General Ibrahim's comment:
http://amardeshonline.com/pages/details/2011/08/09/98178
On Mon, Aug 1, 2011 at 7:32 AM, Isha Khan <bdmailer@gmail.com> wrote:
Indigenous People:UN rejects govt's view
The general segment of the United Nations Economic and Social Council
(ECOSOC) session rejected the official position of Bangladesh
government on the non-Bangalee people of the Chittagong Hill Tracts
(CHT), and adopted the report of the UN Permanent Forum on Indigenous
Issues.
The Bangladesh government, represented by Abul Kalam Abdul Momen,
raised its concern over the United Nations Permanent Forum on
Indigenous Issues (UNPFII) going beyond its mandate in dealing with
the issue of implementing the CHT Peace Accord, on the ground that
there are no indigenous people in CHT.
The government also pleaded ECOSOC to delete some paragraphs of
its10th session report.
But the request was not accepted following negotiations over the last
three days of the weeklong session that ended on Friday in Geneva,
Switzerland, said a press release of the International Council for the
Indigenous Peoples of CHT (ICIP-CHT).
ECOSOC will not distinguish between indigenous and tribal groups, the
release said.
ECOSOC is the parent organisation of UNPFII.
UNPFII assigned a special rapporteur, Lars-Anders Baer, who visited
Bangladesh and independently undertook a study on the status of the
implementation of the CHT Peace Accord 1997, and submitted a report to
UNPFII during the 10th session of the forum in May this year.
In June, UNPFII called on the Bangladesh government to undertake a
phased withdrawal of all temporary army camps from CHT, urged it to
declare a timeframe for implementation of the CHT Peace Accord, and to
establish an independent commission to inquire into human rights
violations perpetrated against "indigenous peoples".
UNPFII further recommended that the UN Department of Peacekeeping
Operations (UNPKO) review the military personnel and units who are
being sent on UN missions, to make sure no personnel or unit is taken
from any that are accused by "indigenous Jumma people" of violating
human rights in CHT.
At the ECOSOC session Bangladesh had to accept a "compromise" due to
lacking solidarity from other 53 member-states. However the concerns
of Bangladesh raised at the meeting were included as "noted" in the
nature of "footnotes", the release said.
The US, Bolivia, Australia, Mexico, and Morocco welcomed the report's
adoption while only China, Pakistan and Saudi Arabia provided some
support to the concerns raised by Bangladesh, the release added.
The Russian Federation supported the proposed draft amendment to the
resolution, and stressed the importance of careful consideration of
the definition of indigenous people, and careful interpretation of the
UNPFII mandate.
The US said it believes the resolution is consistent with the mandate
of the UNPFII.
http://www.thedailystar.net/newDesign/news-details.php?nid=196646
On 7/27/11, Isha Khan <bdmailer@gmail.com> wrote:
> *Chittagong Hill Tracts tribes are not 'Adivashis' in Bangladesh*
>
> 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
>>
>
__._,_.___
