Sharecropping in response to landlessness

With a big number of Adibashis who are illiterate due to poverty and ignorant of the law, they are vulnerable to remaining in this way of life as farm workers and sharecroppers, denied of social services and representation to governing bodies. The 90% landless Adibashis and the remaining 10% at the brink of losing their lands, illustrates a poverty-stricken and illiterate Adibashi who need internal support and external support as well.

Indigenous peoples in the remote areas compose one of the most disadvantaged sectors of society considering their non-access to services which facilitate livelihood sustenance. Due to limited economic sources and landlessness, most of them are employed as bargadar (sharecroppers) working on other lands as wage laborers- and other seasonal jobs in the city. Daily farm workers get as low as 65 taka a day.

Particularly in the northwest, the share ropping system of land owners termed as barga prota lets the land owner take 50% to 2/3 of the harvest from farm tillers. This exploitative contract/arrangement is much more manifested by the land tiller bearing all of the farm production inputs including fertilizer and seeds aside from the labor.

This, in irony to the Land Reform Ordinance Code of 1984 which provides that 1/3 of the harvest goes to the landowner, 1/3 to the provider of the production inputs, and 1/3 to the land tiller. In Hindupara of Tanore upazilla, almost 95% of the people here don’t have lands of their own to farm except their home lots which they acquired lease from the government. They practically rely on other people’s lands to farm and thus end up as farm workers or on barga prota arrangement as sharecroppers.

As for barga prota contracts, sharecroppers only get as low as 1/3 to 50% share of the harvest. While they handle the labor, they still handle the fertilizers and other production costs and inputs. Most of those interviewed are not happy with their share. In a validation workshop with the residents here, the sharecroppers said the above arrangements however is not fair to the land tillers saying that their share should be 2/3 of the harvest. They are apprehensive about protesting to the landowners as the landowners will get hired labor from other places, sharecropper-farmers from Hindupara said.

The following are cases noted in a 2006 research undertaken by the author with Shima Murmu and Moshi Murmu, staff of Adivasi Unnayan Songstha.

• Shamlal Mardy, 24, is on borga arrangement and faces a water problem on the farm. Much as he contracted the land and expects the land to be fertile and harvest to be robust, Shamlal faces water problems to irrigate the land because irrigation supply cannot adequately reach the land he is farming. Manason Tudo also had been a farmworker for the past 25 years earning 60 taka a day while on barga arrangement. He also faces irrigation problems. Water from the government’s deep well charges 85-100 taka per hour and with only three hours to irrigate all the lands in the village, such duration is not enough to cover all the agricultural lands.
  
• For 20 years, Susil Tudu, 40, has been on a barga prota arrangement. He gets 50% of the share while supplying the fertilizers and the seeds. He says he should get at least get 2/3 of the harvest.
  
• Mozifor Murmu, 35, had also been in the borga prota arrangement for 25 years. And with the arrangement, he said he does not get what is due him.
• Mongal Murmu, 80, had been a contract worker for 70 years from a land owner who lives in Rajshahi. Aside from fertilizers and seeds, Mongal also handles irrigation costs.
  
• Madon Kisku, 75, contracted 1.66 acre land for 70,000 taka for three years on barga prota arrangement.
  

The terms of share cropping most of the time is left at the command of the landowner where the sharecropper has nothing to do but accept the terms of the contract. Asked if the sharecroppers know of a law which provides for their just share, sharecroppers from Hindupara, in a focused group discussion said “no”. And even if there is such a law protecting their interests, they said they find it hard to resist the landowner who can easily find a replacement for the bargadar.

Source: Discourses on Policy Perspectives on Land Rights of Adivasis of Northwest Bangladesh, by Gina Dizon, Published by VSOB, April 2008

East Bengal State Acquisition and Tenancy Act of 1950

While Section 97 of the State Acquisition and Tenancy Act 1950 is favorable to indigenous peoples as it protects the alienation of lands from Adibashis without the permission of the revenue officer, this law however is not practiced fully. Many an indigenous person have sold and transferred his land to another without the full permission of the revenue officer, or in cases where the approval of the revenue officer is taken, the process was given to the land purchaser with the approval of the land owner who in most cases is an illiterate Adibashi.

