HUMAN RIGHTS FEATURES

(Voice of the Asia-Pacific Human Rights Network)

(A joint initiative of SAHRDC and HRDC)

B-6/6 Safdarjung Enclave Extension, New Delhi 110 029, India

Tel: +91-11-619 2717, 619 2706, 619 1120; Fax: 619 1120

E-mail: hrdc_online@hotmail.com

Home Page: http://www.hrdc.net/sahrdc/

Bangladesh - The Vested Properties Return Act, 2001

On 9 April 2001, the Parliament of Bangladesh passed the Vested Properties Return Act, 2001. In December 1998, the Government had set up a Parliamentary Sub-Committee under the Ministry of Land, to repeal the Vested Property Act and restore vested properties to original owners. The Draft Bill came under severe criticism by civil society.

The ruling Awami League has passed the Bill in haste after it was tabled in the Parliament only on 29 March 2001. It was referred to the Parliamentary Standing Committee on Ministry of Land for cursory scrutiny. As general elections approach, the ruling Awami League is only too aware that the votes of the Hindu minority could be decisive in a closely contested election. The law is an exercise in half-hearted political tokenism. The remedial nature of the Act also confirms the reports of wrongdoing South Asia Human Rights Documentation Centre (SAHRDC) raised last year at the United Nations Commission on Human Rights and concerns expressed by the Special Rapporteur on Religious Intolerance after his visit to Bangladesh in May 2000.

In 1965, after the Indo-Pakistan War, the then Pakistan Government introduced the Enemy Property (Custody and Registration) Order II of 1965. The Defence of Pakistan Rules identified the minority Hindus as enemies and dispossessed them of their properties. After independence from Pakistan, the President of Bangladesh, in Order No. 29 of 1972, changed the nomenclature of the law from the Enemy Properties Act (EPA) to the Vested Property Act. Clause 2 of the Order further stated: “Nothing contained in this Order shall be called in[to] question in any court”. The Order of the President was subsequently not subject to judicial review.

According to the Association for Land Reform and Development (ALRD), an NGO based in Dhaka, the estimated total Hindu households affected has been 1,048,390, and the estimated area of dispossessed land has totalled 1.05 million acres. About 30 percent -- 10 out of every 34 -- of the Hindu households (including those that are categorised as missing households) have been the victims of EPA\VPA. These estimates, although based on some debatable assumptions, should be considered as sufficiently indicative of the gravity of the law’s impact.

South Asia Human Rights Documentation Centre submitted a written statement on the issue contained in document E/CN.4/2000/NGO14 at the 56th Session of the Commission on Human Rights in Geneva in March-April 2000. The Government of Bangladesh has now submitted its Comments on the statement by the South Asia Human Rights Documentation Centre (SAHRDC) contained in document E.CN.4/2001/18 at the ongoing 57th Session of the Commission on Human Rights in Geneva.

The Government of Bangladesh uses language such as “baseless, seemingly tendentious, factually inaccurate” to describe SAHRDC’s written statement. SAHRDC is proud of its credibility including its reputation for reliable and objective human rights documentation. Facts are sacred while comments are free. In our considered view, a closer study of our written statement would have provided for a more constructive debate. If the Government of Bangladesh’s reply to SAHRDC’s written statement is any indication, the status of the Vested Properties Return Act, 2001 is a serious cause for worry.

The Government of Bangladesh in its reply stated “there is no legally identified enemies of Bangladesh, legally or otherwise.” However, “legally identified enemies” are implicit in the very title of the Enemy Properties Act passed by the then Government of Pakistan and in the Enemy Property (Continuance of Emergency Provisions) (Repeal) Act, 1974 of the Government of Bangladesh.

Consider also the following statement of the United Nations Special Rapporteur on Religious Intolerance, Mr. Abdelfattah Amor, in his Interim Report to the Millennium Session of the General Assembly after his visit to Bangladesh from 15-24 May 2000: “After Bangladesh won independence from Pakistan, the President of Bangladesh, in his Order No. 29 of 1972, changed the nomenclature to Vested Property Act, without altering the content of the law.” (A/55/280/Add.2, at para. 31, (9 Aug. 2000)).

Section 3(b)(i) of the “Enemy Property (Continuance of Emergency Provisions) (Repeal) Act, 1974 (Act XLV of 1974) defines “enemy property” and “enemy firms”: “enemy property and enemy firms shall have the same meaning as are respectively assigned to them in the Defence of Pakistan Rules continued in force by the said Ordinance”. Therefore, the definition of “enemy” as provided in the Defence of Pakistan Rules is applicable and “legally identified enemies” do exist in Bangladesh.

