For true and lasting peace in the CHT
Thursday, 20 August 2009
Enayet Rasul Bhuiyan
A peace treaty worthy of its name must be based on reasonable and uniform justice meted out to all the parties involved in it. A treaty superimposed on one side without the wholehearted acceptance of its provisions generally by those included in the other, always remains vulnerable to unraveling from its fundamental flaws of not doing justice proportionately to all the sides in it. Resentments build up among the deprived party or parties and sooner or later the same can lead to an outburst or reaction scuttling the intended objectives of the treaty.
The Chittagong Hill Tracts (CHT) treaty concluded by a previous Awami League led government in 1997 for facilitating the paramount position of the tribal people over this hill region of Bangladesh appears to be a classic example of such a treaty that leaves the seeds of discord and dissension dangerously alive. Ironically, it is called a peace treaty when the attempts for its enforcement would create anything but peace in the region for its very unfair treatment of one of the two sides in it -- the Bengali people who form nearly half of the population of the area but who would be relegated to the position of worse than even third class citizens in their own country politically, economically and administratively from the implementation of this treaty.
Under the terms of the CHT treaty, Bengalis who are over 90 per cent of the population of Bangladesh would lose rights to buying and selling lands in the CHT, not allowed to settle in the CHT or migrate to it, largely taken out of the governmental administration of the region and even disenfranchised in the sense that only a few of them would be allowed to contest for elective offices while the same would be monopolized by the tribal population. The full implementation of the CHT treaty would virtually create another self-governed country like entity for the tribals within Bangladesh. The above curbs on the political, economic and administrative rights on the preponderant Bengali population, on implementation, would be tantamount to most flagrant violation of their basic rights. They would be discriminated against, officially, in their own land of birth and upbringing by a tiny minority. Under the treaty, the tribal population would be made far superior to the Bengalis under governmental protection and promotion. Bengalis would be made subservient to the tribal population in the CHT. But the tribal people would make double gains. They would be supreme and lord over the Bengalis in the CHT while in the rest of Bangladesh they would be at par with Bengalis in enjoying various rights, opportunities and freedoms.
There is probably no other parallel in the world today where the dominant group in the population of a country lost their inalienable basic rights from their government contracting a very unequal treaty with a numerically far smaller group in the population . The government of Bangladesh in 1997 concluded this treaty out of a hope that it would end the armed insurgency in that area. There was, thus, some merits in concluding it. But the point is whether in seeking that gain in ending an insurgency, it has laid the seeds of worse troubles among sections of the ethnically different population of that area.
If the treaty had aimed to protect and promote or preserve the rightful interest of both the tribal population and the Bengalis under one agreement, then it would stand a better chance of being accepted . In its present form, it represents an abject surrender to the tribal population. Whether even the main aim of the treaty, the conclusive end of the Shanti Bahini insurgency has been achieved, is doubtful. According to credible assessments, the Shantbahini only feigned laying down of their arms. They made only token surrenders while retaining the greater part of their arsenal underground. They are also regularly extorting tolls from the Bengali people in the area like always. In all appearances, the Shantibhani would only want to utilize the opportunity of the period after full implementation of the treaty to establish their complete control over the region. After having done that, they would likely seek an opportune time to declare formally their separateness from Bangladesh leaving Bangladesh authorities to challenge them or start a fresh fight with them.
That the CHT treaty has been hardly a pacifier or securer is manifest from the desperate reactions of the Bengalis to the recent decision to withdraw army camps from the area. They are blockading the camps in a bid to stop them from leaving as they fear total insecurity if the army goes away. The Bengalis in the CHT are restive and showing all the signs of an all-out struggle to draw attention to their plight. Thus, anything but peace is being established as this second Awami League government now picks up the threads to implement the treaty signed by its predecessor.
Therefore, the government should take a fresh look at the treaty and go for a dialogue with the tribal representatives with a view to amending and improving it. Such treaties are nothing so inviolable that the same cannot be considered for amendments and improvements to meet the ends of justice and fairplay and in the highest interest of the country. The CHT comprise about one tenth of the total land area of Bangladesh which is too overpopulated and suffers from land scarcity. The CHT also is potentially very rich from the standpoint of natural resources including vital mineral resources. Bangladesh cannot admit any process that would gradually facilitate the process of its separation and eventual breakaway. That would be equal to a cardinal sin like high treason on the part of any authority.
Government's moves to force the Bengalis to abide by a most unfair treaty, will create a backlash in the CHT and create opposition to the same throughout the country, as well, sooner rather than later. So, it is high time to rethink this treaty and take timely steps and government must not feel apologetic or ambivalent in declaring its revised goals decisively in that direction.
Particularly, government is expected to show its mettle against foreign pressure which has played no small role in signing the treaty in the first place in its present very unjust form. An international commission was formed to force Bangladesh into signing such a treaty. A delegation of that commission is currently visiting Bangladesh to keep up its pressure although its visiting members say that they are here only to see what things are being done to implement the treaty. This delegation should be told that Bangladesh reserves the right under international law to protect its territorial integrity and sovereignty over every inch of its territory that includes the CHT. They must be made aware that opposition to the very unfair treaty is fast growing in Bangladesh and the government that has been elected so massively by the people cannot do anything that goes against the expressed wishes of the majority people of this country in relation to this issue.
Members of the international commission who are exclusively pushing the case of the tribal people in the CHT, should realize that they are being only hypocritical in their behavior. They need to recall their own histories of how North America was cleared of its own indigenous Red Indian population to give space to white settlers from Europe. The same process was repeated in Australia and New Zealand where the original population in these two islands, the aborigines, were uprooted and herded into reservations and their lands were grabbed in perpetuity by white settlers from Europe. The foreign votaries of the rights of the tribal people of the CHT need to recall these histories before posing as the unblemished defenders of the latter.