The law thus reads:

Section 97. Restriction on alienation of land by Aboriginals. (1) The government may from time to time by notification, declare that the provisions of this section, shall in any district or local area, apply to such of the following original castes or tribes as may be specified in the notification, and that such castes or tribes shall be specified in the notification and that such castes or tribes shall be deemed to be aboriginals for the purposes of this section, and the publication of such notification shall be conclusive evidence that the provisions of this section have been duly applied to such castes or tribes namely:

Sonthals, Banais, Bhuiyas, Bhumijies, Dalus, Garos, Gonds, Hadis, Hajangs,
Hos, Kharias, Kharwars, Kochs ( Daca Division) Koras, Maghs ( Bakargaj
District) Mal and Saurai Paharias, Maches, Mundas, Oraons, and Turis.

(2)Except as provided in this section, no transfer by an aboriginal raiyat of this right in into his holding or in any portion thereof shall be valid unless it is made to another aboriginal domiciled or permanently residing in Bangladesh who is a person to whom the transfer of such holding or portion thereof can be made under section 90. If in any case, an aboriginal raiyat desires to transfer holding or any portion thereof by private sale, gift, or will any person who is not such an aboriginal, he many apply to the Revenue Officer for permission in that behalf and the Revenue Officer may pass such order on the application as the thinks fit having regards to the provisions of section 88 and 90. Every transfer referred to in sub section 3 shall be made by registered deed and before the deed is registered and the holding or any portion thereof is transferred, the written consent of the Revenue Officer shall be obtained to the terms if the deed and the transfer.

The EBSAT Act covers two issues. The coverage of the law vis a vis existing ethnic peoples of the country, and the implementation of the salient provisions of the law itself.

Advocate Michael Soren noted that EBSAT Act 1950 added Section 97 in the same way as in the section of Bengal Tenancy Act of 1918. This is the ONLY law imposed by the British government for the interest of the Adibashi peoples to protect and preserve Adibashi land rights. The very title of the Act was Restriction on Alienation of Land by Aboriginals which targets that Adibashi peoples should not be turned landless.

The law listed only 21 sections of aboriginal peoples and nothing stated about the rest of the Adibashi peoples. Soren asks, “what happens to the rest of the groups? The Law is practically implemented by the Assistant Deputy Commissioner but most of the time the concerned ADC does not have any idea about the Adibashi peoples”.

Two Presidential orders have been passed to refer coverage to the State Tenancy and Acquisition Act of 1950. The July 18, 1963 Order provides that the law shall be applicable in 10 districts of Bangladesh but not in Dinajpur district where a plenty Adibashis are found. The August 20, 1964 Order covered only four sections of Adibashi Peoples although there are about 35 sections living in the northwestern part of the country living since very ancient period. What will be the fate of the rest of the Adibashi or indigenous communities is not stated clearly in the section. This law needs to be reconsidered, Michael Soren said.

Advocate Michael Soren noted that the EBSAT Act 1950 added Section 97 which is the only law imposed by the British government for the interest of the Adibashi peoples to protect and preserve Adibashi land rights has become a “lost law”.

The Gamustapur Pargana and Digori Coordinating Council of Chappai Nawobgonch in a focus- group discussion noted that there is a need for Pargana Permission before any land transfer is effected. To prevent illegal land transfers from an Adibashi to a non-adibashi, the Gamustapur Pargana and Digori Council of Chappai Nawobgonch forwarded that the committee jointly acknowledge and provide certification that an Adibashi is selling land before the ADC will forward his warishun (permission) that such Adibashi is selling his land.

Similarly, Panchbibi Pargana and Jatiyo Adivashi Parishad leader Ram Vincent Tudu said there is a need for the Pargana to provide the necessary recommendation for land transfer before any transfer will be permitted by the Land Revenue Officer.

Adivasis' tribal revolts

Tribal revolts had shown political changes in accommodating Adibashis. The historic Santal Hool rebellion from 1855-1857 led by Santal-brothers Sidhu Kanhu against the British government for excessive land rents and forced dislocation of Santals and other Adivasis from their ancestral lands led to a new legislation restricting the sale of land from Adibashis to non- Adibashis. Santal Parganas was also created as an administrative district in order to supervise the special protective area policy effectively.