The Government of Bangladesh also asserts that “No property of any bonafide Bangladeshi Hindu National has been enlisted as vested property since independence of Bangladesh till date”. The Ain-O-Salish Kendra (Law and Arbitration Centre), a leading Bangladeshi NGO, in its report Power, Safety and the “Minorities”: A Brief Report states: 

In 1999, about 29 cases of forceful occupation of land and property of the Hindu community have been reported in different newspapers. These include their homesteads, farmlands and religious places. Influential political forces and their goons have also occupied many of the properties listed as vested property. In 1999 in the Sunamgonj district out of 21,000 acres of vested property land 16,000 acres have been illegally occupied (Bhorer Kagoj, 17.5.1999); likewise in the Mymensingh district out of 29,722 acres of vested property land, 28,000 acres of land and 300 houses (vested property) have been occupied by one influential person (Bhorer Kagoj, 12.5.1999). People with political backgrounds commit the above - either as members of political parties or as supporters. It matters little if the party is in power or in opposition. Statistics as cited in the ASK Human Rights Report (p.193-194) show that in 1995, 72 per cent of all vested property was acquired by members of Bangladesh National Party (BNP); and in 1998, 44 per cent was acquired by the Awami League and 32 per cent by the BNP.

(The Daily Star, Dhaka, 26 May 2000)

The UN Special Rapporteur on Religious Intolerance has also confirmed this process of appropriation of the lands of the Hindus. The UN Special Rapporteur referred to “the insecurity felt by Hindus, due partly to the Vested Property Act, which was used for the illegal appropriation of their land, especially by Mafia-like groups enjoying political protection.” (A/55/280/Add.2, para. 67).

In its written statement, SAHRDC referred to a specific case:  The property belonging to 61 Hindu minority families in Ashefpur and Chawkjara village of 14 Ashefpur Union and in Ganda Gram of 10 Sultanganj Union under Bogra Sadar Police station were identified as Enemy Properties under the direction of the Law Ministry of Bangladesh Memo No. Bhu, Ma/7-5/Arpita (Nitimala)/117/42 (Angsha)/638 (61) dated 4 November 1993.

In this case, the Government of Bangladesh commented: “The affected persons may also seek redress in the courts of Bangladesh”. This is little solace especially when the wheels of justice move so slowly in Bangladesh. In fact, the Honourable Latifur Rahman, Chief Justice of the Supreme Court of Bangladesh, has repeatedly, openly criticized the slow disposal and heavy backlog of cases. (See, for example, Latifur Rahman, Democracy Cannot Work without Rule of Law, The Daily Star, Dhaka,  4 Jan. 2000). In a recent editorial, the former Foreign Minister and Ambassador of Bangladesh, Mr. Manzoor A Choudhury, applauded the Chief Justice’s candour: “The Chief Justice touched the heart of the matter when he said that one of the most critical problems for our legal system is that of delay in disposal of cases. The vast majority of people who unfortunately seek the protection of law and go to courts for justice would wholeheartedly agree with the Chief Justice”. (Manzoor A Choudhury, “Democracy Cannot Work.....”, The Daily Star, Dhaka, 8 Jan. 2000).

With regard to the specific direction of the Law Ministry SAHRDC raised, the Government of Bangladesh further referred to “wrong enlistment of properties and illegal possession thereof. The verification was not intended to put the Hindu minority community to harassment”. This is factually incorrect. The above order clearly states that it was also to “determine whether there are other enemy properties”. The Order further states “If the Committees find out any concealed properties it will investigate into the matter and bring it to the notice of the Government…..” It was under these clauses that the properties of 61 Hindu minority families were seized.

The Vested Property Return Act does not adequately address the catastrophe. The UN Special Rapporteur on Religious Intolerance raised several criticisms:

It appears, however, that this bill would present serious problems. According to the non-governmental sources, the bill provides that properties legally vested under the ownership of the Government and those declared to be enemy or vested property after 16 February 1969 will not be considered as vested property after the said period. Most Hindu property, however, was declared vested property after that date. The bill also states that the proprietorship status of the vested property will not be challenged if the property was transferred to the Government, a government institution, or to a private individual, has been sold or has been handed over permanently by the Government at the directives of a court. It will not even be possible to challenge such cases in court. According to the non-governmental organizations consulted, these provisions are contrary to the spirit and objectives of the bill. The bill also provides that if the original owners do not submit their ownership documents to a court within 180 days following promulgation of the law, the Government will acquire their property. The Hindu community considers this time period too short. Lastly, the bill provides that in the event of the decease of the original owner, rights of inheritance shall apply in accordance with Hindu religious personal laws. Hindu women would therefore be automatically excluded from inheritance, since Hindu religious personal laws do not accord any rights of inheritance to women.

(A/55/280/Add.2, at para. 33 (9 Aug. 2000)).

The Vested Properties Return Act, 2001 is not only tokenism. It may well be the beginning of legalising the omissions and commissions committed under a patently discriminatory law.

-Human Rights Features

Top / About SAHRDC / Action Alerts / Online Resource Centre / Publications / Home  

All contents copyright © SAHRDC,  B-6/6, Safdarjung Enclave Extension, New Delhi - 110029, India