area is the indigenous peoples’ loss of land due to evictions, government settlement programmes of Bengalis from the plains between 1979 and 1986, land grabbing and so-called development projects. There is a backlog of land related problems in the CHT, such as the failure to record titles to land allotted to or under customary use by indigenous peoples, to implement the provisions for resettlement and rehabilitation of repatriated indigenous refugees and to cancel illegally occupied lands and unnecessary land acquisitions involving forcible eviction of the indigenous peoples. Expansion of settlement of Bengali settlers, forcible land grabbing and communal clashes related to land conflicts continue to be reported in all three districts.

The CHT Commission finds it encouraging that the Government on July 19, 2009 has appointed the Chairman of the CHT Land Commission and that the Land Commission Chairman has reassured that land held under customary law will be considered when determining land disputes as it is stipulated in the CHT Accord that “The (Land) Commission will resolve disputes on the basis of existing laws, customs and systems of the Chittagong Hill Tracts”. The CHT Commission, however, is concerned about the rate of progress towards activation of the Land Commission; the lack of allocation of staff and office facilities; the Land Commission’s lack of progress on the determination of disputed land claims; and its apparent decision to hold the cadastral survey before the settlement of land disputes. Furthermore, there seems to be uncertainty in terms of how the Land Commission would deal with cases involving customary title/use vis-à-vis certificates issued by the Deputy Commissioner to Bengali settlers from the plains in the late 1970s or early 1980s.

It is also of concern to the CHT Commission that the proposed amendments to the CHT Land Dispute Resolution Commission Act by the CHT Regional Council have apparently not been considered by the relevant Ministries. The recommendations include provisions (i) to remove the virtual veto powers of the Chairperson and (ii) to delegate powers of the Land Commission to any member or official to conduct preliminary enquiries and hearings.

Another key actor in addressing the land conflicts in the CHT is the Task Force on Rehabilitation of Returnee Jumma Refugees and Internally Displaced Persons. However, as is the case with the CHT Land Commission, the Task Force lacks the necessary resources, including staff, to perform its duties. The need of the Government to assess the resources needed for the Task Force and the Land Commission to ensure full settlement of all the land disputes brought to the attention of the Land Commission was discussed with both Ministers and the donor community.

The CHT Commission would like to highlight the recommendation of the Parliamentary Standing Committee on CHT Affairs on August 18, 2009, to cancel 260 plots of land leased out for rubber cultivation for violating the terms and conditions of the allotment. Concerns were however raised about the arbitrary way the field investigation is being done, the possible lack of neutrality of those in charge of providing the information about fulfillment of the terms and conditions of the allotments as well as how and to whom the cancelled plots would be allocated.

Recommendations:

• The Land Commission should establish a database of all disputed land claims, providing the claimants with forms on which they can supply the information required for this purpose. This might be the subject of an approach to international agencies such as UNDP for financial and technical assistance.
• Because of the complexity of overlapping titles on the same land plots granted in different circumstances, the land disputes should be settled before the cadastral survey is carried out and a definitive set of rules should be developed by the Land Commission to rank the relative priority of different kinds of land titles. For those whose claims to land are disallowed, the government should draft rehabilitation measures for discussion with community leaders.
• The Government should immediately adopt needed amendments of the CHT Land Dispute Resolution Commission Act 2001 and provide the CHT Land Commission as well as the Task Force for CHT Refugee Rehabilitation Affairs with the necessary means to resolve land disputes with effectiveness and justice, as stipulated in the CHT Accord.
• Moreover, there is a need for a speedy development of government guidelines for the interaction and division of labour between the Task Force and the Land Commission.
• The CHT Commission recommends that the plots of land leased out for plantations which violate the terms and conditions of the allotment are restored to the indigenous people, who traditionally used these plots under customary law.

III. Enhancing powers of the civil administration

Since the previous mission of the CHT Commission in February 2009 no progress has been seen in the transferal of subjects and functions to the three Hill District Councils as well as the enactment of Rules of Business for the CHT Regional Council, which are provided for in the CHT Accord in order to strengthen local governance and ensure regional autonomy in the CHT.

The CHT Commission finds the newly passed Upazila Parishad (Repealed Act Re-Introduction and Amendment) Bill a cause for concern. With the Bill, the upazila parishads have to accept the advisory role of Members of Parliament when making plans for development in their respective electoral constituencies. In the CHT, this is one of the functions of the CHT Regional Council and the Bill therefore potentially weakens the powers of the local administration in the CHT.

