>
> Mohammad Zainal Abedin
>
> The interview of Barrister Debasis Roy, an ornamental King of the Chakama
> tribe living in CHT (Chittagong Hill Tracts) of Bangladesh in which he
> claimed that tribal people of region are the 'adivashsi' created confusions
> among the people concerned and his claim is contrary to historical
> evidence.
>
>
> The interview was published in a number of dailies, including 'Amar Desh'
> on
> May 13, 2006. He claimed, "We are 'Adivashis' (indigenous/aborigine) of CHT
> according to the prevailing/current law of Bangladesh." To justify his
> claim
> Debashis Roy referred to Hill Tracts Manual of 1900, in which, according to
> him, the hill people were termed as 'adivashis.' His claim is far beyond
> true. The manual even did not recognise the tribals of CHT as the first
> human being settled in CHT. The manual rather used the term tribals to
> refer
> to the tribes of CHT.
>
> Debashis should know that the history of Bangladesh was not started in 1900
> or after the advent of the British or European or settlement of the alien
> tribes in this country. Moreover, it is irrelevant and unquotable what the
> occupied and imperialist alien power termed the alien tribal of CHT in the
> so-called manual that they framed to suit their exploitative and
> imperialist
> interest against the hopes and aspiration of the people. The manual was
> framed to deter the anti-British freedom to enter CHT.
>
> Besides, the manual was voided during the Pakistan period and the tribal
> people did not objected when it was repealed. It was not framed to save the
> interest of the tribal people, but to keep them isolated from the rest of
> people and civilised people.
>
> There is no trace of development in CHT in the 190-year rule of the British
> in CHT. So there is no justifiable room of quoting the colonial repealed
> manual to justify that the tribes of CHT have sole rights in CHT. Besides,
> the manual framed 106 years back, when the country was under foreign
> occupation and domination. So it cannot be acceptable in an independent
> sovereign country. He even did not mention that the special status of CHT
> mentioned in the manual was also nullified during Pakistan period.
>
> Debasis also tries to bury the history and reality quoting memo No. 143 of
> Establishment Division 1991, paripartra (circular) of Prime Minister's
> office February 20, 2002; speeches of different personalities and income
> tax
> ordinance, where the hill people were termed as 'Advashi.' All these
> documents cannot bury the historical documents and realities of hundreds of
> thousands of years. Whatever was mentioned about the tribes of CHT that
> Debashsis mentioned couldn't be accepted as law and might have been used
> subconsciously, which is very natural.
>
> Debasis tried to establish that the tribes of CHT are 'adivashis.' The
> English version of the term 'adivashis' is 'aborigine' or 'aboriginal.' Let
> us see what does the term 'aboriginal' refers to. According to 'Bangla
> Academy English-Bengali' Dictionary' edited by Dr. Zillur Rahman Siddiqui,
> 'aboriginal' means such a nation or group of people or animals that live in
> a region till date from the ancient age or the area got kwon. (First
> Edition
> 1993: p. 2). According to the 'OXFORD Advanced Learner's Dictionary'
> 'aboriginal' means "a member of race of people who are the original people
> living in a country, especially in Australia/Canada." (Sixth Edition,
> Edited
> by Salley Wehmeier: OXFORD University Press: 2001-2003).
>
> According to the ' Webster' New World Dictionary' 'aborigines' mean "The
> first people known to have lived in a certain place." (p. 3: Webster' New
> World Dictionary: Basic School Edition: 1983). That is those who first
> started to live in a region which, was not under anybody's control or
> possession before the arrival of first people, are to be termed as
> aborigines or 'adivashis.' Red Indians in America, aborigines of Australia
> are recognised as 'Adivashis' as they were the first people living in
> America and Australia respectively before the arrival of the Europeans in
> their soil. Tribes of CHT took shelter while it was a part of Bengal and
> they were not the first people in CHT. As CHT was part of Chittagong
> district of Bangladesh since prehistoric age, so the Bengalees were the
> first people there.
