It is learnt that the incident happened around 2.30 pm on that day, when Sujata Chakma along with her nephew (5 year old) named Triratna Chakma was grazing cows half a kilometer from the village.

According to Triranta Chakma’s statement, a bearded Bengali man came and forcibly took Sujata away towards upward of Sadachara. She then ran to the village to give the news.

The villagers rushed to the spot, but by then the culprit had ran away after raping and killing her. After being informed, the police reached the spot and recovered the body of Sujata.

As per the statement of Sujata’s nephew, it is learnt that the Bengali settler was wearing a pant and red shirt.

source: chtarchive.com

Link : http://www.chtarchive.com/cht-news/kapaeeng-foundation-newsletters/157-a-minor-indigenous-jumma-girl-allegedly-killed-after-rape-in-longadu-in-cht-10-may-2012

——-
source:
Kapaeeng Foundation
(A Human Rights Organization for Indigenous Peoples of Bangladesh)

—————-
source:
Kapaeeng Foundation
(A Human Rights Organization for Indigenous Peoples of Bangladesh)

—-
Kapaeeng Foundation
(A Human Rights Organization for Indigenous Peoples of Bangladesh)
Shalma Garden, House # 23/25, Road # 4, Block # B, PC Culture Housing, Mohammadpur, Dhaka-1207, Telephone: +880-2-8190801
E-mail: kapaeeng.foundation@gmail.com, kapaeeng.watch@gmail.com, Web: www.kapaeeng.org

US Ambassador to Bangladesh Dan W Mozena categorically said it is possible to solve the existing problems of the Chittagong Hill Tracts through implementing Hill Tracts Peace Treaty-1997.

The US envoy also underscored to hold a dialogue among the groups concerned for implementing the peace treaty to find out a way of solution.

Dan W Mozena came up with the observation while talking to Journalists at Khagrachari Zila Parishad Tuesday.

Earlier, US Ambassador was cordially welcomed here by deputy commissioner Anis-ul-Haque Bhuiyan and Police Super Abu Kalam Siddique at 11:15am.

During the visit, Mozena was accompanied by his wife Grace Mozena, USAID’s Mission Director Richard Greene and political official Sofia Gaon and chief of press section Marina Yasmin.

source: http://www.banglanews24.com/English/detailsnews.php?nssl=10b3fa0797107c0b109a24fa9533e02f&nttl=2012040337770

Members of Parliament heard and responded to the demands and received a written petition presented by the inter-religious groups.

Please click the link to watch the video http://youtu.be/WSGD0T6ty6w

This live discussion will be aired tomorrow 8th of August 2011 at 3 O’clok GMT, 3pm London time, 8pm Bangladesh time. Locally (within London) can be listened at 1503 medium wave within 10 kilometers.

Jumma Peoples Network UK’s spokesperson Lal Amlai and its member Mong Shing Thwai will be participating in the discussion. Biplob Rahman, journalist, writer and expert on CHT will also be participating online from Bangladesh. The program will be conducted by Suja Mahmud, Journalist, Betar Bangla.

How to listen live: 

Please go to the website - www.Betarbangla.org.uk  then click listen live.

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.

Source: Daily Star  http://www.thedailystar.net/newDesign/news-details.php?nid=196646

Recommended: CHT Commissions letter to the president of the UN ECOSOC http://www.jpnuk.org.uk/indigenous-people-issues-cht/cht-commissions-letter-to-the-un-ecomomic-and-social-council-ecosoc-president/

Statemetn of Raja Devasish Roy, Chakma Chief and member of the UN Permanent Forum on Indigenouse Issue: http://www.jpnuk.org.uk/indigenous-people-issues-cht/statement-of-raja-devasish-roy-chakma-chief-and-member-of-un-permanent-forum-on-indigenous-issiue-on-the-statement-of-the-foreign-minister-of-banladesh-dr-dipu-moni-on-the-indigenous-status-of-the-pe/

The General Segment of the United Nations Economic and Social Council (ECOSOC), whose session started on 22^nd July, ended yesterday (29^th) in Geneva, Switzerland. ECOSOC is the parent body of several subsidiary bodies, including the UN Permanent Forum on Indigenous Issues (UNPFII), and reports to the UN general Assembly. 

After intense negotiations over the past three days and even up to the last minute of the agenda, the ECOSOC rejected the GoB’s requests and adopted the UNPFII report. Bangladesh had expressed its concerns over the PFII going beyond its mandate in dealing with the issue of the implementation of the CHT Accord of 1997, on the ground that there were no indigenous peoples in the Chittagong Hill Tracts (CHT). Statements in explanation of its position were made by the GOB, as by others among the fifty-four members of ECOSOC. However, the GoB lacking solidarity from other ECOSOC member-states, accepted to ‘compromise.’

A few of the many concerns raised by the GoB are to be included as ‘noted’; in the nature of a ‘footnote.’ However, ECOSOC, will not delete any paragraphs of the 10^th session report, as was pleaded by the GoB. ECOSOC will not distinguish between indigenous and tribal groups, as highlighted by the GoB, or take into account the GoB’s challenge of the jurisdiction of the PFII to deal with the CHT Accord of 1977 on the basis that the ethnic groups of the CHT were not indigenous, and hence outside the purview of the mandate of the PFII.

The UNPFII, in June, had called on the GoB, to undertake a ‘phased withdrawal’ of temporary army camps from the CHT, declare a timeframe for implementation of the peace accord, and establish an independent commission to inquire into ‘human rights violations perpetrated against indigenous peoples’ as per the 1997 CHT Accord. 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 units are taken from any, that are accused by indigenous Jumma people of violating human rights in the CHT.

Other country responses:

The USA seemed determined to protect the integrity of the UNPFII and this reflected a major shift in its international engagements with regard to indigenous issues under President Obama.

Mexico was the lead facilitator and played a very constructive role in the consensual decision. Bolivia highlighted PFII as the only space for dialogue on IP issues in the UN; France (EU) reaffirmed independent nature of PFII and reiterated that the report be adopted by consensus, albeit with a note, refers to a specific situation and does not set a precedent for ECOSOC to deal with reports of a subsidiary body; Australia supported the role of the PFII as a constructive forum for dialogue; in such complex situations as in the CHT, it stands ready to assist GOB/ and people of the CHT in dialogue; and Morocco welcomed adoption by consensus.

Reportedly, only China, Pakistan and Saudi Arabia, all three countries with the worst human-rights records in Asia, provided some support to the concerns raised by Bangladesh; Even though Russia showed some leaning towards GoB’s stance, they reiterated the importance of the role of indigenous peoples on the international human rights agenda.

FINAL & FULL TEXT ADOPTED BY ECOSOC CAN BE FOUND AT: http://www.unog.ch/unog/website/news_media.nsf/%28httpNewsByYear_en%29/EE007477BCA3B90FC12578DC003B50EE?OpenDocument

Published by ICIP-CHT (International Council for the Indigenous Peoples of CHT)

Media contact:

Prof Mong Sanu: +88 01730086301

Wasfia Nazreen: +88 01675588890

To

His Excellency Lazarous Kapambwe

President of the Economic and Social Council

The United Nations

Greetings from the Chittagong Hill Tracts Commission.