Another important aspect of strengthening the civil administration in the CHT is the holding of elections for the Hill District Councils and the CHT Regional Council. With the dramatic demographic change in the CHT since the late 1970’s there is a need for an electoral system, which ensures fair representation of all ethnic communities and women. This will require an amendment to the Hill District Council Acts. The CHT Commission is therefore disappointed at the absence of proposals for electing the Hill District Councils.

The civil administration in the CHT is also hobbled by the continuing heavy military presence in the region. The CHT Commission therefore welcomes the announcement on July 29 2009 that an army brigade consisting of three battalions and 35 security camps would be withdrawn from the CHT by September 2009. At the time of the CHT Commission’s mission, the withdrawal of army camps had begun. While welcomed, albeit guardedly, by the indigenous peoples and some Bengali settlers, others claimed that their safety would be jeopardized.

During meetings with the brigade commanders and their staff the CHT Commission members were informed that they saw no security risks with compliance to the government policy on the withdrawal of the camps. This view was confirmed by the police and local authorities. It should also be noted that the withdrawal of army camps from the hill districts are merely redeployment of troops to battalion headquarters and according to various sources, more than 300 camps will remain in the CHT.

While the withdrawal of military camps is a positive indication of the Government’s determination to implement the CHT Accord, the CHT Commission continues to receive many reports of continued military influence on the civil administration of the CHT as well as reports of the army officers instigating Bengalis to provoke communal riots and to protest against the withdrawal of army camps. The CHT Commission is concerned that the scope and ambit of Operation Uttoron (Operation Upliftment), currently ongoing in the CHT, is not in the public domain. The executive order authorizing this Operation reportedly confers on the military rights to intervene in civil matters beyond their proper jurisdiction.

Recommendations:

• All the agreed subjects and functions as specified in the Accord should be handed over to the Hill District Councils with immediate effect, and all the necessary steps should be taken to ensure the full functioning of the CHT Regional Council.
• It is imperative that elections are held for the Hill District Councils and the CHT Commission recommends that alternative electoral methods are explored promptly. In the meanwhile, the representative character of the Hill District Councils could be improved by co-opting members of the smaller ethnic minorities in the area.
• Functions normally performed by civilian agencies but now undertaken by the military, such as development projects and any other activities not requiring specific military skills, should be transferred to the civil administration and to institutions set up by the CHT Accord.
• The order authorizing Operation Uttoron should be published for public scrutiny and reviewed judiciously in the public interest.

IV. Human rights and access to justice

During the mission, the CHT Commission delegation met a broad section of indigenous peoples’ representatives and civil society and interviewed victims of human rights violations. It is the assessment of the CHT Commission that the overall human rights and justice situation in the CHT continues to be a cause for great concern.

Indigenous peoples in the CHT continue to face human rights violations including extrajudicial killings, arbitrary arrests, unlawful detentions, torture, rape, attacks, harassment, religious persecution, political harrassment, and lack of access to socio-economic rights or to freedom of expression including with respect to cultural activities. A vast majority of cases remain without proper investigation, prosecution and punishment. This culture of absence of justice and impunity of the offenders pervade the issue of justice in the CHT.

Access to redress for victims and their families are few and often difficult in practical terms. Particular problems relate to discriminatory legislation, lack of access to courts in terms of physical access as well as lack of funds and legal aid, and the failure to activate the legal aid programme of the government in the CHT to date. Lack of information is another factor as is the lack of available lawyers to assist. Poverty and the length of the process of getting to court are other factors preventing indigneous peoples from pursuing the cases they file all the way through the legal system.

In light of the serious human rights situation in the CHT, the CHT Commission was encouraged by the Prime Minister’s statement on the occasion of the the International Day of the World's Indigenous People in support of the UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples. This statement encourages not only the indigenous peoples in Bangladesh, but also all over the world, and it indicates that the Government of Bangladesh recognises the particular rights of its indigenous communities. There does, however, seem to be confusion about the term ‘indigenous peoples’ both within the Government and civil society, which needs to be clarified.

