Human
Rights analysis
Between
Empire and Nationalism
The
marginalisation of the indigenous people in Bangladesh
Kawser
Ahmed
In
international law as well as other disciplines, the thought
that indigenous people are entitled to a special set of
rights has become incontestable and universal. Admittedly,
discourses purely relating to rights and duties of indigenous
people originated in international legal plane may contain
a kind of unanimity, though the case is not same when
viewed from other disciplines' point of view in the national
plane. For instance, any discourse focusing on legal sociology
of the American Red Indian cannot be meant to qualify
the situation regard to the indigenous people of Bangladesh.
That's why it needs more circumspection in dealing with
issues regarding indigenous people in the national context,
because many important factors situated apparently outside
legal arena may have close link with it, without which
the outcome of the discourse may be misleading. Granted,
the concern of the present article is to identify the
reasons for marginalisation of the indigenous people of
Bangladesh and its solution. But in doing this, we will
go beyond the frontier of law for the sake of a better
discussion and give special emphasis on two other things,
namely Imperialism and Nationalism.
After
a constellation of scholars' effort to put anti-imperialistic
thought in motion, it has become crystal-clear that any
discourse about history of a colonised territory cannot
become complete unless intrusion of imperialism in native
culture is properly pointed out, which Edward Said has
pictured almost exhaustively in his work "Culture
And Imperialism". Similarly as inhabitants of a colonised
territory, this statement goes true for the indigenous
people of Bangladesh because their present condition reveals
that marginalisation of the indigenous people has causal
relationship with earlier empire and latter nationalism
immediately and remotely in a linear flow. To elucidate
the role of empire, the first thing we can mention is
its hegemonic nature. That is to say, imperialism always
imposed its culture on periphery in various direct and
indirect ways to obtain consent of the ruled. In this
endeavour, the various means applied by the empire such
as reshaping physical environment, remoulding ideological
fabric of the native people or legal and administrative
endeavour helped to turn indigenous people a peripheral
entity. Examples may be drawn from literatures of decolonisation
and works of subaltern school of history.
Eventually,
towards the end of imperial era nationalism became a predominating
thought in the political trends since the progressive
members of the majority people were acquainted with western
political ideas through education. But once again, nationalism
failed to patch up the rupture between the indigenous
people and national politics. It happened not for the
reason that the indigenous were lack of western education;
in fact it entailed a problem the root of which lies in
the philosophical idea of nation-state itselfwhich was
impossible for the numerically and geographically inferior
indigenous people to resolve in their favour. Thomas D.
Musgrave in "Self-Determination And National Minorities"
has rightly put it -
"The
concept of nation-state presupposed an exact correlation
in the boundaries of the nation and the state; in reality
this seldom occurred. Whenever it did not occur, so that
some other ethnic group was also encompassed within the
state, tension arose between the majority and indigenous
groups, because the indigenous was ipso facto an alien
element. The indigenous could not join in building the
national character and culture of the dominant people,
nor could its own national aspiration be satisfied."
Accordingly,
the situation after dismantling of British Empire in Indian
sub-continent in 1947 surprisingly conform to the foregoing
statement because the partition of sub-continent into
two separate states, namely India and Pakistan, took place
on the ground of ethno-religious identity with hundreds
of indigenous and religious subgroups in each state's
boundary. What is more, the state of Pakistan was founded
on strong religious nationalism which after 1947 turned
into something not less than what should be exactly called
religious fanaticism. In the following decades, the absence
of constitutional democracy in Pakistan led to gradual
decay of rule of law and paved way for intrusion of despotism
and power politics wherein religion appeared as a conclusive
determinant in socio-political events. So it was certain
that in religious sentiment swayed Pakistani politics,
non-Muslim communities including the indigenous people
would be edged out of the scene and succumbed to bondage
of domination.
On
the other hand, as a reaction to this unjust domination
and exploitation in the name of religion, resistance began
to grow in East-Pakistan against the ruling class in the
form of a rather secular political movement demanding
autonomy finally resulting in a historic liberation war.
After independence, the adoption of the constitution for
the People's Republic of Bangladesh deserves mention for
its bearing on the indigenous issue on two grounds. The
first is undoubtedly Bangalee nationalism, which was then
and there rejected outright by the indigenous people.