While the Economic and Social Council’s session is going on, the CHT Commission objects to statements made recently by Bangladesh’s Foreign Minister, Dr. Dipu Moni, stating that it was a ‘misperception’ and ‘misrepresentation’ to refer to the ethnic groups in the Chittagong Hill Tracts (CHT) as ‘indigenous’ in reference to the report of the tenth session of the UN Permanent Forum on Indigenous Issues .1 Her remarks on the CHT peoples is discriminatory and disrespectful towards them as full citizens of Bangladesh, and also reflects a substantive and discriminatory misinterpretation of Bangladeshi law and history and of international human rights law. The majoritarianism approach and claim of ethnic superiority reflected in the assertions made by the Foreign Minister denies the basic values of pluralism and diversity that is observed in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights.

The Honourable Foreign Minister refers to the Oxford Dictionary for a definition of who is ‘indigenous’ and says that indigenous peoples are those “belonging to a particular place rather than coming to it from somewhere else”. However we know very well that the United Nations instead of defining ‘indigenous peoples’ understands them as those who fulfill certain criteria, which among others are, ‘selfidentification as indigenous peoples at the individual level and accepted by the community as their member’, ‘strong link to territories and surrounding natural resources’, ‘distinct social, economic or political systems’, ‘distinct language, culture and beliefs’, ‘form non‐dominant groups of society’, ‘resolve to maintain and reproduce their ancestral environments and systems as distinctive peoples and communities’. All these criteria are clearly fulfilled by the indigenous peoples from the CHT as well as the rest of the country.2 Moreover, these peoples also fulfill the criteria of indigenous populations as contained in the ILO Convention on Indigenous and Tribal Populations of 1957 (Convention No. 107), which Bangladesh ratified in June, 1972.

The report by then Permanent Forum member, Lars Anders Baer, on a ‘Study on the status of the implementation of the Chittagong Hill Tracts Accord of 1997’3, which was presented at the 10th session of the Permanent Forum in May 2011, pointed out how several crucial clauses of the 1997 CHT Accord still remain unimplemented. Among these is the clause on the dismantling of all the temporary military camps from the CHT, except six specified garrisons. The report points out that there still remain more than 500 temporary military camps in the CHT, making it a militarized zone for no obvious security reasons.

The CHT Commission believes that the Foreign Minister’s comments reflect a lack of commitment on the part of the Bangladesh Government towards its national and international obligations, including those contained in the 2008 Election Manifesto of the Bangladesh Awami League, the major component of the current Grand Alliance government, and the provisions of the ILO Convention 107 and other international human rights standards, among others. It also reflects the government’s discomfort at the suggestion of human rights screening for the Bangladeshi components of the UN Department of Peacekeeping Operations4, many of whom are actively taking part in the Bangladesh military’s de facto operation, Operation Uttoron, in the CHT, which purports to provide a legal cover to the Bangladesh Army’s role in civilian affairs, which is in violation of the laws of Bangladesh and international human rights standards, norms and practices.

The ECOSOC is also aware that Chakma Raja Devasish Roy, a member of the Chakma people from the CHT and its traditional king or chief, is the respected Asia region member of the United Nations Permanent Forum on Indigenous Issues, whose nomination was widely endorsed by indigenous organizations from several countries in Asia. The protest of Raja Roy against the recent remarks of the Foreign Minister on the government’s stand on the Permanent Forum’s recent report and its rejection of the indigenous status of the peoples of the Chittagong Hill Tracts received nationwide support from Bangladesh’s indigenous population, and from a wide section of mainstream Bangladeshi civil society groups.

By making such objectionable remarks about the Permanent Forum’s report and about the indigenous peoples of the CHT, the Foreign Minister is also implicitly questioning the competence and expertise of the sixteen members of the Permanent Forum, which includes eight respected experts of indigenous origin and eight respected governmental experts elected by members of the ECOSOC.

Newspaper reports have pointed out that the reason the Foreign Minister made these statements at this time targeting the newspaper journalists and the diplomatic community is in fact related to the ECOSOC’s current session in Geneva, which is to discuss the Permanent Forum’s report of its 10th session, on Friday 29 July, 2011. The Bangladesh Government especially wants the expunging of two of the paragraphs, which deal with the UN Peacekeeping Forces, from the Forum’s recommendations, among others.

The CHT Commission would like to reiterate its agreement with the recommendations made by the Special Rapporteur, including on the implementation of the provisions of the CHT Accord, and those addressed to the UN’s Department of Peace Keeping Operations that it should develop a mechanism to screen human rights violations committed by military personnel and that it should prevent human rights violators and alleged human rights violators within the security forces of Bangladesh from participating in international peacekeeping activities under the auspices of the United Nations.

The CHT Commission hopes that the UN Economic and Social Council will adhere to its non‐discriminatory approach and adopt the report of the 10th session of the Permanent Forum and all its recommendations, including those related to the Chittagong Hill Tracts Accord of 1997.

Sincerely,

On behalf of the CHT Commission

Eric Avebury                        Sultana Kamal                  Elsa Stamatopoulou

Co-chair of the                    Co-chair of the                  Co-chair of the

CHT Commission               CHT Commission              CHT Commission

…………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………….

1 ‘Ethnic minority, not indigenous people – FM tells diplomats, editors’, The Daily Star, 27 July 2011. [http://www.thedailystar.net/newDesign/news-details.php?nid=195963]

2 ‘Raja Devasish rejects FM’s statement’, The Daily Star, 28 July 2011.

3 The report can be found at the following website: http://www.scribd.com/doc/55601161/CHT-Accord-Study-Final

4 Please see CHT Commission’s press statement regarding this on 5 June 2011. [http://www.chtcommission.org/wp-content/uploads/2011/06/CHTC-Statement-UNPFII10.pdf]

Please visit: Statement of Raja Devasish Roy, Chakma Chief and member of UN Permanent Forum on Indigenous Issiue on the statement of the foreign minister of Banladesh Dr Dipu Moni on the Indigenous status of the peoples of the Chittagong Hill Tracts asmentioned in the report of the 10th session of the UN Permanent Forum on Indigenous Issues & as reported in bdnews24.com on 26 July,2011 (http://www.bdnews24.com/details.php?cid=2&id=201888&hb=top)

http://www.jpnuk.org.uk/indigenous-people-issues-cht/statement-of-raja-devasish-roy-chakma-chief-and-member-of-un-permanent-forum-on-indigenous-issiue-on-the-statement-of-the-foreign-minister-of-banladesh-dr-dipu-moni-on-the-indigenous-status-of-the-pe/

Dhaka 27 July 2011

I am constrained to have to make a statement controverting a statement of the Hon’ble Foreign Minister of Bangladesh, Dr. Dipu Moni, as reported in the bdnews24.com on 26 July, 2011 and in national daily newspapers of Dhaka on 27 July, 2011 – including the Prothom Alo and The Daily Star – regarding the indigenous status of the hill peoples of the Chittagong Hill Tracts (hereafter “CHT”), generally, and in reference to a report of the UN Permanent Forum on Indigenous Issues, at its tenth session at UN Headquarters in New York, in May, 2011.