Recommendations:

• The CHT Commission urges continuing measures to enhance access to justice within the CHT, including the activation of legal aid committees.
• The Government should invite the UN Special Rapporteur on the situation of human rights and fundamental freedoms of indigenous people to assess the situation in the CHT and clarify the concept of indigenous peoples.
• The CHT Commission notes the Government's call to end impunity and assert due process and reiterate its recommendation that in the same spirit the issue of impunity for human rights violations in the CHT should be addressed by holding independent and impartial investigations into such reports, and where sufficient evidence exists, bringing those responsible to trial, and providing reparations to victims.
• Considering the prevalence of reports of violence against women in the CHT, as in the rest of the country, the Commission recommends that priority be given to activating the Nari o Shishu Nirjaton Domon (Suppression of Violence against Women and Children) Tribunals in every district of the CHT and that appropriate training be provided to concerned law enforcement and judicial officers responsible for investigation, prosecution and adjudication of such cases, and to extend legal aid to victims.
• The CHT Commission urges that the review of vexatious cases announced by the Government be conducted by an impartial and accountable body, and further that effective redress and reparations are made available to the affected persons.
• The Government should allow human rights and other NGOs (whether local, national or international) free access to travel within the CHT and monitor human rights violations. The CHT Commission reiterates its recommendation that open invitations are extended to the UN Special Procedures as mentioned by the Government under the Universal Periodic Review in February 2009.
• Government legal services in the region should be activated, and an effective public information and education program should be developed, so that victims and witnesses of human rights and crimes, in particular violence against women, are able to access legal remedies, as previously recommended by the CHT Commission.
• The Government of Bangladesh is urged once again to withdraw its reservations to internationally agreed treaties on human rights, including the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR), the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights (ICESCR), the Convention on the Elimination of Racial Discrimination (CERD), the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination against Women (CEDAW), the Convention against Torture and All Other Forms of Cruel, Degrading and Inhuman Treatment or Punishment (CAT) and the Convention on the Rights of the Child (CRC).
• The Government of Bangladesh is urged to ratify ILO Convention No. 169 as well as the Refugee Convention, as recommended by the UN Human Rights Council and as agreed by Bangladesh with the international community in the Poverty Reduction Strategy Paper.

*********

Annex 1: List of meetings

• Sheikh Hasina Wazed, Prime Minister
• Dr. Dipu Moni, Minister, Ministry of Foreign Affairs
• Mr. Abul Mal Abdul Muhith, Minister, Ministry of Finance
• Mr. Dipankar Talukder, State Minister, Ministry of Chittagong Hill Tracts Affairs
• Mr. Promod Mankin, Minister, Ministry of Cultural Affairs and Chairman, Parliamentary Standing Committee on CHT Affairs
• Justice Mohammad Abdur Rashid, Chairman, Law Commission
• Justice Khademul Islam Chowdhury, Chairman, CHT Land Commission
• Mr. Jyotindra Lal Tripura, Chairman, Task Force on Rehabilitation of Returnee Jumma Refugees and IDPs

• Local administration
o Mr. Jyotirindra Bodhipriya Larma (Shantu Larma), Chairman, CHT Regional Council
o Mr. Mizanur Rahman, Deputy Commissioner, Bandarban
o Mr. Shourendronath Chakrabarty, Deputy Commissioner, Rangamati
o Mr. Kyaw Shwe Hla, Chairman, Bandarban Hill District Council
o Mr. Nikhil Kumar, Chairman, Rangamati Hill District Council

• Brigade Commanders
o Brigadier General Shah Atiqur Rahman, Brigade Commander, Bandarban
o Brigadier General AKM Abdullah Hil Baki, Brigade Commander, Rangamati
o Brigadier General Mohammad Emadul Haque, Brigade Commander, Khagrachori

• Political parties

o Parbatya Chattagram Jana Samhati Samiti (PCJSS)
o United Peoples' Democratic Front (UPDF)
o Jamaat-e-Islami

• Civil Society (CHT Forest and Land Committee, Tribal Muslim Welfare Association, Jummo Refugee Welfare Association, Indigenous and Bengali representatives in Bandarban, Rangamati and Khagrachori)
• Media
• Diplomatic missions and donor agencies

*****

Annex 2: Background to the CHT Commission

On 31 May and 1 June, 2008, at a meeting of experts in Copenhagen, Denmark, it was decided to re-establish the Chittagong Hill Tracts Commission in view of the situation in the CHT with the following mandate:

"To promote respect for human rights, democracy and restoration of civil and judicial rights in the CHT in Bangladesh, including examination of the implementation of the CHT Accord of 1997. The CHT Commission will build on the work by the first CHT Commission (1990-2001)."

