Getting
to Know Bangladesh
Indian
Designs on Chittagong Hill Tracts
(India
is very large and diverse in comparison with its neighbours, yet but it
continues to come up with stratagem to make trouble and gain territory in every
neighbouring country)
By
Barrister M B I Munshi
An
essay by Prajnalankar Bhikkhu titled `Empowering the Jumma Indigenous people
within the framework of the CHT Accord' is the latest in a series of articles
and conference papers sponsored by India's foreign intelligence agency RAW to
disseminate views on the CHT that is designed to undermine the territorial
integrity of Bangladesh. My opinion concerning the involvement of RAW in this
particular instance is primarily based on the repetitive use of technical terms
and factual errors that appear as a common feature in all such writings.
In
an effort to add credence to the perspective advanced by Bhikkhu we are afforded
a short academic lecture on the meaning of the word `empowerment' in its several
variant uses related to politics, economics and sociological development. In
some inexplicable way this is meant to convince the reader of the inherent
goodness of the CHT Accord in bringing peace to the region and its inhabitants.
According to Bhikkhu these inhabitants are the Jumma or indigenous peoples of
the area but what he fails to mention is that both these terms are controversial
and suspect and subject to challenge. Mr. Zainul Abedin in his several books on
the CHT has shown that both these terms are contentious and inaccurate. In my
recent book, `The India Doctrine' I have provided a painstaking analysis of the
genesis of these words in relation to the CHT and how they have become the
vehicle of RAW’s policy to sow dissension within the CHT and to misinform
foreign agencies about the actual ground realties and historical background to
the conflict.
My
research has shown that the word indigenous and Jumma that have been applied to
all the 11 ethnic communities without discrimination is a historical
fabrication; all these communities, in fact, are relative newcomers to the
region. The original settlements in the CHT started with the arrival of Muslim
traders of Arabic origin that began sometime in the 10th century and then by
Bengali settlers under the Bengal Sultanate and the Mughal Emperors from the
12th – 18th centuries. It was these Muslim inhabitants that predominated in
the region and it was through the tolerant policies of their governments that
the 11 ethnic communities found sanctuary and safety from oppressive authorities
in their places of origin starting from the 17th century onwards.
It
was with the arrival of the British that a policy of discrimination against the
Bengali Muslims was initiated with the introduction of the 1900 Regulations.
During the 1970's this policy became one of ethnic cleaning with the armed
insurgency of the Chakma community supported by the Indian military and
intelligence to forcibly remove the Bengali inhabitants from the area so that
the CHT may eventually be annexed to India. It was due to this aggression
against the Bengali inhabitants that the Bangladesh military occupied the area
under President Ziaur Rahman and which continues to this day. Once it had been
perceived in India that the insurgency had lost steam, a peace accord was
proposed to the then Awami League government to achieve Indian objectives by
other means.
Bhikkhu
claims that the CHT Accord was intended to empower the Jumma indigenous peoples
and "non-indigenous permanent residents" through decentralization of
power but its un-stated purpose has been to undermine Bangladesh sovereignty and
control of the area. It is because the successor government in Bangladesh
understood the adverse implications of the accord and respected the principle of
the unity of the state enshrined in the country's constitution (as well as in
democracy and the rule of law) that it had been reluctant to implement all the
provisions of the Accord. It is irrelevant to contend, as Bhikkhu does, that
this is some concerted Islamization policy since the region has been under
Muslim control and suzerainty for the greater part of 800 years.
The
most disturbing element of Bhikkhu's essay is his attempt to dehumanize the
Muslim Bengali inhabitants of the CHT which is clearly a product of a mindset
found prevalent within India's governing elite - military, intelligence and
security agencies apparatus. This same policy has been adopted consistently in
regard to India's own Muslim minorities in Kashmir and Gujarat as well as with
their scheduled castes and is similar in context to Israel's treatment of the
Palestinians and South Africa's treatment of the native blacks under the former
apartheid regimes. The victims in Bhikkhu's story is more accurately, therefore,
not the so-called indigenous communities but the majority Muslim Bengalis who
have had to face discrimination and violence from the Chakma insurgents who have
been aided by the Indian
government and military in order that the region should secede and join with the
Indian Union. It is through Bhikkhu's disingenuous arguments that we may presume
this is also his intention and aim when he makes the following spurious and
opinionated comment.
"[The]
policy thought out by the first Prime Minister of Bangladesh Sheikh Mujibur
Rahman in the early 1970s and consistently executed by his two successive
military regimes respectively headed by Major General Ziaur Rahman (1975-1981)
and Lt. General Hussein Mohammad Ershad (1982-1990) seeks to integrate the
indigenous peoples and their lands and resources with the mono-cultural Islamic
State, Bangladesh, with force and other illegal means, such as forcible land
confiscation and settlement of ethnic Bengali settlers from plain districts in
the CHT, militarization and atrocities like rape, murder and religious
persecution, and imposition of Islam and Bengali cultural values on the
indigenous peoples."
That
the CHT has been integrated into East Pakistan/Bangladesh for the last 50 years
and that the majority of acts of rape, murder and religious persecutions have
been committed by the two opposing groups of the PCJSS and the UPDF against the
members of their communities that they claim to represent. As for Bhikkhu's
later contentions of sponsored settlements by successive Bangladesh governments
this may be viewed as a redress of the iniquities perpetrated under the 1900
Regulations which saw a sharp drop in Bengali inhabitants in the CHT. This
policy would also be consistent with the constitution of Bangladesh which
provides for freedom of movement within the territory of Bangladesh and as the
CHT has been an integral part of the nation for several centuries (which was
also recognized by the British during the partition talks of 1947) it is within
the sovereignty of the nation to promote such settlements.
It
is my contention that the 11 communities have lived peaceably under Muslim
rule for at least 3 centuries and would have continued to do so had the Indian
government and military not interfered in the region and fomented insurgent
tendencies. If the CHT Accord is a solution to the CHT conflict then the
Indian government should implement similar agreements with the almost 120
insurgent groups operating in the North East Indian States (i.e. the Seven
Sisters) which have been subject to an insipid Indian imperialism since their
amalgamation into the Indian Union as well as to human rights violations that
far exceeds anything that has happened in the CHT. India should further remove
all its military and intelligence personnel from these areas and repeal the
half dozen or so draconian laws that have transformed the entire region into
an ‘occupied territory' under near martial law conditions.
“India set about breaking up Pakistan even before it came
into being. What is generally called ‘partition’ is viewed by the Muslims as
‘liberation’ and separation of East Pakistan imposed by external aggression
is clearly ‘secession’. The information and education apparatus of Pakistan
as well as Bangladesh is still under influences hostile to the polity of
Pakistan. One is disheartened that many in leadership positions in Pakistan have
unthinkingly embraced the view the ‘secession’ was the result of mistakes
made by Pakistani leadership or some inadequacy in the Two Nation Theory. That
is an oversimplification that amounts to falsification of history. Pakistan and
Bangladesh are areas the Brahmin covets. As politics in Pakistan came to
disconnect with the ‘purpose of Pakistan’, India found the ground fertile
for subversion.”