The Hon’ble Foreign Minister is reported, among others, as having stated the following:

(i)     “In the constitution, all minorities were recognized generically as minorities, and through the 15th amendment, the present government has categorised them as ‘ethnic minorities’ and no longer only as ‘tribal’ people,” she said.”;

(ii)    “Giving a special and elevated identity to enfranchise only 1.2 percent of the total population of 150 million by disentitling the 98.8 percent cannot be in the national interest of Bangladesh.”;

(iii)   “[The] foreign minister said very well recorded recent history of the Indian subcontinent and the CHT region reaffirm that the tribal people of CHT migrated to Bangladesh between 16th and 19th centuries from neighbouring countries and Mongoloid nations. “They came here as asylum seekers and economic migrants.” The original inhabitants or first nationals of Bangladesh are the ethnic Bengalees by descent that constitute nearly 99 percent of the country’s 150 million people.”; 

(iv) “The ethnic Bengalees are not colonial settlers, neither are they foreigners or non-indigenous to their own native land and never will be,” she stressed.”;

(v)  “From an institutional and legal point of view, the ‘ethnic minorities’ or ‘late settlers’ residing in CHT region had been officially recognized as ‘tribal’ people in all historical documents and references of the Indian sub-continental and colonial documents, she added.”   

Statement of the Chakma Chief & Member of the UN Permanent Forum on Indigenous Issues, Raja Devasish Roy, on the Foreign Minister’s Statement

”Ethnic Minorities”

i) The Hon’ble Minister’s reference to the Constitution of Bangladesh, including its 15^th amendment in 2011, is incorrect. There is no reference to “ethnic minorities”, or its Bengali version: “jatigoto shongkha-loghu” in the 15^th amendment or indeed to any “minorities” groups. In addition to “upajati” (“sub-nations”?), the amendment, in the new article 23A, refers to “small nations/peoples” (“khudro jatishotta), “small ethnic groups” (“khudro nrigoshthi”) and “small communities” (“khudro shomprodai”). Just because the constitution does not explicitly refer to “minorities”, it cannot be denied that minorities groups – whether based upon religious, ethnic or linguistic affiliation – live in Bangladesh. Similarly, it is incorrect to say that there are no indigenous peoples in Bangladesh.

”Enfranchisement & Disentitlement”

(ii) The Hon’ble Minister’s statement on the “enfranchisement” of 1.2 percent of the national population leading to the “disentitlement” of 98.8 per cent of the national population, is incorrect and misconceived. Constitutional recognition of the indigenous status of the excluded, marginalized and disadvantaged 1.2 per cent of Bangladesh’s population would provide a firm platform and legal basis to address the marginality of the members of these populations. It would not provide any privileged status to these groups or to their members. Recognition of the indigenous status of population groups in other countries, including Nepal, the Philippines, Scandinavian countries and Latin American countries did not disentitle non-indigenous groups. It is inconceivable to think that the mere recognition of ‘indigenous’ status of some citizens would “disentitle” or otherwise disadvantage other citizens in governance, political, economic or social spheres, especially when they constitute the overwhelming majority of the country’s population and constitute the political, social and economic elite of the country. Recognition of the indigenous status of peoples is only relevant when they do not constitute the dominant part of a country’s population. It is to address the marginality of of non-dominant population groups’ and their exclusion or marginalization in governance and development, and the discrimination suffered by them, historically and currently,       

”Asylum-Seekers & Economic Migrants”

(iii) The Hon’ble Minister’s statement about the CHT indigenous peoples being ”asylum-seekers & economic migrants” may be equally applicable to other Bangladeshi citizens that are of Bengali-speaking or Urdu-speaking origin (belonging to the Islamic faith, who migrated from present-day India or Myanmar). The political, social and economic causes of migration cannot be the basis of disentitlement to indigenous status or citizenship rights or freedom from non-discrimination. If it were to be, it would be discriminatory and violative of the tenets of non-discrimination that are enshrined in international human rights law as jus cogens (peremptory norms of international human rights law) and the fundamental rights clauses of the Constitution of Bangladesh on non-discrimination and special provisions. 

Bengalees not being “colonial settlers”, “foreigners” or “non-indigenous”

(iv) The Hon’ble Minister is equating the status of those not regarded as ‘indigenous’ as being “colonial settlers” and/or “foreigners”. While this might be the case in the Americas or in Australia, if at all, the current and progressive discourses on indigenous peoples’ rights do not necessarily construe those not regarded as indigenous to be “colonial settlers” and/or “foreigners”. The status of Bangalees as natives of Bangladesh is not challenged or questioned by the assertion of the indigenous identity of other ethnic groups. Non-indigenous does not mean “settlers”, at least not in Bangladesh and in several other countries of Asia. The indigenous peoples of the CHT fulfill the criteria of “indigenous’, among others, by being (i) descendants of pre-colonial or pre-conquest societies; and (ii) adherence to pre-colonial or pre-conquest political, social and cultural institutions’ norms and customs, among others.

The government is probably stuck in the early 20^th century construction of the term “indigenous”, which was confined to the Americas and Australia and New Zealand. This understanding has moved on, in United Nations, and in international human rights, development, environmental, Climate Change and other international processes to include groups hitherto regarded as “tribal’. The misconceived, inaccurate and artificial distinction between “tribal” and ”indigenous” is no longer relevant to the international human rights discourses. The identification of citizens other than as ‘indigenous’ or ‘adibashi” in Bangladesh is not going to exclude the application of international human rights instruments and processes to the groups identifying themselves as ‘indigenous’ or ‘adibashi’ in Bangladesh.

Recognition of ‘Ethnic minorities’, ‘Late Settlers’ as ‘Tribal’ people

(iv) The Hon’ble Minister’s reference to the CHT indigenous peoples as “late settlers” and of their recognition as “tribal people” is substantially incorrect.

The Chakma people, for example, are recorded in history as having lived in a country called “Chacomas”, which was separate from Bengal, Arakan and Tripura, from at least the 1550s, within the boundaries of present-day Bangladesh, such as in the accounts of Portugese geographers and historians. They may have lived in their present territories centuries before that date as well as did other indigenous peoples of the CHT and elsewhere in Bangladesh. In the CHT, Bengali people are not known to have permanently resided in the region before the 19^th century. Nowhere in Bengal is there a record of the indigenous peoples or adibashis having displaced Bengalee people and settled therein. Whenever they may have settled therein, these territories were not inhabited by Bengalee people at the time of settlement of the indigenous peoples. In order to qualify as indigenous peoples within the meaning of the ILO Convention No 107 – ratified by Bangladesh – they do not have to have resided therein for millennia – as in the case of indigenous peoples in the Americas or in Australia. The need to have merely settled/lived therein “at the time of conquest or colonization” (18^th-19^th centuries, for example) and lived in conformity with the political, social and cultural institutions of pre-colonial times is sufficient to qualify as indigenous according to the above convention.