The Commission was re-constituted with eleven members from Bangladesh and abroad: Ms. Sultana Kamal (Bangladesh, co-chair), Lord Eric Avebury (United Kingdom, co-chair), Dr. Ida Nicolaisen (Denmark, co-chair), Dr. Shapan Adnan (Bangladesh), Ms. Victoria Tauli-Corpuz (Philippines), Mr. Robert Evans (United Kingdom), Dr. Muhammed Zafar Iqbal (Bangladesh), Ms. Sara Hossain (Bangladesh), Dr. Hideaki Uemura (Japan), Mr. Lee Swepston (USA) and Mr. Lars-Anders Baer (Sweden).

The CHT Commission held its first visit to Bangladesh August 6–14, 2008, with the aim of becoming familiar with the situation in the CHT, holding initial meetings with concerned parties and seeking their input into possible actions to be taken and recommendations to be made by the CHT Commission. It also directly received complaints on land and human rights violations in the CHT.

The CHT Commission carried out its second mission to Bangladesh February 16-22, 2009 with the aim of informing the newly elected government about the CHT Commission’s concerns and urge it to take concrete and time-bound measures for the full implementation of the Peace Accord, and to address ongoing human rights violations in the CHT on an urgent basis. The delegation met with a broad range of concerned parties and raised issues of concern and recommendations in its mission report.

Source: Chittagong Hill Tracts Commission

Raja Devasish Roy to UNPFII: It’s not a jargon, rather a revelation for the Bangladesh government

“Bangladesh did not have any indigenous population, as is meant in UN jargon” - this was reiterated by Foreign Minister Dr. Dipu Moni, when Renata Lok-Dessallien, the outgoing UN Resident Coordinator and UNDP Resident Representative to Bangladesh called on her at her office on 11 April (the Daily Star, 12 April 2010). In three weeks after this reiteration by the Foreign Minister, the president of the United Nations Economic and Social Council (ECOSOC) appointed Raja Devasish Roy as one of the indigenous expert members to the United Nations Permanent Forum on Indigenous Issues (UNPFII) for the term of 2011 – 2013, starting from next January. It is not a jargon rather a revelation for the Bangladesh government that Raja Devasish Roy has got appointed in this UN forum, because he is an indigenous person from Bangladesh. To his capacity as an indigenous member to UNPFII, he will sit with other government representatives on an equal footing at the UN level. It is indeed a resounding joy for the adivasis of Bangladesh. We, the adivasis of Bangladesh warmly congratulate him on this occasion. Simultaneously, we also expect the same gesture from our government.

Dr. Dipu Moni (4th from the right), now foreign minister of Bangladesh at an adivasi rally on 9 August. Now she denies the adivasis in Bangladesh, Photo: Bidhayak Chakma

By the way, it is necessary to briefly touch on Bangladesh’s ‘cold, but sometimes desperate’ attitudes towards indigenous peoples. Since a long time, Bangladesh has been denying the existence of indigenous peoples in Bangladesh, although it has never put up well-founded explanation about its position. As a proof of its desperate attitudes, we can mention the recent executive order issued by the Ministry of Chittagong Hill Tracts Affairs (MoCHTA), which puts a sanction on using the term adivasi. Whilst at the international level, Bangladesh sometimes has remained ‘too cold’, and sometimes intervened opposing the concept of ‘indigenous peoples’. For instance, in 1996 at the fourteenth session of the Working Group on Indigenous Populations (WGIP), a precursor to UNPFII, the Bangladesh UN representative made a statement that Bangladesh did not have indigenous people. He further stated, “Bangladesh's population of 120 million were all indigenous”. The Foreign Minister harped on the same string too, while talking to Renata Lok-Dessalien. To our utter surprise, she also termed the concept of indigenous peoples as a “jargon” and reaffirmed that Bangladesh situation could not be compared with those in western countries.

Ostensibly, Bangladesh could not be compared with other western countries, but the government must ‘de-jargonise’ the concept of ‘indigenous’ or ‘adivasi’. So far, we did not have a detailed explanation about Bangladesh’s position on the indigenous question. However, from the ‘indigenous’ discourse as stated by the Foreign Minister and the Bangladesh representative to the UN mission, it appears that they stick only to the lexical or semantic meaning of ‘indigenous’ or ‘advivasi’ as the ‘first occupants’ in a place. We cannot agree with this kind of naïve explanation for defining ‘indigenousness’. Yet for the sake of argument, we agree that the ‘first occupants’ concept, as it is applicable for Australia, the US or other European countries, might not be the same for Bangladesh or the Indian sub-continent due to various reasons. For instance, first, difficulty in determining the ‘first settlers’ as influxes of different groups of people or rulers occurred in different times and in different places; and second, the boundaries of the states and territories changed over time. However, we strongly assert that the attempt to define ‘indigenousness’ solely based on the ‘first occupants’ criterion is an ahistorical approach for Bangladesh.

