Stop Grabbing Jumma Land and Implement CHT Accord

SIGN PETITION

To:

Ms. SHEIK HASINA, Honourable Prime Minister, Government of the People’s Republic of Bangladesh;

Dr. DIPU MONI, Honorable Minister, Foreign Ministry;

Ms. SHAHARA KHATUN, Honorable Minister, Ministry of Home Affairs;

Mr. DIPANKAR TALUKDAR MP, Honorable State Minister, CHT Affairs Ministry; and

Ms. SAJEDA CHOWDHURY, Convenor of CHT Accord Implementation Committee and Deputy Leader of Jatiya Sangsad, Bangladesh.

Honorable Sirs/Mesdames;

Respectfully appealing to your immediate action on the 19-20 February 2010 incidents when massive communal attack on Jumma villages was done by military forces and Bengali settlers at Baghaihat area of Sajek union under Baghaichari upazila in Rangamati district.

In view thereof, we especially ask you to:
Conduct judicial investigation of the incident and to send a parliamentary team to enquiry the incident;

Immediate arrest of Bengali settlers and military personnel responsible for the incident;

Provide compensation for the Jumma victims;

Stop expansion of Bengali settlement in Baghaihat areas:

Return land and homesteads occupied by Bengali settlers to Jumma villagers; and

Withdraw all temporary camps including de facto military rule ‘Operation Uttoran’ as per Chittagong Hill Tracts (CHT) Accord.

Our demands bring us to remember victims of the brutal incident including 6 killed and 25 Jumma villagers wounded in the attack. Five of the dead were identified- Buddhabati Chakma,34, of Uttam Chakma of Baghaihat Gucchagram; Laxmi Bijoy Chakma, 30, of Golakmachara; Liton Chakma,35, of Baibachara, Bana Shanti Chakma,28, of Gangaram Duar; and Nutunjoy Chakma,28,of Golakmachara. Dead bodies are yet to be recovered as the entire area is under the control of the Bengali settlers and army. Around 200 houses of Jumma villagers including a Buddhist temple and church were completely burnt into ashes.

We are reminded of the vicious incident on 19 February when a group Bengali settlers placed pillars on the land of Jumma villagers at Gangaram Duar with intent to construct houses. The Jumma villagers protested and opposed the Bengali settlers. Here, hundreds of Bengali settlers led by leaders of a certain Sama Odhikar Andolon under full protection by a group of army from Baghaihat zone of 8 Bir Bengal set fire on the houses of Jumma villages. At least 35 houses including 7 shops, a church and a UNDP-run village centre, in three Jumma villages of Gangaram Duar, Chaminichara and Baluchara were burnt down.

The villagers fled into the jungle. The villagers returned to their villages the next morning and gathered in Gangaram to protest. The Bengali settlers were armed with sharp weapons, machetes and sticks. Army and Bengali settlers ordered the Jumma villagers to leave the area, but they refused to comply. The Army men beat the Jumma indiscriminately. One Jumma villager chopped an army named Sergeant Rezaul Karim and the army fired leaving him spot dead.

Following this, the army opened fire into the Jumma villagers indiscriminately leaving at least 6 dead and 25 wounded. The army also arrested three persons. Bengali settlers with the help of the Army set fire on Jumma houses at Hajachara, Guchchha Gram, Balughat, Simanachhara, Baipaichhara, Suranganala, Kerekkaba Retkaba, Jarulchhari, Dane Bhaibachhara, Bame Bhaibachhara, MSF Para and Purbapara villages. Another 160 houses were torched. Bengali settlers also burnt Banani Bana Vihar, a Buddhist temple. The monk of the vihara Ven. Purnabas Bhikkhu fled the temple. One statue of Buddha was looted and another given by Thai government was looted. As the arson attacks continued, the indigenous community resisted them and six indigenous persons were injured.

Prior to the incident, Bengali settlers with the support of Baghaihat army zone resumed expansion of their settlement in Sajek area under Baghaichari upazila in Rangamati district January this year. The Jumma villagers under Sajek Bhumi Rakkha Committee, submitted a memorandum to the Baghaichhari UNO on 10 January to return them their lands. The PCJSS also sent a letter to the Home Minister with copy to State Minister of CHT Affairs Ministry and other concerned government authorities demanding to stop the settlement program and to withdraw Bengali settlers from Baghaihat area. However, the government did not take any measure.

The intent to make a Bengali settlement in Sajeck area was known in 2005 when Bangladesh military forces settled the Bengali families along the roadsides of Sajek road from Baghaichari to Gangaram Mukh. Thousands of indigenous Jumma families have been living in this area for decades long. Despite protests from the Jumma villagers, Bengali settlers illegally constructed houses at Gangaram area. On 20 April 2008 the Bengali settlers with the direct support of army of Baghaihat zone attacked 7 villages of Jumma peoples leading to the burning of 76 houses of indigenous villagers.

Considering the above and our corresponding DEMANDS herein cited, we appeal to your immediate action to stop grabbing of Jumma land and ultimately implement the CHT Accord.

For more information, please refer to Parbatya Chattagram Jana Samhati Samiti (PCJSS) site: www.pcjss-cht.org

SIGN PETITION

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

System needed to recover Adivasi land

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.

September 2007


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