The CHT Accord of the 1997 and some laws of the British period and of the period after the signing of the CHT Accord do regard the indigenous peoples as ‘tribal’ or ‘upajati’ (sub-nations). However, the ‘upajati” term is known to have been accepted under duress, as is confirmed by statements of representatives of the Jana Samhati Samiti (which signed the CHT Accord of 1997) in their public statements on the issue.  The terms “indigenous” or “aboriginal” have also been used interchangeably. Examples include the following:

“Aboriginal”

East Bengal State Acquisition & Tenancy Act, 1950  (protected in the First Schedule to the Constitution of Bangladesh)

“Indigenous”

-         CHT Regulation, 1900

-         Finance Acts of 1995 and 2010

-         Poverty Reduction Strategy  (PRSP-2008, 2019-10)

-         Judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court of Bangladesh in Sampriti Chakma v. Commissioner of Customs & Others (5 BLC, AD, 29)

“Adibashi”

-         Statements of Hon’ble Sheikh Hasina, Begum Khaleda Zia and Dr. Fakhruddin Ahmed, on goodwill messages on Indigenous Peoples’ Day

-         PRSP, 2005

-         Small Ethnic Groups Cultural Institutions Act, 2010

Militarization and its impact on the Jumma People

Survival International is a worldwide organisation supporting the rights of tribal peoples. We have been campaigning for the rights of the Jumma peoples for 30 years.

The military conflict in the Chittagong Hill Tracts began in the late 1970s with the formation of the Shanti Bahini, the armed wing of the Jumma’s political party waged a low –level guerilla war against the government of Bangladesh. The military response to this low intensity war and the subsequent militarization of the region, has been beyond all sense of proportion and continues to this day. As Chris Lars- Baer pointed out in his report for the UN permanent  forum this year – the military response in the CHT is a counter insurgency to an insurgency which ended in the 1990s.

Part of the government’s counter-insurgency measure was the bringing in of Bengali Settlers to the Hill Tracts; this has had a devastating impact on the lives of the Jumma peoples. Between 1979 and 1984 400,000 settlers were moved into the CHT, to an area where people were already suffering a scarcity of land after the construction of the Kaptai dam had flooded 40% of the arable land in the CHT and more than 50,000 Jummas lost their homes. Land disputes remain a major source of conflict and violence today.

The Transmigration programme that brought so many settlers into the Hill Tracts also increased the need for soldiers to ‘protect’ the new comers. In 1980 an estimated 30,000 regular and paramilitary troops were stations in the region – at its height it was estimated that there was one soldier for every 6 Jummas. During this period of insurgency an estimated 70,000 Jummas fled to India and another 100,000 people became internally displaced.

Officially the conflict came to an end in 1997 with the signing of the Peace accord, however in practice the conflict continues. This is largely due to the government’s failure to implement many of the fundamental points of the accord, such as the dismantling of the 500 temporary military camps and the settlement of land disputes.

The combination of land scarcity, the huge numbers of settlers, and a heavy military presence is incendiary.

The Bangladesh government claims that 200 of the 500 temporary military camps have so far been withdrawn, but the JSS and others dispute this figure putting it at 75, leaving 425 temporary military camps still in place 14 years on. The government has failed to provide a list of the dismantled camps, despite several requests. When the government removed 35 camps in 2009 they did so with much fanfare press attention however Jummas have told us that many of these camps have been re-established or simply replaced by other armed forces. There is still no time limit for the withdrawal of the remaining camps.

Although it is difficult to verify the exact number of troops currently deployed in the Chittagong Hill Tracts, military officials have confirmed that one third of the army is deployed in the region, an area which accounts for one tenth of the total territory of the country. This is an excessive amount, by any standard, especially in an area where there is no longer any insurgency.

Clearly the fighting between Jumma factions does not help the levels of tension and violence in the CHT, but it does not justify the large numbers of soldiers in the region, nor the ongoing military support of the settler community.

There have been continued and consistent allegations that the army is interfereing in civilian affairs in the region. ‘Operation Uttoran’, meaning ‘Operation Upliftment’, allegedly a counter-insurgency programme, gives powers to military officials to interfere in civilian affairs.

Also, adding to the concern over the excessive militarization of the region, there is the continued role of the military in development activities such as road-building and the distribution of food rations.

Gross human rights violations, committed mostly against the indigenous Jummas, continue and show a consistent pattern. These violations include arbitrary arrests, torture, extrajudicial killings, harassment of rights activists and sexual harassment of Jumma women and girls. In most cases such violations are carried out with impunity.

Escalating communal tensions and incidents of violence between the indigenous peoples and settler community are a major cause for concern. In February 2010 in the Sajek region a conflict erupted after settlers grabbed Jumma land and resulted in the burning down of nearly 500 Jumma homesteads and the killing of at least three individuals. Local sources told us that soldiers fired indiscriminately at Jumma villagers after a soldier was injured during the clashes.

A similar incident happened again this April in Ramgarh – resulting in the burning of six Jumma villages. Following the incident the army and police refused to allow a relief team, carrying supplies for the Jummas to enter the area.  Some soldiers are said to have been directly involved in the attacks on Jumma people and their homes but the most common complaint made by Jummas is that instead of protecting them and their homes the soldiers stand by and do nothing whilst the attacks occur.

During the unrest in Ramgarh, settlers with knives dragged a Chakma woman off a bus and threatened to kill her. She also believed they were planning to rape her. She could see soldiers and police officers who came over when they heard her scream – she called them ‘sir’ and ‘brother’ and pleaded with them to save her, – they did nothing to help her, they just came over to see what the screaming was, and having seen what was happening they simply walked away.

Members of the security forces must be held accountable for the allegations of negligence of duty and complicity against them. Despite national and international pressure on the Government of Bangladesh to fully investigate these attacks, and the role of the military in them, so far there has been no such investigation.

Jummas from the Mro tribe are to displaced to make way for the expansion of an army cantonment in Ruma, without consultation with the local people or the Hill District Council. Mro, who have protested this move, have been harassed and tortured by the military. In 2007 Mro leader, Ranglai Mro was arrested on what are widely believed to be false charges in retaliation for his opposition to the eviction of his people from their land. Army officers tortured Ranglai while he was in custody causing life threatening health problems.

In the violent atmosphere that exists in the CHT, communal tensions between the Jummas and the Bengali settlers are never far from the surface. The smallest dispute can trigger violence between the two communities; even a car accident can generate a violent battle. The settlers are able to act with impunity, knowing that the soldiers will stand back and allow attacks on the Jummas to continue.

A Chakma man from Khagrachari, who asked not to be named, described his life to me, ‘Here they are trampling us under their feet – everywhere tribal villages are encircled by army and police camps. West of this village is an army camp on the hilltop – why? Just behind us is an army camp – why? We are encircled. We are completely living at their mercy here. Please let the people know we are drowning. We are a drowning people….’

Survival remains extremely concerned about the level of violence and militarization in the CHT. Human rights violations against the Jummas, at the hands of soldiers and settlers, supported by the army, must be stopped. Those responsible for the killings, rape, arrests, torture and intimidation of innocent Jummas must be brought to justice. The rights of the Jumma peoples to the ownership of their land must be recognised and the government should implement the peace accord fully with the removal of temporary military camps and the resolution of land conflicts as an urgent priority.