It shall be recalled that the British East India Company acquired in 1765 the right to collect tax on behalf of the emperor. The British colonialists, pursuing formidable tax income introduced a new land tenure regime through the Permanent Settlement Act. They also invited into the region a host of moneylenders, merchants, scribes tax collectors from Greater Bengal to act as intermediaries. Many of them ruthlessly exploited the host Adibashi population by a mounting tax load which made many Adibashis trapped by moneylenders. Subjected to alien taxation, land ownership and legal systems, unmanageable debt and harassment by powerful landlords, many Adibashis were evicted or forced as a result of debt and trickery to give up their ancestral lands and forests. (Bleie 2005)

The Santal Hool revolt followed through with the Tebhaga (three parts) Movement of the 1940s in Nachal, Rajshahi. Sharecroppers were getting only 1/5 of the share. Farmers demanded that 1/5 was not sufficient and that the tiller will get 2/3 of the produce.

It is interesting to note here that the bloody Tebhaga movement in the 1940s came from the Bengal Peasant Association, a front political organization of the Communist Party of India. After partition in 1947, the Muslim League and the new government of East Bengal tried to quell the movement by banning the Communist Party and its front organization and branding them enemies of the State (Bleie 2005).

It was in this volatile situation that Ila Mitra and her zamindar husband Ramen Mitra agitated and educated the Santal dominated populace. Along with Santal and Pahariah leaders Sibu Koramudi, Matal Manji, Tudu Hembrom and Chitor Manji raised tenants’ demands for two thirds share of the produce and an improved share of husked rice. Santal Adivasis were very active in this reform and have to take the brunt of the brutal retaliation meted out by a well- equipped police and army called in by the landowners. In one incident in Nachole Police Station in Rajshahi, at least 50 to 100 Santals including Ila Mitra who was detained, tortured and raped along with other Santal women.

The Tebhaga system of sharecropping called for one third of the crop as share of the landowner, one third for the one who provides production inputs, and the third of crop produce to the share cropper. This system also exists in Comilla district which saw the birth of the Cooperative Movement in East Bengal in the 1940s.

The second uprising occurred following the assassinations of the first president, Sheik Mujibut Rahman in 1975. One of his loyal followers and a hero of liberation struggle, Kadar (Tiger) Siddiqui, fled to India and started an insurrection along the northern border. He persuaded disaffected Mandi to join him on the promise of establishing a Mandi homeland.

The rebellion was short-lived but it brought pressure on the government of Ziaur Rahman to give more attention to the Mandi tribal. A Tribal Cultural Academy was established at Birisiri, weaving centers were set up at upazilla level, seats were reserved for Adibashi students at the Bangladesh agricultural University and Mymensingh medical college and Adibashis taken into the border Guards (Bangladesh Rifles). Only the last measure has been properly implemented. For example the Birisiri Academy is largely staffed by Bengalis and promotes a bastardized Bengali culture as “tribal”. (Minority Rights Group, December 1991).

Bloody rebellions however mellowed down with peaceful means of claiming for IP rights in the beginning of 1990s following the declaration of the Decade of World’s Indigenous Peoples in 1993.

1993 accounts followed with the leadership of a northwest-based peoples organization, Jatiyo Adivasi Parishad , as narrated by JAP president, Anil Marandy. At Babuldang, Tanore, Anil along with other JAP leaders led some 3000 Adibashi Santals and Oraos to pressure government to issue deeds of permanent settlement to 37 Adibashi families as some land grabbers with the aid of the Thana officers were trying to evict the Adibashis our of their land. Due to a three-day peaceful protest, deeds of permanent settlement was finally issued to the Adibashis.

A similar event recently happened in Kazipara, Naogaon, last November 5, 2007 when 17 families were physically threatened to leave their land by local land grabbers assisted by two Union Parishad officials. Jatiyo Adivashi Parishad with Dhaka-based Bangladesh Adivasi Ohdikar Andolon assisted the villagers claim for deeds of permanent settlement at the office of the District Commissioner.