>
> In accordance with the 'Webster Dictionary' an 'aboriginal' refers to "An
> indigenous inhabitant especially as contrasted with an invading or
> colonizing people." (p. 3: Webster's Dictionary: American Book Company:
> 1980.). Bangladesh or its nationals were or are not "invading or colonizing
> people" in CHT. So there was no room of 'contrast' with the tribal
> settlers,
> rather CHT it is part of Bangladesh since prehistoric age. It was a part of
> Bangladesh even during the Maurya and Gupta dynasties.
>
> In the ancient age it was a part of 'Horical Region' of Bangladesh.
> Chittagong and Tripuar belonged to 'Horical' region. It was a part of
> Bengal
> during the Muslim rule that started in year 1204. Did the Chakma or other
> tribes reach CHT before 1204, not to speak of Maurya dynasty of 320 B.C. or
> prehistoric stone age? There was no sovereign tribal kingship or
> independent
> feudal state in CHT ever. The zamindars, who styled them as 'Raja,' were
> kings in name. They had no capital even like the capital of Isha Khan of
> Sonargoan or other zamindars of Bengal who are popularly known as 'Baro
> Bhuiyans' in history.
>
> All the Chakma kings showed their total allegiance to the Muslim rulers of
> Delhi and later Bengal and these 'Raja's even took the Muslim names in
> order
> to get their blessings and justify their total loyalty and allegiance to
> the
> Muslim rulers. They even voluntarily inscribed the Arabic term 'Allah-hu
> Rabbi' in their coins. What more examples should I cite to prove that the
> so-called Raja's during the Muslim period were their (Muslim ruler) tenants
> and subordinates.
>
> There is no record that these Chakma or Marma or Mong kings ever revolted
> against the Muslim rules. They did not do so, as the Muslims did not
> capture
> the region from the tribals, rather the region was a part of Bengal from
> time immemorial and the Muslims inherited it when they captured Bengal in
> 1204, much before the intrusion of the tribal people in CHT. For this
> reason
> the tribal kings were psychologically weak, as they were intruders and
> aliens and not the sons of the soil.
>
> Mir Kashem, who replaced Mir Jafar Ali Khan the Nawab of Bengal, handed
> over
> Chittagong to the East India Company in 1760. The British got it from the
> Nawab of Bengal. So how the tribals of CHT claim that they were the
> 'advashis' (first settlers) in CHT. The British for administrative and
> imperialist reasons made CHT a separate district on hundred years later in
> 1860.
>
> So in pursuance of any standard or universally acceptable document neither
> of the tribes that now live in CHT are the descendents of the original sons
> of CHT. According to their history all of the 13 tribes that now live in
> CHT
> came from foreign soils — Myanmar, India, Thailand, China etc. Chakmas
> themselves claim that they came to CHT from an alien unknown place named
> Champukpuri', or 'Champuknagar', etc. Chakma's has no acceptable history
> about their ancient abode (to be discussed later.).
>
> Encyclopaedia Britannica mentions another characteristic of the Australian
> aborigines by way of explaining who should be called aborigines. This
> characteristic is also absent in case of the 13 tribes of CHT. It says, "At
> the time of European colonization in he late 18 th century" Australia "is
> thought to have --- 3000,000" local people who "have been divided into some
> 500 tribes, each with its recognised territory and its distinct language or
> dialect." (New Encyclopaedia Britannica: Vol. 1: 15 th Edition: 1991: p.
> 714.) I think Mr. Debashis Roy now realsies the reality that the tribes of
> CHT, including his own tribe Chakma, are not the aborigines in CHT in the
> truest sense of the term, as neither of the tribes ever had or still have
> its recognised territory. Each tribe is scattered in several parts of CHT.
>
> Out of the 13 tribes of CHT very few have their distinct language or
> dialect. Even the Chakma dialect is the combination of Bengali dialect of
> Chittagong region, as CHT was a part of Chittagong up to 1860. It needs to
> be mentioned that the Chakma is the latest tribe that took shelter from
> unknown abode, named Champuknagar or Champapuri. Recently the Chakmas named
> a place of Rangmati as 'Chamkpuri' in remembrance of their imaginary
> homeland. So the argument of Mr. Debasis to establish the tribes of CHT as
> the 'adivashis' (first people) of CHT is totally fallacious and erroneous
> and contrary to historical evidence.