Sophie Grig
Senior Campaigner
Survival International
6 Charterhouse Buildings
London EC1M 7ET
UK

Tel: (+44) (0)20 7687 8700
Fax: (+44) (0)20 7687 8701
http://www.survivalinternational.org

Please find Global Human Rights Defence’s statement at the House of Lords: http://www.jpnuk.org.uk/human-rights-issues-in-the-cht/ghrd-statement-at-the-house-of-lords-conference-on-implementation-of-the-chittagong-hill-tracts-peace-accord-4-july-2011/

Thank you to Lord Avebury and the Jumma People’s Network for the invitation to speak at this very important event.

We are pleased to be present today to share some of our observations from monitoring the situation for the Jumma in the Chittagong Hill Tracts. Sadly, our recent interviews with Jumma in the region confirm that human rights violations are continuing and the Jumma have no access to justice.

Global Human Rights Defence has been monitoring the human rights situation for minorities and women in Bangladesh for over seven years and has made the CHT a key focus for 2011. In May 2011, GHRD’s local observer conducted an eight day fact finding mission to the region, speaking with members from over 100 Jumma families who were victims of the February and April arson attacks which occurred in Rangamati and Khagrachari districts earlier this year. The photos you see behind me were taken during this investigation.  

Findings:

Our investigations confirm the reports of local Jumma organizations around the time of the violence, finding that some 638 Jumma people were affected, most of whom have lost their homes. Over 100 Jumma houses, one school and two Buddhist temples were burnt to ashes and Jumma villagers were forced to flee to the jungle during the attacks.

During the April violence, Bengali settlers in Jalia para area attacked Jumma passengers, pulling them down from public buses. Bengali settlers were stopping every vehicle and looking for ethnic minority people who they then pulled out onto the road and proceeded to kick, slap and beat with batons. At least 16 Jumma were seriously injured in this attack.

Every Jumma interviewed confirmed that army personnel and members of the Border Guards of Bangladesh were present during the violence but failed to do anything to stop it. Rather, they watched as Jumma homes were burned down.

On the morning of February 17, Jumma leaders asked personnel from the Tematha camp for help but they failed to answer this call. When they did finally arrive on the scene later that evening, Border Guard personnel stood and watched as Jumma homes were set on fire.

During the April violence, around 60 army men and around 5 army vans were patrolling in the area. Witnesses said that the army kept patrolling along the road side while on the other, Bengali settlers started entering Jumma villages and setting fire to their homes. In Shankhola village, some 25 army men stood eating fruit from Jumma properties after they had fled. They watched as the houses and shops of the Jumma people were looted, vandalized and set ablaze.

Government and administration officials visited the region directly following the attacks. A three member committee was formed to investigate the events and report back within two working days; however, to date the committee has not submitted its findings.

Despite seeing the devastation with their own eyes, nothing has been investigated by the government or the local authorities and the main perpetrators who have already been identified, continue to walk free in the area. The government of Bangladesh has also failed to investigate the involvement of the security forces and their open approval of the attacks.   Not a single arrest has been made following this violence.

The small compensation provided is not enough for the Jumma to rebuild their lives and they continue to live under the open sky or in traditional tents. Most of the students have not returned to school as their books, pencils, school dress and other essentials were burnt to ashes.

Transparency and accountability:

Instead of promoting transparent investigations and reporting following the attacks, the government proclaimed an ‘emergency curfew’ prohibiting any access to the region. The area is surrounded by army personnel who benefit from total impunity and are involved in every aspect of governance in the region.

The Jumma who are the victims of this violence are forcibly cut off from the rest of Bangladesh and the world and are unable to tell their story or ask for help.

During our team’s investigations, the local authorities expressed strong suspicion towards any international involvement in the region. Our observers were approached and questioned on several occasions by members of the Border Guards of Bangladesh and by the district special branch of police who requested information on the identity of the team, the organisation they worked for and purpose for their visit. On one occasion, the authorities questioned our team for over three hours, our observer stated:

“He took us to one corner of the field in front of the police station. Sitting on the ground, he asked similar questions repeatedly for 3 hours…asking about my organization, our purpose for coming to the region and whether we had any links to any foreign organization.”[1]

Analysis

These attacks amount to a government failure to uphold basic human rights and protect the Jumma. The implication of military forces in the attacks and the lack of impartial investigation prove that the government of Bangladesh is either unwilling or unable to protect its Jumma population and must be held accountable within the international forum. 

Implementation of the 1997 Peace Accord was a major election promise of the ruling government, the Awami League. To date, the government has failed to honour this commitment and land grabbing and disputes over land continue to be the main reason for attacks by Bengali settlers against the Jumma in the CHT.

GHRD’s view remains that the government of Bangladesh must take responsibility for the human rights violations in the region and must fully honour its stated commitment to the 1997 Peace Accord by: impartially investigating the human rights violations that have occurred and the role of the military in these violations, bringing those responsible to justice and demilitarizing the region.

GHRD will continue to investigate and publicise human rights violations in the CHT as long as minorities remain under threat.

Thank you

Julia de Blaauw

Human Rights Officer

Global Human Rights Defence

The Netherlands

www.ghrd.org

Please  find Survival Internationl’s statement at the House of Lords: http://www.jpnuk.org.uk/human-rights-issues-in-the-cht/survival-internationals-statement-at-the-house-of-lords-seminar-on-cht-04-july-2011/

Honourable Prime Minister,

Greetings from the Chittagong Hill Tracts Commission.

The Chittagong Hill Tracts Commission (CHTC) expresses its serious concern about the contents of the 15th amendment to the National Constitution of Bangladesh, which was passed by the Parliament on 30th June 2011. The CHT Commission had been hopeful that the four founding values (democracy, socialism, nationalism and secularism) upon which the original 1972 Constitution was founded would be upheld in full. We are instead disturbed to note that many of the provisions now inserted in the Constitution are antithetical to principles of equality, marginalize minorities, have negative implications for the development of the country and will have consequences for democracy, stability, growth and progress of the entire country.

We set out below a summary of the key changes which concern us and the background to these: 

• • The insertion of the phrase “Bismillah‐ar‐Rahman‐ar‐Rahim” before the preamble to the constitution was added in the fifth amendment to the Constitution in 1979 by military ruler, General Ziaur Rahman along with the phrase inserting ‘trust and faith in almighty Allah’ in place of ‘secularism’ (Art. 8). This has now been reinserted by the 15th Amendment.
• • The eighth amendment to the Constitution, adopted under the military ruler, General Hossain Mohammad Ershad, in 1988, purported to make Islam as the state religion (Article 2A). This has been retained by the 15th Amendment, although a constitutional challenge to this provision is pending in the Supreme Court.
• • Both these provisions resulted in the Constitution moving away from one of its founding pillars of ‘secularism’ and becoming manifestly more discriminatory and communal in nature. It is a direct rejection of the full citizenship rights of the hundreds of thousands of people from diverse religions and beliefs who are Bangladeshis.
• • Article 6(2) of the Constitution now says: “The people of Bangladesh shall be known as Bangalees as a nation and the citizens of Bangladesh shall be known as Bangladeshis”.
• • Article’23A’ now says: “The culture of tribes, small ethnic groups, ethnic sects and communities‐ The state shall take steps to protect and develop the unique local culture and tradition of the tribes [upajati], minor races [khudro jatishaotta], ethnic sects and communities [nrigoshthi o shomprodai]”. These provisions have been inserted by the 15th Amendment despite sustained criticisms by thousands of citizens.
• • We strongly believe that the estimated 50‐60 indigenous peoples living in the Chittagong Hill Tracts and in the plain lands all over the country should be rightfully recognized as ‘indigenous peoples’ in line with the United Nation’s modern understanding of the term based on self‐identification, historical continuity with pre‐colonial and/or pre‐settler societies, strong link to territories and surrounding natural resources, distinct social, economic or political systems, distinct language, culture and beliefs, and their nondominance in society.