A peace treaty worthy of its name must be based on reasonable and uniform justice meted out to all the parties involved in it. A treaty superimposed on one side without the wholehearted acceptance of its provisions generally by those included in the other, always remains vulnerable to unraveling from its fundamental flaws of not doing justice proportionately to all the sides in it. Resentments build up among the deprived party or parties and sooner or later the same can lead to an outburst or reaction scuttling the intended objectives of the treaty.
The Chittagong Hill Tracts (CHT) treaty concluded by a previous Awami League led government in 1997 for facilitating the paramount position of the tribal people over this hill region of Bangladesh appears to be a classic example of such a treaty that leaves the seeds of discord and dissension dangerously alive. Ironically, it is called a peace treaty when the attempts for its enforcement would create anything but peace in the region for its very unfair treatment of one of the two sides in it -- the Bengali people who form nearly half of the population of the area but who would be relegated to the position of worse than even third class citizens in their own country politically, economically and administratively from the implementation of this treaty.
Under the terms of the CHT treaty, Bengalis who are over 90 per cent of the population of Bangladesh would lose rights to buying and selling lands in the CHT, not allowed to settle in the CHT or migrate to it, largely taken out of the governmental administration of the region and even disenfranchised in the sense that only a few of them would be allowed to contest for elective offices while the same would be monopolized by the tribal population. The full implementation of the CHT treaty would virtually create another self-governed country like entity for the tribals within Bangladesh. The above curbs on the political, economic and administrative rights on the preponderant Bengali population, on implementation, would be tantamount to most flagrant violation of their basic rights. They would be discriminated against, officially, in their own land of birth and upbringing by a tiny minority. Under the treaty, the tribal population would be made far superior to the Bengalis under governmental protection and promotion. Bengalis would be made subservient to the tribal population in the CHT. But the tribal people would make double gains. They would be supreme and lord over the Bengalis in the CHT while in the rest of Bangladesh they would be at par with Bengalis in enjoying various rights, opportunities and freedoms.
There is probably no other parallel in the world today where the dominant group in the population of a country lost their inalienable basic rights from their government contracting a very unequal treaty with a numerically far smaller group in the population . The government of Bangladesh in 1997 concluded this treaty out of a hope that it would end the armed insurgency in that area. There was, thus, some merits in concluding it. But the point is whether in seeking that gain in ending an insurgency, it has laid the seeds of worse troubles among sections of the ethnically different population of that area.
If the treaty had aimed to protect and promote or preserve the rightful interest of both the tribal population and the Bengalis under one agreement, then it would stand a better chance of being accepted . In its present form, it represents an abject surrender to the tribal population. Whether even the main aim of the treaty, the conclusive end of the Shanti Bahini insurgency has been achieved, is doubtful. According to credible assessments, the Shantbahini only feigned laying down of their arms. They made only token surrenders while retaining the greater part of their arsenal underground. They are also regularly extorting tolls from the Bengali people in the area like always. In all appearances, the Shantibhani would only want to utilize the opportunity of the period after full implementation of the treaty to establish their complete control over the region. After having done that, they would likely seek an opportune time to declare formally their separateness from Bangladesh leaving Bangladesh authorities to challenge them or start a fresh fight with them.
That the CHT treaty has been hardly a pacifier or securer is manifest from the desperate reactions of the Bengalis to the recent decision to withdraw army camps from the area. They are blockading the camps in a bid to stop them from leaving as they fear total insecurity if the army goes away. The Bengalis in the CHT are restive and showing all the signs of an all-out struggle to draw attention to their plight. Thus, anything but peace is being established as this second Awami League government now picks up the threads to implement the treaty signed by its predecessor.
Therefore, the government should take a fresh look at the treaty and go for a dialogue with the tribal representatives with a view to amending and improving it. Such treaties are nothing so inviolable that the same cannot be considered for amendments and improvements to meet the ends of justice and fairplay and in the highest interest of the country. The CHT comprise about one tenth of the total land area of Bangladesh which is too overpopulated and suffers from land scarcity. The CHT also is potentially very rich from the standpoint of natural resources including vital mineral resources. Bangladesh cannot admit any process that would gradually facilitate the process of its separation and eventual breakaway. That would be equal to a cardinal sin like high treason on the part of any authority.
Government's moves to force the Bengalis to abide by a most unfair treaty, will create a backlash in the CHT and create opposition to the same throughout the country, as well, sooner rather than later. So, it is high time to rethink this treaty and take timely steps and government must not feel apologetic or ambivalent in declaring its revised goals decisively in that direction.
Particularly, government is expected to show its mettle against foreign pressure which has played no small role in signing the treaty in the first place in its present very unjust form. An international commission was formed to force Bangladesh into signing such a treaty. A delegation of that commission is currently visiting Bangladesh to keep up its pressure although its visiting members say that they are here only to see what things are being done to implement the treaty. This delegation should be told that Bangladesh reserves the right under international law to protect its territorial integrity and sovereignty over every inch of its territory that includes the CHT. They must be made aware that opposition to the very unfair treaty is fast growing in Bangladesh and the government that has been elected so massively by the people cannot do anything that goes against the expressed wishes of the majority people of this country in relation to this issue.
Members of the international commission who are exclusively pushing the case of the tribal people in the CHT, should realize that they are being only hypocritical in their behavior. They need to recall their own histories of how North America was cleared of its own indigenous Red Indian population to give space to white settlers from Europe. The same process was repeated in Australia and New Zealand where the original population in these two islands, the aborigines, were uprooted and herded into reservations and their lands were grabbed in perpetuity by white settlers from Europe. The foreign votaries of the rights of the tribal people of the CHT need to recall these histories before posing as the unblemished defenders of the latter.