>
> It is not enough and justifiable claim to brand the sheltered tribes of CHT
> by merely mentioning or quoting some persons or bodies. If the Prime
> Minister's office or other official bodies or ministries used the term
> 'adivashis' to mean the people of CHT, those cannot bury the historical
> truth that the tribes of CHT are not the first people in CHT. If they claim
> that there was no Bengalees in CHT before their arrival, that is also
> fallacious and lame excuse. Any region of any country may remain devoid of
> habitation for many reasons. It does not mean that desolate region is not a
> part of that country or it can be reserved for only those intruders who got
> shelter there. There is no habitation in our Sundarbans and many offshore
> islands still today.
>
> Does it mean, if any foreigner, who may be the first comer, takes shelter
> in
> Sundarbans, or other islands, will become the 'so-called 'adivashi' of
> Sundarbans or islands? The answer is very easy, the intruders must not
> claim
> as the 'adivashis', because the territory where they took shelter is a part
> of Bangladesh. So the tribes of CHT cannot be the 'adivashis' as they
> settled in Bangladesh territory, and CHT was not a 'no man's land.' I would
> request Mr. Debashis not to mislead the people in home and abroad
> mentioning
> baseless and utopian arguments to prove them as 'adivashis'. For Bangladesh
> they are sheltered tribes not 'adivashis.'
>
> Now let me look into the history to prove that all the 13 tribes now live
> in
> CHT are not the 'adivashis' as they took shelter in CHT, a region of
> Bangladesh since prehistoric age. B G Verghese says, "The CHT tribes
> migrated into the area between the 16 th and 19th centuries with the
> Bengali
> settlements along the Chittagong coastal land. (B G Verghese: North East
> Resurgent: Konark Publishers: New Delhi: India: 1996, p. 374.). They came
> from different places in different phases of time and took shelter in CHT.
> Let us see their migration to CHT.
>
> Moghs or Marmas were the inhabitants of Burma, i.e., Myanmar. During the
> Moghal period, the Arakanese pirates (Moghs) often used to attack the
> coastal area of Bangladesh. To stop their heinous deeds, the Moghul rulers
> launched military operation against the Moghs. Quoting R.H.S. Hutchinson,
> Sugata Chakma wrote: "The Moghs being repulsed and driven by the Moghals
> took shelter in Arakan."
>
> In his book Sugata Chakma mentioned, "In 1784 Burmese soldiers sent by king
> Bhodafra invaded and captured Arakan. During that time thousands of Marma
> refugees fled away to Cox's Bazar, CHT, and Patuakhali from Arakan and
> settled down in those places permanently. (Sugata Chakma: The Tribes and
> Culture of Chittagong Hill Tracts: Rangamati: 1993, p. 40.) If the Marmas,
> who are now known as 'Rahkains; cannot claim them as 'advashis' of
> Patuakhali of Bangladesh, how Debashis could claim the Marmas and other
> tribes of CHT as 'advashis.'
>
> The Murongs came from Arakan of today's Myanmar a few hundred years ago and
> concentrated mainly in and around Bandarban district. (Dr. Mizanur Rahman
> Shelly:
>
> The Chittagong Hill Tracts of Bangladesh: The Untold Story: Centre for
> Development Research: Dhaka: 1992, p. 53.). They have been living in the
> Arakan region of Burma from the time immemorial. They migrated from North
> Myanmar to CHT in the earlier part of the 18 th century. (Sugata Chakma:
> Ibid: p. 53.)
>
> The Tripura state of today's India is the original home of the Bangladeshi
> Tripuras. Their ancestors migrated to CHT for secured life when their
> opponents routed them out from Tripura. However, some of them entered CHT
> in
> search of food. (Sugata Chakma: Ibid: p. 57.)
>
> The people of Lusai tribe living in Bangladesh once lived in the Lusai hill
> of today's Mizoram State of India. (Sugata Chakma: Ibid: p. 81.) They
> entered Bangladesh around 150 years back (Dr. Mizanur Rahman Shelly: Ibid:
> p. 57.)
>
> The Khumis used to live in Arakan region of Myanmar and entered CHT in the
> later part of the 17th century. (Dr. Mizanur Rahman Shelly: Ibid: p. 58)
>
> According to Sugata Chakma, the Bhoms entered in the Southern part of CHT
> sometime in 1838-39 under the leadership of their chief Liankung and
> settled
> in Barndarban.