We have learned that several Members of Parliament were opposed to some or all the above‐mentioned amendments to the constitution, but were unable to express their dissent on account of pressure. Many members of the civil society and the media also opposed these amendments and the process through which these amendments took place. The CHT Commission believes that a national consensus is needed before bringing any major amendment to the Constitution. This consensus had been missing from the very beginning of the amendment process.

The CHT Commission also noted that there had been heightened activity from the intelligence agencies prior to the constitutional amendment process and right after the tenth session of the United Nations Permanent Forum on Indigenous Issues. For example, at the Forum Mr. Iqbal Ahmed, the First Secretary of the Bangladesh mission to the UN commented that “Bangladesh does not have any ‘indigenous’ population”, and that the CHT Accord “has nothing to do with ‘indigenous issues’”, that the Study on the status of the implementation of the CHT Accord presented by Mr. Lars Anders Baer was “a ‘lopsided’ opinion on a ‘non‐indigenous’ issue”, and that presenting the report by Mr. Baer is “politically concocted by some enthusiastic quarters with questionable motives”. These comments have been received with deep disappointment by the CHT Commission.

The intelligence and security agencies recently misrepresented the conventions ofthe UN and the objective of the United Nations and its various instruments to the representatives of the Government, including Ministers and policy makers and the people of Bangladesh as reported by the media. In response to these misconceptions and misrepresentations, we urge you to go through the enclosed document, Annex.

In view of the above discussions, the CHT Commission makes the following

recommendations: 

• • The Government should take immediate steps to respond to citizens’ concerns and to repeal the 15th amendment to the Constitution. 
• • The Constitution of Bangladesh should not include any religion as a stat religion. 
• • The Constitution should not have ‘Bangalee nationalism’ as its foundation.

There is documentary evidence of the contributions by many non Bangalees towards the War of Liberation. 

• • The estimated 50‐60 indigenous peoples all over Bangladesh should be recognized as ‘indigenous’ (adibashi) by the Bangladesh Constitution, in line with the recognition given by the United Nations and acknowledged by the

Honourable Prime Minister and others.

On behalf of the CHT Commission,

Eric Avebury          Sultana Kamal       Elsa Stamatopoulou

Co chair of the       Co chair of the       Co chair of the

CHT Commission CHT Commission CHT Commission

ANNEX

A report in the Daily Independent, ‘Tribal leaders divided over indigenous issue’ (30 May 2011), claimed that the indigenous peoples of the CHT are ‘divided’ over their identity as ‘indigenous peoples’. The report, written by Deepak Acharjee, a special correspondent of the Independent, wrongfully pointed out that the different indigenous peoples are divided over using the term ‘indigenous’ to be recognized in the Bangladesh Constitution. On 29 April a demonstration was held in Dhaka with participation from indigenous peoples from all over the country, including the plains where indigenous peoples unanimously demanded that they be recognized in the constitution in a respectful manner and that no unacceptable identity be imposed upon them. The demand has persistently been made by indigenous peoples from all communities and recently the UN Permanent Forum including its member countries have shown full solidarity to this demand. The Law Minister, Barrister Shafique Ahmed later made a similar claim, which was later disproved by indigenous peoples leaders led by Barrister Raja Devasish Roy at a meeting with him.

Another report in The Daily Jugantor, “The Country’s sovereignty will be at stake if upajatis are given recognition as indigenous,” by B M Jahangir (7 June, 2011) stated that a leading state intelligence agency requested senior ministers and other policymakers to refrain from recognizing the tribal (“upajati”) groups of the Chittagong Hill Tracts (CHT) as adibashi (the Bengali equivalent of indigenous) under any conditions. The agency stated that otherwise the sovereignty of the country would be at stake and the Government would lose all control over the area in implementing the provisions of the relevant UN instruments. The agency referred to a letter each of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs and the Ministry of Chittagong Hill Tracts (CHT) Affairs on the issue. It also stated that some donors, and international and national NGOs are engaged in a “deep conspiracy” and that they are conducting their activities in secret with long‐term and “oshoth” (dishonest) intentions. It was alleged that these groups are seeking to legitimize the use of the term adibashi by inviting ministers as chief guests to seminars and meetings on the implementation of the CHT Accord. Members of the cabinet were requested by the agencies to be vigilant in this regard.

One of the comments made by intelligence group representative and made earlier by Government representatives is that the CHT ethnic groups are not ‘primitive’ (“aadim”) and hence they are not ‘indigenous’ (adibashi). The comment shows the discriminatory attitude and lack of understanding of the comment maker, who is obviously equating indigenousness with people “from a pre historic age”. ‘Primitiveness’ has nothing to do with ‘indigenousness’.

The intelligence agency reports comment that India, Pakistan and other South Asian countries do not acknowledge their tribal people as indigenous. This is not substantially correct having regard to the following: 

• • Nepal’s interim constitution uses the terms “Adibashi/Adivasi” and “Janajati” and has extensive provisions on representation, safeguards on affirmative action and so forth. 
• • Nepal has ratified the ILO Convention on Indigenous & Tribal Peoples of 1989 (Convention No. 169).
• • India’s constitution has extensive provisions on its “scheduled tribes” and “scheduled castes”, including bars against the Government of India on legislating on “social and religious customs” of Nagas and Mizos and on “land ownership” in the states of Nagaland and Mizoram, without the consent of the Legislative Assemblies of the concerned states.
• • The Inner Line Regulation, 1873, which applies in Mizoram, Nagaland and and Arunachal Pradesh states of Northeast India (and once used to apply to the CHT) prohibits non‐natives from entering the concerned areas, on sanction of imprisonment. 
• • India has ratified the ILO Convention on Indigenous & Tribal Populations of 1957 (Convention No. 107). 
• • Pakistan’s constitutional provisions on “Tribal Areas” may not be removed without ascertainment by the President of the views of the people of the area concerned, including the tribal jirga.
• • Pakistan has ratified the ILO Convention on Indigenous & Tribal Populations of 1957 (Convention No. 107). 

Another argument made by the intelligence and also said by Government representatives in public statements is that the CHT groups migrated from Tripura and Arakan (Rakhaing/Rakhaine) and hence they cannot be indigenous to the CHT. This is also not correct. 