Meantime, the most that NGOs can do is to provide legal assistance to Adibashis affected with land grabbing and eviction and conduct land rights related trainings and workshops. Some IP-led organizations conduct open dialogues with the government where in most cases end up to promises assured by government officials to include Adibashi concerns in their programs. These assurances remain as unfulfilled promises. Though Dinajpur-based Gram Bikash Kendra (GBK) publicly signified its participation in a 20 point demand to the government along with Jatiyo Adivasi Parishad late last year.

It is now a question as to why Santal Adivasis are not taking arms against human rights violations of a repressive State and against influential land grabbers . The question is relevant in view of the Santals’ legacy of mass movements and their collective memory of their own ancestors’ struggle in the Tebhaga movement and in earlier mass uprisings such as the Santal Hool in 1855.

Yet, the search for meaningful reforms is on along with trends of uniting with Bengali intellectuals and the wider Bengali populace, and finding relevant dimensions and strategies in truly enacting changes in the government’s policy framework.

Source: Discourses on Policy Perspectives on Land Rights of Adivasis of Northwest Bangladesh, by Gina Dizon, Published by VSOB, April 2008

Interview with Adv. Michael Soren

Advocate Michael Soren, now in his late 50s, is one of few Adivasis in northwest Bangladesh who was able to go to school and earn a degree. A legal practioner at Rajshahi Court for quite sometime, Advocate Michael Soren joins five Adivasi- lawyers from northwest. With their few number, there is need for more educated Adivasis to articulate their concerns and relevantly situate their culture in legally related issues which confront them, one of which is land. Below is an interview with Advocate Michael Soren.

Q> Constitutional recognition is one of the major demands of Adivasis in claiming for their rights.
A>The Adibashi need to be concerned about the law especially land law. It is the law which will prevent them from obstacles and rescue them from unfair situations. That is why by constitutional recognition, Adibashis are made aware about the law and it can be useful for them to safeguard and redeem their land properties. But at present state, it is not working that way, so Adibashis have to be more careful about the law. Separate policies will be prepared for them for their development and upliftment. If it will be written in the law that such and such people are regarded as Adibashi people and for their growth and progress, a separate commission or policies and funding will be drawn out. Out of that budget, it will be easy for the government to impose this law and carry out the mandates of what the law provides.

Q> Is there any special distinction for Adibashis to be specially recognized in the Constitution? They are also citizens of Bangladesh and to be treated just like any other Bangladeshi.
A>I do agree with you that they are citizens of the country. But still they have to be specially treated as they are treated as minority group, a minority of the minorities. By minorities, these people are deprived of many scopes of the government that is presently running the way that it is dealing. The thing is that when this section of people is recognized, that makes them aware of their own standing and at the same time also the reasons of their deprivation. Because these people depend mostly on their cultural life, they don’t care about the running laws. They don’t care about what the government is doing. By recognition, we try to implicate especially this section of people on what benefits they can have from the government.

Q>You were talking about a separate commission.
A>A separate commission can be made by the government to look after these people for their good. So the commission can look after these. That means the commission as soon as it is formed, about 5 to 10 members will produce the policies and guidelines for the good of these people, along with requirements. And this body to be approved by the National Assembly and ministries concerned about the Adivashi peoples.

Q>Do you have special recommendations who the members will be?
A>It has to be composed of Adibashi peoples. Special constitution maybe kept for the non- Adibashis who are concerned about the Adibashi peoples and can be taken into the commission by the Adibashi peoples, otherwise, it will purely be for Adibashi peoples.

Q>Land is one major issues among Adibashis…
A>This commission as soon as it is formed will look at the land issues most especially, health, education. On the basis of these issues, they will make guidelines of what they will want to do and this has to be approved by the National Assembly.

Q> I would like to be more specific. A special law on Section 97 of the EBSAT Act of 1950 protects Adibashis’ alienation from their land. How far has the law been exercised?
A>Many problems are there in the present existing law. For example, its interpretation among the Santals. How to recognize these Santals is not stated in the law. How to identify these people is not clear in Section 97. What law they will follow, is it the Hindu law or their traditional law. It is not clear in this section. .

