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/

Attacks on Hindu Minorities in Bangladesh

The Insurgency Fallout in North East India

In the weeks following the 1 October general elections, Bangladesh witnessed an outburst of systematic attacks on the minority Hindu community across the country, in addition to attacks on activists of the freshly ousted Awami League. By 8 October 2001, at least 30 people had been killed and more than 1,000 others injured. Their houses were torched, ransacked and in many cases seized, women were raped, and temples were desecrated. The Hindu-dominated areas in Barisal, Bhola, Pirojpur, Satkhira, Jessore, Khulna, Kushtia, Jhenidah, Bagerhat, Feni, Tangail, Noakhali, Natore, Bogra, Sirajganj, Munshiganj, Narayanganj, Narsingdi, Brahmanbaria, Gazipur and Chittagong were the worst hit. Many Hindu families have reportedly fled their homes and sought refuge in areas considered ‘safe’. The Bangladesh Observer reported that at least 10,000 people of the minority community from Barisal district ran away from their homes following attacks by activists of the fundamentalist Jamaat-i-Islami party and took shelter in neighbouring Gopalganj district, the electorate of the former Prime Minister Sheikh Hasina.  Many others fled to the Indian State of Tripura and West Bengal.

In one incident on 4 October 2001 at Panchaboti in Narayanganj district, activists of the newly-elected Bangladesh National Party attacked the house of schoolteacher Dilip Mondol. They assaulted Mondol's ailing 60 year old father and his four month old daugher; they attacked and tried to strip the teacher's two sisters and mother when they came to the father's defence.

The new Government took a lame duck approach to the violence. The Government’s sensitivity to any scrutiny of its treatment of minorities is indicated by the recent detention of Shariyar Kabir, an independent documentary filmmaker, under the Special Powers Act, 1974. Kabir, who was returning from Calcutta after investigating the condition of Bangladeshi refugees in India, was detained for being “in possession of documents which can endanger the stability of the country.” Kabir told the BBC that his group, the South Asian Coalition Against Fundamentalism, had collected evidence from the victims who had fled the country, and would publish its findings soon. Despite a demonstration in Dhaka to demand Kabir’s release as well as appeals from rights groups, the journalist is still in detention under an emergency law that provides for detention for up to 90 days.

Meanwhile, on 27 November 2001 the High Court, in response to a petition filed by a rights organisation, ordered the Government to investigate the incidents and submit a report by 15 January 2002. It issued notice to the government as to why it was not tackling those responsible for attacking minorities. Earlier, on 24 November, the Court had ordered the Government to explain why it had not taken steps to stop post-election attacks and harassment of minorities.

The attacks on Hindu minorities drew the attention of the Indian Government led by the Bharatiya Janata Party. Another right-wing ally of the BJP, the Vishwa Hindu Parishad, sought New Delhi’s intervention. The Indian Prime Minister’s Principal Secretary and National Security Advisor Mr Brajesh Mishra subsequently visited Dhaka reportedly to convey India’s concern over the attacks on minorities, in addition to parleying on security issues generally. The issue was also raised in the Indian Parliament.

Attacks on Hindus in Bangladesh are not a new phenomenon. The community has suffered discrimination and harassment since the 1947 Partition of India. In 1965, following 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 in then East Pakistan as enemies and dispossessed them of their properties.

After independence from Pakistan, the President of Bangladesh, Sheikh Mujibur Rahman in his Order No. 29 of 1972 changed the nomenclature from Enemy Properties Act (EPA) to ‘Vested Property Act’ (VPA). The repression of minorities however did not end – this, in spite of the fact that Bangladesh’s liberation war was an antithesis of the 1947 Partition that took place on religious lines. Linguistic and cultural similarities also do not seem to have induced efforts to ensure equal treatment of the country’s Hindu minority.

Rather Clause 2 of the Order stated, “Nothing contained in this Order shall be called in question in any court.” In fact, one of the reasons for Sheikh Mujibur Rahman's continuation of the VPA was the forcible takeover of Hindu-owned lands by Awami League leaders during the Pakistani regime, and opposition to the repeal of the EPA.

The consequences of the continuation of the VPA have been devastating. The Association for Land Reform and Development (ALRD), a Dhaka-based NGO, estimates that a total of 10,48,390 Hindu households have been affected by the Vested Properties Act, and estimates that 1.05 million acres of land have been dispossessed. About 30 percent of the Hindu households (including those that are categorised as missing households) or 10 out of every 34 Hindu households are the victims of the VPA/EPA.  These estimates, although based on various plausible assumptions, should be considered as sufficiently indicative of the gravity of the situation.