• • Even if the CHT groups migrated from a place outside Bangladesh, accordingto ILO Convention 107 (ratified by Bangladesh in 1972), they are still to be regarded as indigenous if they are: “members of tribal or semi‐tribal populations in independent countries which are regarded as indigenous on account of their descent from the populations which inhabited the country, or a geographical region to which the country belongs, at the time of conquest or colonization and which, irrespective of their legal status, live more in conformity with the social, economic and cultural institutions of that time than with the institution of the nation to which they belong” (Article 1b).
• • At the time of colonization by the British (1760‐1860), the CHT indigenous peoples were already living in the Chittagong‐CHT region.
• • Several of the CHT peoples have lived in the CHT and in the plains Chittagong district (not to be confused with the CHT) for centuries and perhaps beyond a millennia. The report states that the CHT ethnic groups have been termed as ‘upajati’ and they have not protested against that term. This is incorrect. 
• • There are numerous demands for recognition as indigenous (including from the five current members in Parliament: Dipankar Talukder, Bir Bahaduur and Jatindra Lal Tripura, Advocate Promode Mankin, Prof. Athin Raghaine, and at least one of the previous CHT MPs from the BNP: Mani Swapan Dewan). 
• • Representatives of CHT peoples have protested against the ‘upajati’ epithet on numerous occasions, in writing and verbally at several gatherings, including leaders of the regional political parties, citizen’s groups (such as the Bangladesh Adivasi Forum, CHT Citizens Committee, Movement for the Protection of Forest and Land Rights in the CHT, among others). The report informs that the Ministry of Chittagong Hill Tracts Affairs has informed all concerned that the CHT ethnic groups are to be regarded as upajati. 
• • This is not in conformity with several laws, policy documents and statements of the Government of Bangladesh.
• • Several heads of the Government of Bangladesh, including Prime Minister Sheikh Hasina, former Prime Minister Khaleda Zia and former Chief Adviser Fakhruddin Ahmed have addressed the indigenous peoples as ‘adibashi’ in their (separate) goodwill messages on International Indigenous Peoples Day celebrations in Dhaka on different dates.
• • The term ‘upajati’ is used in a number of laws, including the Hill District Council laws of 1989 and 1998 and the CHT Regional Council Act of 1998.
• • However, the term ‘adibashi’ is used in the Small Ethnic Groups Cultural Institutes Act of 2010 (along with “small ethnic groups”), and replaces the earlier term ‘upajati’
• • The term ‘adibashi’ occurs in PRSP, 2005.
• • The term ’aboriginal’ is used in the East Bengal Sate Acquisition and Tenancy Act, 1950, which is among the laws protected in a schedule of the Constitution of Bangladesh. 
• • The term ‘indigenous’ is used in the CHT Regulation of 1900, the Finance Acts of 1995 and 2010, PRSP (2008 and 2010), Five Year Plan (2010) and sectoral policies of the Government, among others. The report also states that the intelligence argues that the USA and Australia, despite having genuine indigenous groups, did not support the “UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples (ILO Convention No. 169)”. This is incorrect
• • Australia, along with the USA, despite having voted against the adoption of the UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples in the UN General Assembly, have subsequently changed their position and expressed their support for the aforesaid UN Declaration. 

CC to: (Not in order of precedence)

1. Syeda Sajeda Chowdhury, MP, Honorable Deputy Leader of the House & Chairperson, National Committee for Implementation of the Chittagong Hill Tracts Accord.

2. Dr. Dipu Moni, MP, Honourable Minister, Ministry of Foreign Affairs, Government of the People’s Republic of Bangladesh, Dhaka.

3. Barrister Shafique Ahmed, Honourable Minister, Ministry of Law, Justice and Parliamentary Affairs, Government of the People’s Republic of Bangladesh, Dhaka.

4. Mr. Syed Ashraful Islam, MP, Honourable Minister, Ministry of Local Government, Rural Development and Cooperatives, Government of the People’s Republic of Bangladesh, Dhaka.

5. Mr. Rezaul Karim Hira, MP, Honourable Minister, Ministry of Land, Government of the People’s Republic of Bangladesh, Dhaka.

6. Mr. Jyotirindra Bodhipriya Larma, Honourable Chairman, CHT Regional Council, Rangamati.

7. Mr. Dipankar Talukdar MP, Honourable State Minister, Ministry of CHT Affairs, Government of the People’s Republic of Bangladesh, Dhaka.

8. Dr. Hasan Mahmud, Honourable State Minister, Ministry of Environment & Forests, Government of the People’s Republic of Bangladesh, Dhaka.

9. Mr. Promod Mankin, MP, Honourable State Minister, Ministry of Cultural, Government of the People’s Republic of Bangladesh, Dhaka.

10. Mohammad Shah Alam, MP and Chairman, Parliamentary Standing Committee, Ministry of CHT Affairs, Government of the People’s Republic of Bangladesh, Dhaka.

11. Mr. Jatindra Lal Tripura, MP and Chairman, CHT Task Force on Returnee Refugees and Internally Displaced People, Government of the People’s Republic of Bangladesh, Khagrachari.

12. Mr. Bir Bahadur, MP and Chairman, CHT Development Board, Government of the People’s Republic of Bangladesh, Rangamati.

13. Justice Khademul Islam Chowdhury, Chairperson, CHT Land Commission.

14. Mizanur Rahman, Chairman of National Human Rights Commission (NHRC).

PCJSS leaders expressed their agitation in a large public meeting held on 8 July 2011 in Rangamati district headquarters in the CHT reiterating their demands for full implementation of the CHT Accord.

Presided over by Gunendu Bikash Chakma, president of PCJSS Rangamati district committee, PCJSS president Jyotirindra Bodhipriya Larma was present as chief guest at the gathering. The protest gathering was addressed, among others, by president of CHT chapter of Bangladesh Adivasi Forum Prakriti Ranjan Chakma, vice-president of PCJSS Ushatan Talukder, convenor of M N Larma Memorial Foundation Bijoy Keton Chakma, former president of Pahari Chhatra Parishad (PCP) and central staff member of PCJSS Udayan Tripura and president of PCP Nitol Chakma. Youth affairs secretary of PCJSS Rangamati district committee Palash Tanchangya delivered welcome speech while general secretary of PCJSS Rangamati district committee Nilotpal Chakma conducted the meeting.

In his speech as chief guest, Jyotirindra Bodhipriya Larma said that despite popular demands for constitutional recognition of indigenous peoples, 15th Constitution Amendment denied to provide constitution recognition of fundamental rights of indigenous peoples. He strongly criticised government for not taking any consideration of PCJSS demands for constitutional recognition of indigenous peoples at all.

Mr. Larma also said that the Jumma people in the CHT are still being denied their rights. Despite the signing of an Accord with the Jumma people, military rule was continuing in the name of Operation Uttaran, Bengalis were continuing to settle in the CHT illegally, land-grabbing was continuing unabated and the Land Commission was intentionally being kept dysfunctional.

Mr. Larma reminded Sheikh Hasina of her father’s command to the Jumma people to become Bengalis and its historical consequences. He said that the real faces of the three lawmakers elected from CHT region— Jatindralal Tripura, Dipankar Talukdar and Bir Bahadur— have been exposed during the passage of the ‘controversial’ bill as they played passive role during the adoption of the bill.

Mr. Larma called on the Jumma people, who were involved with Awami League or BNP or Jatiya Party, to quit those parties and join the movement of the Jumma people. ‘Leave those who do not recognise your existence, those who want to make you Bengalis,’ he said.