>
> In the earlier part of the 18th century, the Khyangs used to live in the
> Umatang hill of Arakan. (Dr. Mizanur Rahman Shelly: Ibid: p. 62.)
>
> The original abode of the Chak was in the Unan province of China bordering
> Myanmar. They first took shelter in Arakan and some of them came to CHT. No
> documents are available when they entered Arakan from China and later from
> Arakan to CHT.
>
> The Pankho came to CHT from a village named Pankhoya situated in Lushai
> Hills of Mizoram. (Sugata Chakma: Ibid: p. 85.)
>
> The Tanchangyas are a sect of the Chakmas though they claim and are now
> recognised as a separate tribe.
>
> Chakma historian Satish Chandra Gosh and his subsequent followers though
> presented incredible fantasies to justify the imaginary glory of the
> Chakmas, yet failed to prove that CHT was their original abode. Mr. Biraj
> Mohon Dewan, one of the ardent followers of Satish Gosh, in his book 'The
> Chronicle of the Chakma Nation' presenting a research-based document
> concluded, " It is crystally clear that the Chakmas are not the sons of the
> soil of CHT." ('The Chronicle of the Chakma Nation: New Rangamati: CHT:
> 1969: p. 94'). Chakmas endeavour to prove that their ancestral homeland is
> 'Champaknagar' or 'Chmpapuri' as there is a bit similarity between the
> terms
> 'Chakma' and 'Champa' or Champak.' But where is that 'Champapuri' or
> 'Champaknagar' that the 'Chakmas' claim as their historical abode. On the
> other hand, if they are originated from 'Champaknagar' or 'Champapuri' how
> they claim that they are the 'adivashis' of CHT.
>
> In his book Biraj Mohon Dewan claimed that there are at least five places
> in
> and outside India named Champaknagar or Champakpuri. He mentioned their
> existence in North Burma, (Shan), ancient Magad (Bihar, India), Kalabaga
> (Assam), Mallakka (Malaysia) Cochin (India) and on the bank of the Shangupa
> River (Brahmaputra). Biraj Mohan's open admission, "The writers of those
> notable books that were written on various aborigines recorded the places
> from which places they came and which were their original abodes. But it
> was
> not possible on their part to ascertain our (Chakma's) real identity
> firmly." (Biraj Mohon: Ibid. p. 2). He categorically accepted, "The Chakmas
> have no documentary book." "There is no documentary history on Chakmas
> other
> than some popular legends and folklore." (Devajani Dutta and Anusuya Bosu
> Roy Chowdhury: The Politics and the Struggle of Chittagong Hill Tracts
> Border: Calcutta Research Group and South Asian Forum for Human Rights:
> Calcutta: India: 1990: p. 11.)
>
> Depending on a narrative opera, the Chakmas claim that they entered Burma
> under the leadership of an imaginary prince named Bijoygiri. But they
> cannot
> say from which country this imaginary prince went to Burma. No other
> historians, other than a group of modern Chakma intellectuals, ever
> mentioned anywhere regarding the existence of
> any price named Bijoygiri. Ashok Kumar Dewan, another Chakma historian,
> sincerely acknowledged, "There is no dearth of gossips and chats among the
> educated Chakmas whether Bijoygiria was an imaginary hero or legend or
> really a historical personality." (Ashok Kumar Dewan: An Investigation into
> the History of the Chakma Nation: Khagrachhari: 1991: p. 35.)
>
> Biraj Mohon acknowledged, "Being attacked by the Burmese imperial power,
> the
> Chakmas became weak and achieved the approval and assistance of the Subadar
> of Bengal on humanitarian ground to be settled down for the first time on
> the bank of river Toinchhari to protect their mere existence." How Debashis
> could deny the above acknowledgement and claim his ancestors as the
> 'adivashis' of CHT?