Q>You are saying that Section 97 has to incorporate issues about who an Adibashi is.
A>There is not much criteria about who an Adibashi is in Section 97. Once, we went to a Divisional Commissioner to prove that a Santal is a Santal. We cannot prove that a Santal is a Santal belonging to the Adibashi tribe as there are no written criteria on who is a Santal so we lost the case. There is need for criteria and these criteria have to be mentioned in the EBSAT Act. Our argument was that Santals hold the 12 titles ( Santals have consistent 12 titles). Hembrom is one of them so he belongs to the Santal community. Section 97 should then be applied regarding his land rights but the judge said, “no, the way you are saying is not enough, so I cannot give any decision.”

Q> There are 45 tribes of Bangladesh so each tribe has a separate way of looking at land management and ownership.
A>Section 97 is only one page or two. Section 97 needs more than the pages than it holds now.

Q> Bangladesh has a national land policy. How could these recommended laws and policies applied apart from national land law.
A>It may be parallel to national land policies and may run in the same way as national land policies are running. It can run the same way as the national land policy is running but at the same time it will be a separate thing.

Q> Adibashis have distinct practices which may be contrary to national policies. Could there be some areas where such may be contrary to national law.
A>I don’t think this will contradict national land policies because as any obstacle comes this will be obstacle to the national land policies also. Ways and means have to be found out to overcome those obstacles.

Q>Adibashis have yet to recover their lands. Is there a law which is favorable to recovery of their lands?
A>There is no law yet to get back the properties of the Adibashis as of now. I think it is necessary to get back the property but system has to be formed. Suppose the person who went to India was victimized leaving his property, these circumstances he has to prove up to the time he lost his documents and since the time he has been in possession of his land.

Source: Discourses on Policy Perspectives on Land Rights of the Adivasis of Northwest Bangladesh, by Gina Dizon, Published by Voluntary Service Overseas Bangladesh-Indigenous Community Rights Programme, April 2008

Interview with Anil Marandy

I met Anil Marandy at the office of Adivasi Unnayan Songstha in Rajshahi. Young and idealistic in his late 30s, Anil is the president of Jatiyo Adivasi Parishad , an organization of Adivasis of northwest Bangladesh. Along with Robindranath Soren, Secretary General of JAP, both Adivasi leaders had been very helpful in the conduct of focus- group discussions with Adivasi tribes especially the Santals of Dinajpur and Rajshahi and the Rajbongshis of Bogra. Below is a brief interview with Anil. Photo shows Anil (with bonnet) giving blanket to a Santal during a relief mission.

Q>What does Jatiyo Adivasi Parishad intend to achieve.
A>Adibashis own land. Jatiyo Adibashi Parishad works to recover Adibashi land ownership. In the Cadastral Records of 1922, Adivasis have 60% ownership and possession to their land. In the 1962 Settlement of Acquisition records, it was noted that there is only 42% of Adibasis having land ownership. In the 1972 Revision Survey record, only 22% of Adivasis have land. Now,because of land grabbing, only 15% of Adibashis own land.

Q>What has JAP done to realize its intentions since its establishment in 1993?
A>In Babuldang, Tanore last June-July 1993, some 37 family- homes were destroyed by miscreants led by elements of the Bangladesh Nationalist Party who wanted to acquire the 6 acre lot which had been occupied by Adibashis for a long period of time. Government officials helped in the bulldozing of the land along with the police who helped the Thana officer. Jatiyo Adivasi Parishad then organized a three- day procession of Adibashis. Some 3,000 Adivasis from Godagari and Tenure joined the procession and brought along their own food.

They demanded government to cancel a lease granting the land to some non-Adibashi individuals and issue permanent settlement papers to the Adivasi settlers. A dialogue followed with the government and lease was cancelled. Deeds of permanent settlement were given to 37 Adibashi families. Recovery of land is a very complex issue. With people’s movement, something can be done. Because as it is, even court proceedings are seemingly hopeless with cases fought in court for a very long time which demands a lot of money. We also established a mother language school in Sondurpur catering to Adibashi schoolchildren.

Q>What do you consider are the strengths of JAP.
A>We organize people and achieve unity. Many people support our movement. The support has lessened now however because of NGOs disturbance. I organized mass movements with people bringing along their own food and transportation. This serves as their commitment to a cause which we all value. But NGOs now give the people food and money and transportation and give people money too. Commitment to the value of fighting for the struggle is lessened, if not lost, hopefully not.We establish moral courage among people by our gatherings and tell them this country is our country, that our land rights should be established. We go to the DC office and get lease documents to our land.