Terming UPDF a terrorist organisation, Mr. Larma accused that the anti-accord organisation was carrying out extortion in the region. They killed over a hundred indigenous people since 1997, when the deal was signed between the government and PCJSS.

Mr. Larma called on all the Jumma people to get united and wage a movement against those who do not recognize the existence of ‘indigenous peoples’, who intend to rob them of their racial identity by making them Bengalis and turn them into second-class citizens by retaining the provision of state religion.

Larma added that a deep conspiracy against the Jumma people has continued since 1972 to evict the indigenous people from ancestral lands and not to give them constitutional recognition but Jumma people through a united movement will resist such conspiracy.

Urging the government to take immediate steps for proper implementation of CHT Accord, Larma said, “We do not want to see any delay. Implement the Accord fully without any delay. Otherwise tougher agitation will be launched against the government.”

Speakers of the protest meeting declared the three local MPs ‘unwanted’ in the region as they were not pro-active in pushing for the demand for recognition of the local inhabitants as indigenous or Adivasi. They said, “The three MPs despite being indigenous did not protest when the constitution was being amended in parliament, whereas being a Bengali, Rashed Khan Menon, Hasanul Haq Inu and other MPs spoke against the government move.”

A large procession was brought out after the rally that paraded through the major streets in the town.

It is mentionable that as per verdict of Supreme Court, Awami League-led present grand alliance government amended constitution of Bangladesh. For this purpose, Jatiya Sangsad (National Parliament) passed Fifteen Constitution (Amendment) Bill 2011 on 30 June 2011.

The government did not provide constitutional recognition of indigenous peoples as indigenous peoples (Adibasi); rather, termed tribals, small nationalities, ethnic group and communities. These terminologies are not accepted by the indigenous peoples.

Fifteen Amendment provides that the People of Bangladesh shall be known as Bengali as a nation and the citizens of Bangladesh shall be known as Bangladeshis. Indigenous peoples of Bangladesh do not want to be known as Bengali. Indigenous peoples rejected it saying that they are Bangladeshi as citizens, but they are not “Bengali” as nation/community. They (indigenous peoples) all are a separate nation possessing separate identity, culture, customs, language and society.

Indigenous peoples also protested against retaining of “BISMILLAH-AR-RAHMAN-AR-RAHIM” (In the name of Allah) in the preamble of the constitution and ISLAM as state religion. They argued that Islam alone cannot be the state religion as there are people who practice and follow other religions such as Hindu, Christian, Bouddha and Indigenous Practices. They said that it would turn people of other religions to second-class citizens.

Source: PCJSS

Lord Eric Avebury, Vice Chair of the Parliamentary Human Rights Group, with the co-operation of Jumma Peoples Network UK (JPNUK) organised a seminar on Chittagong Hill Tracts, which was held at the House of Lords on 4^th of July 2011.

Lord Avebury chaired the seminar in which speakers from different organisations raised their concern over the gross human rights violations against the indigenous Jumma peoples in the Chittagong Hill Tracts region of Bangladesh. They also raised their concern regarding the delay of the implementation the CHT Peace Accord, which was signed in 1997.

The speakers were – Julia Deblaauw (Global Human Rights Defence), Sophie Grig (Survival International), Abbas Faiz (Amnesty International), Budhist Monk Nagasena Bhante, Bhumitra Chakma (International Jumma Organisations), Lal Amlai (Jumma Peoples Network UK), Rumana Hashem, a phd candidate of East London University; and Manzurul Karim Chowdhury, representative of Bangladesh High Commission.

Sophie Grig and Julia Deblaauw spoke about human rights violations that are taking place in the region, they also mentioned   army involvement and non-implementation of CHT peace accord. Abbas Faiz shared his experience of his visit in the CHT. Many Jummas do not know the reason of the army presence in the CHT, it is mainly because lack of information and communication, he said in his speech. Bhante Nagasena concentrated on religious intolerance in the region, he also said, ‘peace will not be restored in the region unless the army is removed as they are backing the illegal Bengali settlers in the violence’. Bhumitra Chakma said the army must be removed from the region as they are supporting the illegal Bengali settlers who are committing numerous human rights violations in the region. Lal Amlai showed a Bangladesh cabinet meeting minute held on 26 January 2011 and mentioned, army and Directorate General of Forces Intelligence (DGFI) representative said that the foreign ambassadors and foreign journalists were frequently visiting CHT, and they must have a secret agenda. DGFI recommended exerting regular political pressure on the local political groups in the CHT. Rumana Hashem shared her experience of her visit in the CHT.

At the end of the seminar Lord Avebury said further seminar on CHT would be organised with the co-operation of JPNUK.

Other guests and observers present were Alan Craig of Christian Peoples Alliance (CPA), Ujjaini Roy Chakma, Ashu Chakma, Rabindra Ghosh of GHRD, Julia Coton of GHRD, Anchelita Gowri  of GHRD, Budhist monk Anomodorshi Bhikkhu, Areeba, Zahid Sarwar Nizam , Ripon Chakma, Smita Chakma, Mong Tin Rakhaine, Samong Prue, Mong Marma Bafrue, Aneek Khan, Rashedul Hasan, Utsa Mukhergee of Survial International, Ratan of GHRD, Rebecca Durand, Katy Guttman and David Brunetti.

Ansar Ahmed Ullah of Ghatak Dalal Nirmul Committee assisted Lord Avebury during the seminar.

“Jumma Peoples Network UK”;  www.jpnuk.org.uk

102. The Permanent Forum takes note of the study by Lars-Anders Baer on the status of the implementation of the Chittagong Hill Tracts Accord of 1997 (E/C.19/2011/6). The Permanent Forum also takes note of the concerns raised by the representative of the Government of Bangladesh, as well as other Governments, indigenous peoples’ organizations and non-governmental organizations, during the discussions at the tenth session. Further, the Permanent Forum notes the steps taken by the Government of Bangladesh to implement the Accord. The Permanent Forum recommends the following:

(a) That, consistent with the code of conduct for United Nations peacekeeping personnel, the Department of Peacekeeping Operations prevent military personnel and units that are violating human rights from participating in international peacekeeping activities under the auspices of the United Nations, in order to maintain the integrity of the indigenous peoples concerned;

(b) That the Government of Bangladesh declare a timeline and outline modalities of implementation and persons and/or institutions responsible for implementation;

(c) That the Government of Bangladesh undertake a phased withdrawal of temporary military camps from the region and otherwise demilitarize the region, consistent with the safeguards of the peace accord, which will contribute to the ultimate objective of peace and economic and social development, and improve the relationship between indigenous peoples and the Government of Bangladesh;

(d) That the Government of Bangladesh establish a high-level, independent and impartial commission of enquiry into human rights violations perpetrated against indigenous peoples, including sexual violence against women and girls, and prosecute and punish the perpetrators, as well as provide reparations for the victims concerned.

103. The Permanent Forum recognizes the opportunity created by the consultations on constitutional amendments in Bangladesh and encourages peaceful dialogue between the Government and indigenous peoples aimed at implementing the Chittagong Hill Tracts Accord and addressing the substantial concerns raised in the report and during the tenth session of the Permanent Forum, in accordance with the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples.

…………………………..