The Hindu minority suffers under Governments of both the Awami League and the Bangladesh National Party.  The Ain O Salish Kendra (ASK), a prominent Bangladeshi NGO, in its report ‘Power, Safety and the 'Minorities': A Brief Report” states,  “[i]n 1999, about 29 cases of forceful occupation of land and property of the Hindu community have been reported in different newspapers … In the Sunamgonj district out of 21,000 acres of vested property land 16,000 acres have been illegally occupied; 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… It matters little if the party is in power or in opposition. In 1995, 72 per cent of all vested property was acquired by members of (the) Bangladesh National Party (BNP); and in 1998, 44 per cent was acquired by the Awami League and 32 per cent by the BNP.”

Because of such atrocities, hundreds of thousands of Hindus have fled from Bangladesh and have taken shelter in neighbouring States of India. According to ALRD, “the implementation of Enemy Property Act\Vested Property Act has accelerated the process of mass out‑migration of Hindu population from mid 1960s onward. The estimated size of such out‑migration (missing Hindu population) during 1964‑1991 was 5.3 million, or 538 persons each day since 1964, with as high as 703 persons per day during 1964‑1971. If the above estimates are close to reality, then it would not be an exaggeration to conclude that the Enemy/Vested Property Acts acted as an effective tool for the extermination of Hindu minorities.”

The influx of the Hindu minorities due to the repression of the Muslim majority in Bangladesh and migration of Muslims in search for lebensraum has been equally devastating for the indigenous peoples in the North East India. As a result of the exodus of Hindus 1947 to escape from the communal riots in then East Pakistan and subsequent illegal migration, indigenous Tripuris in the Indian state of Tripura have been reduced from being 70 percent of the population in 1947 to 27 percent today. The insurgency movements in the Indian state of Tripura are directly related to the uncontrolled illegal migration into Tripura, the marginalisation of the indigenous Tripuris and unwillingness of New Delhi and Agartala to take cognisance of the problem. The insurgency led by the United Liberation Front of Assam (ULFA) is also rooted in anti-foreigner agitation in Assam. Although, because of the religious affinity the focus has generally been on migration by Muslims, there is no denying that most Hindus migrate to India permanently due to the insecurity and repression they face in Bangladesh. New Delhi’s silence and tacit approval of Hindu fundamentalist organisations in India have encouraged Hindus to migrate to India, and have forestalled the seeking of a permanent resolution of the status of millions of Hindus in Bangladesh.

Moreover, the reaction of both New Delhi and Hindu fundamentalist organisations to the atrocities on other minorities in Bangladesh has been contemptible. When thousands of Chakma and other tribal minorities from the Chittagong Hill Tracts of Bangladesh sought shelter in India in the mid-1980s, New Delhi made the camp conditions in Tripura insufferable to force them to return to their homeland. Whenever tribal refugees facing massacres sought refuge in India, they were repatriated. When many refugees tried to enter Tripura from the Chittagong Hill Tracts (CHT) of Bangladesh following large-scale communal violence on 25 March 2001 in Ramgarh in which more than 200 houses were gutted, within 24 hours the Border Security Force personnel repatriated 34 Marma families after a flag meeting with the Bangladesh Rifles.  The refugees were not even given temporary shelter.

New Delhi needs to take a pragmatic approach to this problem. While illegal immigration threatening the demographic composition in the North East has to be dealt with, New Delhi cannot overlook the unabated influx of Hindu minorities that also directly contributes to the insurgency problems in the North Eastern region. New Delhi must provide refuge to those who flee because of atrocities at home. At the same time, it should take comprehensive measures to identify the Hindus who fled Bangladesh since 1971 after the signing of the Indira-Mujib Accord and take up the issue of their return with safety and dignity with the Government of Bangladesh. New Delhi must demonstrate its political resolve to take up their plight with Dhaka and find a solution within the framework of international law. Most migrants can provide evidence that can withstand judicial scrutiny to prove their Bangladeshi citizenship and ownership of lands in Bangladesh. Unless, such measures are taken, episodic reactions such as the visit of National Security Advisor are meaningless. Nor can the plight of the Hindu minorities in Bangladesh be resolved by opening the floodgates to millions of Bangladeshi Hindus. This unabated influx and the connivance of the local administration in Tripura and West Bengal, coupled with New Delhi’s tacit approval to clandestinely integrate the Hindus is only contributing to insurgency movements in the North East. It is time New Delhi woke up and addressed the root causes of its own problems.  

-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