>
> The dialect or spoken language that the Chakmas of the CHT use evidently
> justifies that it can be termed as the 'deformed style of Bengali.' It
> means
> Chakmas settled in such an area, which was inhabited by the Bengalees,
> i.e.,
> it was originally the abode of the Bengalees. Biraj Mohon Dewan says that
> Chakma dialect has such a close similarity to Bengali that it can easily be
> termed as the dialect descended from Bengali. "---- about 80% words of
> Chakma dialects have the mixture of Bengali and Sanskrit languges. In the
> last ( i.e., 1961) census Chakma dialect was recorded as 'Chakma-Bangla
> language." (Biraj Mohon Dewan: Ibid: p. 6.)
>
> All these and many other documents evidently prove that the Chakmas are not
> the original people of CHT. Rather the Chakma is such tribe, which is
> totally rootless. The Chakmas and all other are refugees who got shelter in
> Bangladesh. So they are not the first inhabitants of CHT to claim them as
> 'adivashis." If they are aborigines or 'adivashis, they were so in other
> lands or countries, but not, in fact, in Bangladesh. For Bangladesh they
> are
> settlers and we are ready to accept them as tribes, not as 'adivashis.'
>
> Debashis Roy mentioned that the 'adivashis' must have two essential
> characteristics or preconditions. Firstly, they are to settle themselves
> earlier (first) in a place than others and secondly, they remained outside
> the process of forming imperialist colony or state or modern state. The
> tribes of CHT do have neither of these preconditions. They were not the
> first inhabitants of CHT and so they were not required to remain involved
> with the process of forming a state, as CHT was always a part of
> country/state named Bengal. In 1971, most of them, including the father of
> Debasis Roy sided with Pakistan and we achieved our independence despite
> the
> opposition of the Chakmas. We did not need their support to liberate our
> motherland. Most of them remained outside the process of the formation of a
> new state where they reside today.
>
> Debashis Roy cannot bury the real history and truth in his bid to establish
> the tribes of CHT as 'adivashis' by quoting or referring those words that
> were used by official notifications or speeches. These are only lame
> excuses. When the government realises the misuse of the terms that they
> used, its foreign ministry asked all to use the term 'upajati' when they
> refer to the tribal people of CHT. A government might have committed
> mistakes and it reserves the sovereign rights to amend them, whenever it
> realises the mistakes and it can even change name of a place whenever it
> wants.
>
> Debashis Roy should restudy the history of CHT. He would not be allowed to
> mislead the people in home and abroad. Despite the evidences and arguments
> that I mentioned above, some people, who are hired or lacked of historical
> facts and evidences, may tune to Debashis Roy.
>
> Debasis and associates deliberately try to establish that they are the
> 'adivashis' in CTH to implement their ulterior design of expelling the
> Bengalees from the region, an illegal demand that they have already raised.
> The inner goal of such demand and its implementation is to secede CHT from
> Bangladesh for which they waged armed battle for years. Bangladesh can not
> afford such demand, or accept the self-prepared arguments of Debashis.
>
> It is alleged that Debashis Roy clandestinely works to implement the design
> of forming so-called tribal independent 'Jhummaland.' Using his ornamental
> portfolio, he maintains liaison with the adversaries of Bangladesh in home
> and abroad. There is no logic to maintain such kingship in an independent
> country. India abolished the system far ago.
>
> In this regard I should suggest the government to frame required law to
> remove all the contradictions, anomalies, faults, limitations,
> perforations,
> etc. that the adversaries of the country use to implement their ulterior
> designs. The BNP-led alliance government is committed to review, even
> repeal, the controversial CHT treaty that not only violates the
> constitution, but also undermines and challenges the authority of our
> Parliament, government established in the capital and sovereignty of the of
> the country. It is contrary to our unitary system of State. Government
> should fulfill its commitment immediately. It has ample time still to
> review
> and remove the anti-Bangladesh clauses from the treaty.
>
> I would also urge all concerned to follow the instruction of the Ministry
> of
> Foreign Affairs. Mandatory law should be made immediately declaring all the
> 13 tribes of CHT as sheltered tribes. Their claim to use the term 'advashi'
> to refer to the tribal people of CHT should be immediately prohibited.
> Government should immediately issue an ordinance in this regard untill a
> new
> law is framed and enacted.
>
>
http://www.bangladesh-web.com/view.php?hidRecord=117268 >
>
> On Wed, Jul 27, 2011 at 2:36 PM, Isha Khan <
bdmailer@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> Ethnic minority, not indigenous people
>>
>> FM tells diplomats, editors
>>
>> The tribal people living in Chittagong Hill Tracts are "ethnic
>> minorities"
>> and they should not be called "indigenous" in the region, the government
>> said yesterday in clearing what it said some recent misconceptions about
>> their identity.