Q>What were the problems so far in achieving your objectives.
A>At the same time, Adibashis need legal support so we approached BLAST but they were not able to support us as they are one with government policies. Advocates have this way: no money, no case. They want taka first. But we need lawyers but we have no money. NGOs also cannot fully advocate land rights because NGOs are state owned. NGOs can only give technical support to IP causes.

Q>What will you tell government?
A>We are in a talking process. Late last year, we submitted a 20 point demand to the District Commissioner and to the Chief Adviser. Among these demands is constitutional recognition for Adibashis and a special land commission for Adibashis as well.

Q>Indigenous peoples have been denied recognition in Bangladesh policies and international instruments like the recently adopted UN Declaration on IP Rights where Bangladesh abstained. Please comment.
A>We are telling government that Bangladesh is a member of the UN committee that Bangladesh has many Adibashi peoples. We tell government about tough lives of Indigenous Peoples, violation of human rights and land rights. We tell government to come out and resolve these issues and support these in the international level.

Source: Discourses on Policy Perspectives on Land Rights of the Adivasis of Northwest Bangladesh, by Gina Dizon, Published by Voluntary Service Overseas Bangladesh-Indigenous Community Rights Programme, April 2008

Adibashis' landlessness and the Law

BANGLADESH-For a people who had been associated with the land since time immemorial, Adibashis find themselves slowly losing their land either due to the dictate of the law, land grabbing, and demands of the times to cope with financial difficulties. Landlessness is a major problem among the Adibashis where 80%-90% of Adibashis are landless and the remaining landed 10% are on the brink of losing their lands.

With the entrance of colonizers, they slowly lose their lands. No law had been drafted for Adibashis on their acquired rights on the land during the Hindu and Muslim Badsha rule in the early years from 1200 till the British came in 1747 to the present Bangladesh government (Michael Soren, 2006). Even an earlier law (Indian Tenancy Act of 1878) provided registration of tribal lands under Zamindars (landlords). This law virtually placed aboriginal peoples as not having the right to own lands.

Disenfranchisement to their land has been further manifested with some Adibashis not able to have their lands registered during the initial 1922 Cadastral Survey (CS) during the British Rule as these were held by the zamindars. Disenfranchisement to their lands was further manifested in two successive amendments of the land registry. Technical land grabbing was manifested during the 1962 Settlement of Acquisition (SA) and the Revision Survey (RS) in 1972 where a number of registered land owners were changed to names of third person/s without the knowledge of the original owner. Most cases handled by lawyers and filed in court are cases which refer to corrections in the land registry, lawyer Norendranath Tudu said.

The flight of Adibashis and Hindus to India during the Hindu-Pakistan war in 1965 led them to flee to India and their properties left in Bangladesh considered as “enemy property” by virtue of the Enemy Property Law . Some came back to find they had no properties anymore, these having been declared as “enemy property”.

This followed through with the Vested Property Act in 1974 which considered lands left by fleeing Hindus and Adibashis included, to India during the Liberation War in 1971, was considered “vested” and managed by the Bangladesh government in 1974. Again, this scenario left a number of Adibashis landless.

In the plain areas, non-indigenous settlers use the Vested Property Act to occupy indigenous peoples land. With the land considered vested and managed by the Bangladesh government, many a person in the mainstream Bengali community occupied these lands illegally.

Another law which was supposed to protect Adibashis of their landholdings preventing transfer to a non-Adibashi without the permission of the revenue officer is the East Bengal State Tenancy and Acquisition Act (EBSAT) of 1950 has become a “lost law” (Michael Soren, 2006). Its implementation has not been strictly followed with a number of Adibashis having sold their land to Bengalis at low prices and without the permission of the revenue officer.