In contrast, the roots of constructing adivasi in this sub-continent could be traced back to its colonial administration and legal history. The legal history suggests that currency of ‘indigenous’ or ‘aboriginal’ (its Bangla synonym adivasi) has emerged from applying some special laws for protecting the rights of the ‘original inhabitants’ in certain places during the British rule. In applying these special laws, the driving principle was ‘exclusion’, for instance, the CHT was declared as an ‘excluded area’ (EA), and Garo Hills as ‘partially excluded area’ (PEA). It meant that the general laws, which were in force in other districts of the British India, would not be applicable for the ‘original’ inhabitants (adivasis) of the CHT and Garo Hills. For administration and protecting the special rights of the adivasis in EAs and PEAs, separate laws would be enacted, for example, the CHT Regulation 1900, which recognised the CHT adivasis as ‘indigenous hillmen’; while the State Acquisition and Tenancy Act 1950 provided a legal protection to the aboriginals’ land rights in plain districts (the section 97 (1)). This clearly indicates that the concept of ‘indigenous’ was applied for the adivasis, who were the original inhabitants in their territories such as the CHT and Garo Hills in Bangladesh. Thus the Bangladesh government’s claim of its “120 million populations were indigenous” is baseless and distortion of the historical truth.

Alongside the aforementioned historical continuum of adivasi construction in Bangladesh, the government should also bear in mind that already ‘indigenous peoples’ has become an internationally accepted legal term. Other than the international laws e.g. the ILO Convention 169, the Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD) 1992, and the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples (UNDRIP), many other intergovernmental and international development agencies like the World Bank (WB), Asian Development Bank (ADB) and Danish International Development Agency (DANIDA) to name a few, have recognised indigenous peoples. To the best of my knowledge, the Bangladesh government already received funds from ADB under the indigenous people’s development plan (IPDP) for many projects.

No civilised and democratic states including Bangladesh could deny the fact that indigenous peoples all over the world were subjected to genocide, slavery and discriminations during colonisation and ‘nation state’ building processes. In such backdrop, out of collective aspiration of being free from all kinds of discriminations and oppressions, and to assert indigenous human rights including the collective rights over lands and territories, indigenous leaders marched to the United Nations and demanded a ‘place for indigenous voice’ within the UN system. Initially, in 1970s and 80s, a ‘permanent forum’ for indigenous peoples within the UN structure was a utopian concept.

However, to turn this ‘utopian concept’ into a reality, indigenous leaders continued struggles and held decade-long negotiations and lobby with the state parties and relevant actors at the UN level and beyond. Finally in July 2000, the UN General Assembly endorsed the UN Permanent Forum on Indigenous Issues (UNPFII) under ECOSOC. Raja Devasish Roy as an adivasi leader from Bangladesh was one of the pioneers in framing this vision for the world’s indigenous peoples.

UNPFII is an advisory body to ECOSOC, consisting of sixteen members, of them eight are government nominated and the rest are indigenous experts appointed by the president of ECOSOC. Within the scope of ECOSOC works, UNPFII is given a mandate to discuss indigenous issues related to economic and social development, culture, the environment, education, health and human rights. UNPFII holds its annual session in April-May in New York or Geneva, where indigenous leaders and other actors have an opportunity to participate and speak on those issues. As per the mandate, UNPFII members in a body provide expert advice and recommendations on indigenous issues to ECOSOC.

This year during the UNPFII’s annual session on 28 April, the president of ECOSOC formally declared the names of indigenous members to UNPFII for the next three-year term. Raja Devasish Roy from Bangladesh was one of them. As per the Foreign Minister’s speech, if there were no indigenous peoples in Bangladesh, how Raja Devasish Roy could be selected to UNPFII? Nonetheless, it is our immense pleasure that he is representing Bangladesh as an adivasi leader at the UN forum. We are confident that he will be able to provide expert advices to both ECOSOC and the government of Bangladesh. At the same time, we expect that by giving up the parochial view on indigenous question, the government will come ahead with a positive attitude towards the adivasis to make Bangladesh a truly inclusive democratic state.