The second is incorporation of article-38 to the effect
that "no person shall have the right to form, or
be a member or otherwise take part in the activities of,
any communal or other association or union which in the
name or on the basis of any religion has for its object,
or pursues, a political purpose". The objective of
this proviso was to cause Secularism, one of the fundamental
principles of the state policy to take effect, and thereby
to found a theoretical basis for a secular kind of nationalism
which will entitle anyone from any caste, race or religion
to join political life equally and indiscriminately.
But
during two first martial law regimes, the constitutionalism
and political trend of Bangladesh underwent a considerable
change. The then government effaced the aforementioned
proviso of article-38 by the Second Proclamation Order
No. III of 1976, and subsequently affirmed it by the Constitution
(Fifth Amendment) Act, 1979. By the Proclamations Order
No. I of 1977 Bismillah-Ar-Rahman-Ar-Rahim was inserted
at the beginning of the Constitution. By the same proclamations,
Secularism was replaced by the absolute trust and faith
in the Almighty Allah as a fundamental principle of state
policy. The recognition of Islam as state religion has
completed the circle of de-secularisation [The Constitution
(Eighth Amendment) Act, 1988]. Needless to speak, the
alteration of article-38 and the others were more than
enough to divert the concept of nationalism from secular
way and give way to reintroduction of Islamic fundamentalism
in the political arena of Bangladesh. It is also undeniable
that the reinstatement of Islamic fundamentalism has by
now left enough influence on the political make up of
a section of general populace of Bangladesh. The simple
reason is influence of political regime on human being
is much more penetrating than legal regime. When politics
tries to capitalise on factors which should be left off
to individual's own choice, it gradually becomes synonymous
with extremism and fanaticism which results in purging
of lesser community from national politics by manipulating
state power and public sentiment. To do this an artificial
ethnic barrier is also constantly maintained. In Bangladesh,
the Chittagong Hill Tracts tragedy is a burning example
of this.
Similarly
the marginalisation of the indigenous people in Bangladesh
has chiefly stemmed from their constant absence from the
mainstream national politics. Though apparently this is
attributable to causes like numeric inferiority, weak
economic condition or disempowerment, the fundamentalist
elements in mainstream politics, as discussed earlier
is equally liable. The reinstatement of religion based
politics, inclusion of Bismillah-Ar-Rahman-Ar-Rahim and
Islam as state religion in the Constitution has set out
a trend of Islamic Nationalism, which was further reinforced
by propaganda of some political parties as a means of
achieving political aim. In fact this strategy cuts both
way While labelling people of other creed as the unpatriotic
and unreliable fringe in the eye of the majority Muslim,
it also deploys social force by capitalising people's
religious sentiment to create sharp ethnic schism so as
to inflict on the ethnic minority groups (inclusive of
the indigenous) a mixed feelings of social pressure and
insecurity. The outcome of this situation is very serious
in the first instance history is gradually failing to
work as a connective among different sections of people,
so politics is becoming more fragmented and saturated
with ethno-religious flavour. The second one is even more
alarming the gap between our constitutionalism and politics
is increasing. And if it continues at this pace, the first
one falling prey to this will be the indigenous people.
But
by the last comment it is not intended to mean that law
has no role to play in resolving the present crisis pertaining
to the indigenous people. Rather it must be admitted that
in some cases law is the only solution. Even then there
are certain rights much of whose enjoyment depends on
political attitude and atmosphere. In our Constitution
some of these rights, purely of civil and political nature
have the status of fundamental rights, without whose enjoyment
it is impossible to secure the fundamental aim of the
state that is to realise through a democratic process
a socialist society, free from exploitation in which rule
of law, fundamental human rights and freedom, equality
and justice, political, economic and social shall prevail.
With this end in view, a legal reform with some positive
discrimination may be done, yet it remains doubtful how
far this can serve to eradicate mutual distrust between
the majority and the indigenous flowing from the long
lasting dogmatic political trend. Because no initiative
has properly been taken since the imperial period down
to the present to bridge the gap between the nation and
the indigenous people. Without the help of politics in
prevailing circumstances, it would nearly be impossible
for law to work as an adhesive to fix this crack. So alongside
normative reform, the politics should be absolutely secularised
which will better solve the riddle of nation and its boundary.
The
author has graduated from Department of Law, University
of Dhaka.