Particularly in the northwest part of Bangladesh, the major problem being faced right now by the indigenous peoples is landlessness. Studies show at least 80% are landless among 100 villages of Godagari and Tanore. (AUS Survey, 2006) while Advocate Saidul Rahman Khan chief guest during the Indigenous Peoples Day celebration in Rajshahi in August 8, 2006 noted some 90% are landless Adibashis. With such a depressing situation, most of the people resort to availing khas lands (government lands open for application) from the government with at least enough space to build a house on. They work as farm workers to rich landowners earning as low as 65 Taka a day, and as sharecroppers getting as low as 1/3 share of the harvest even as they handle both production costs and manual labor.

The EBSAT Act of 1950 restricts transfer of aboriginal lands to non – tribals without the permission of the revenue officer. However, its enforcement is a failure causing further dispossession of Adibashis to their ancestral lands.

“Theoretically, an aggrieved aboriginal could go to court, but the impecuniosities of the dispossessed prevent any action to obtain legal redress. There are no viable alternatives to suo moto state action to implement this law (EBSAT Act). ” (Devasish Roy, Adivasis of Bangladesh, Where have they came in the last two decades)



Source: Discourses on Policy Perspectives on Land Rights of the Adivasis of Northwest Bangladesh, by Gina Dizon, Published by Voluntary Service Overseas Bangladesh-Indigenous Community Rights Programme, April 2008

The Adivasis of Bangladesh

I worked with Adivasis of Bangladesh from May 2006 to May 2008. This, through my volunteer placement with Adivasi Unnayan Songstha, a program partner of VSOBangladesh-Indigenous Community Rights. AUS is located in northwest Rajshahi. The following is a brief description of Adivasis.

Adibashis (Indigenous Peoples) of Bangladesh share similar concerns with other indigenous peoples of the world. Most often marginalized and disadvantaged from the rest of the mainstream population, they suffer lack of basic delivery of services on health, education, and livelihood. They face a number of issues which threaten their existence as a people and as citizens of the wider Bangladesh society.

Issues range from lack of government support manifested by hostility and insensitivity on the indigenous peoples’ culture, to lack of provision of the basic services supposed to be given to them. Related threats hamper them including human rights abuses by military personnel and aggressive movement of influential and greedy persons in authority who take advantage of the indigenous peoples’ vulnerability aside from exploitative government laws and programs.

This, while Adibashis have significantly contributed to the physical, political, cultural and economic development of the country. They are the first people in areas where they cleaned the jungles and made an agricultural base to live on. To date however, majority of the mainstream Bengali population are enjoying this cultivated land legally or illegally. With their current state of landlessness, Adibashis are now farm laborers and share croppers to rich land owners, and contributing a lot to the economy of the nation.

Not only have they continued to contribute to the economic wealth of the nation. They compose a distinct population with their rich cultural heritage which contributes and makes up to a vibrant and culturally endowed Bangladesh. They were part of the Liberation War in 1971 where they participated as freedom fighters and fought along with the rest of the Bengalis for a new and separate nation.

Estimates point out about 2.5 million of Adibashis now live in Bangladesh among the 140 million population of this country. Of this number, some 1.5 million of Indigenous peoples live in the plain lands, an estimate from 1991 Bangladesh census with 1.2 million Adibashis residing in the country constituting about 1.13 percent of the country’s population. The census in 1991 covered 27 Adibashi ethno- linguistic groups. As of press time, there are recorded 45 tribes.

In north-western Bangladesh are 35 Adibashi tribes among of whom are the Barman, Koch, Monad, Orion, Sandal, and Rajbangshi, Munda, Paharia, Mahali, Malo, Karmokar, Muriari, Mahato, Rajowar, Gond, Badara, Bhumij, Bhugs, Lohar,Pahari, Muler, Khoira, Tali, Pal, Burma, Beel, Moliok, Khorwar, etc. Then there are the other tribal peoples in north-central and north-eastern Bangladesh, including the Garo (Mandi), Hajong, Khasi and Rakhaing.

Both the Adibashis in the northwest, north central and northeast are referred to as Adibashis of the Plains.

The other 11 tribes are found in the Chittagong Hill Tracts including the Bawm, Chak, Chakma, Khumi, Khyang, Lushai, Marma, Mro, Pangkhua, Tanchangya and Tripura, who are also known as Pahari or Jumma.

Source: Discourses on Policy Perspectives on Land Rights of Adivasis of Northwest Bangladesh, by Gina Dizon, Published by VSOB, April 2008