>>
>> Briefing foreign diplomats and UN agencies in Dhaka, Foreign Minister
>> Dipu
>> Moni said Bangladesh is concerned over attempts by some quarters at home
>> and
>> abroad to identify the ethnic minority groups as indigenous people in the
>> CHT region.
>>
>> Neither Bangladesh constitution nor any international laws recognise
>> these
>> people as indigenous, she said.
>>
>> Dipu Moni also explained the issue to editors and senior journalists from
>> print and electronic media in a separate briefing yesterday and urged
>> them
>> to take note of it.
>>
>> She told the diplomats that the tribal people most certainly did not
>> reside
>> or exist in the CHT before 16th century and were not considered
>> "indigenous
>> people'' in any historical reference books, memoirs or legal documents.
>>
>> Quoting the Oxford dictionary, the foreign minister said indigenous
>> people
>> are those who "belong to a particular place rather than coming to it from
>> somewhere else".
>>
>> Rather, the CHT people were the late settlers on the Bengal soil and the
>> CHT region compared to the Bangalee native ethnic vast majority residing
>> here for more than 4,000 years, she pointed out.
>>
>> Emerging from the briefing with diplomats, Dipu Moni told journalists
>> there
>> is a move to distract attention from the government's effort to implement
>> the 1997 CHT peace accord by raising the issue that the tribal people are
>> indigenous.
>>
>> She said implementation of the peace accord is top priority of the
>> government. But the process will be hampered if controversies are created
>> over the tribal people's identity.
>>
>> Dipu Moni told the diplomats, "We have noted with concern that the
>> "tribal"
>> people or ethnic minorities in the CHT region have been termed
>> "indigenous
>> peoples" of Bangladesh in two paras of the 2011 Report of the Permanent
>> Forum on Indigenous Issues-PFII, in the context of the Chittagong Hill
>> Tracts Peace Accord."
>>
>> She asserted that there is no internationally accepted definition of
>> "indigenous peoples", and there is no definition of indigenous at all in
>> the
>> UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples adopted by the PFII in
>> 2006.
>>
>> Claiming that the CHT people are tribal and not indigenous, the foreign
>> minister said it is well recorded, and recent history of the Indian
>> subcontinent and the CHT region reaffirms that the tribal people of CHT
>> migrated to Bangladesh between 16th and 19th centuries from neighboring
>> countries and Mongoloid nations during the Mughal rule in Bengal, mostly
>> as
>> asylum seekers and economic migrants.
>>
>> She said in all acts and laws on the CHT, including the Hill Tracts Act
>> of
>> 1900 and the Hill Districts Council Act of 1989, the CHT ethnic
>> minorities
>> have been identified as "Tribal" population.
>>
>> Most significantly, in the CHT Peace Accord itself the CHT ethnic
>> minorities have been categorised as "Tribal" and not "indigenous
>> peoples."
>>
>> As per the census of 2001, the people of CHT account for less than 1.8
>> percent of the total population of Bangladesh.
>>
>> Giving a special and elevated identity to enfranchise only 1.2 percent of
>> the total population of 150 million by disentitling the 98.8persent
>> cannot
>> be in the national interest of Bangladesh, Dipu Moni said.
>>
>> Reaction of the diplomats was not immediately known.
>>
>> However, Chakma Raja Devasish Roy told The Daily Star, "The government
>> probably is under the impression that recognising indigenous people might
>> mean extra responsibility to bear."
>>
>> He went on, "The constitution does not say that there are no indigenous
>> people in the country. It has not used the word indigenous, but it has
>> not
>> used the word minority either to identify anybody."
>>
>> Devasish Roy also referred to the small ethnic group cultural
>> institutions
>> act made in 2010 by the present government where the law itself stated in
>> its definition part that small ethnic group would mean indigenous people.
>>
http://www.thedailystar.net/newDesign/news-details.php?nid=195963 >>
http://www.prothom-alo.com/detail/date/2011-07-27/news/173388 >>
>