Vested interest: Dhaka legalises dispossession

Hindu minorities in Bangladesh face institutionalised discrimination; the violence is only a symptom

The violence against Hindus and other minorities in Bangladesh is a symptom of institutional discrimination against the minorities. The root of the problem is the Vested Property Act, a reincarnation of the Enemy Properties Act passed by the former Government of East Pakistan. Hundreds of thousands of people belonging to the minority Hindu community, as well as indigenous peoples, have been dispossessed of their properties under the Vested Properties Act.

At the 56th Session of the Commission on Human Rights, SAHRDC submitted a written statement titled “violation of economic, social and cultural rights of the legally identified enemies of Bangladesh.” The statement examined the state of the Hindu minorities and the institutional discrimination faced by them.

The Government of Bangladesh submitted its reply at the 57th Session of the CHR after examining the SAHRDC document. The reply reflects the Government's attitude towards its minorities. The reply stated: “The very title of the SAHRDC statement, “violation of economic, social and cultural rights of the legally identified enemies of Bangladesh” is misleading. There is [sic] no legally identified enemies of Bangladesh, legally or otherwise. The assertion of SAHRDC is baseless and tendentious.

The existence of ‘enemies’ however is implicit in the very title of the‘Enemy Properties Act passed by the then Government of Pakistan and the Enemy Property (continuance of Emergency Provisions) (Repeal) Act, 1974 of the Government of Bangladesh.

The Government of Bangladesh also stated that “[f]ollowing [the] emergence of Bangladesh as an independent and sovereign country in 1971… All the ‘enemy properties’ which were vested in the former Government of East Pakistan were declared as vested in the Government of the People's Republic of Bangladesh (vesting property and assets) order, 1972 (P.O.No. 29/72) and the Enemy Property (continuance of Emergency Provisions) (Repeal) Act, 1974.”

However, the Interim Report of United Nations Special Rapporteur on Religious Intolerance Abdelfattah Amor to the Millennium Session of the General Assembly indicated otherwise. The report that followed Amor's visit to Bangladesh in May 2000 said: “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.”

The definition of ‘enemy’ as provided under the Defence of Pakistan Rules is therefore still applicable in Bangladesh. Under Section 3(b)(i) of the “Enemy Property (Continuance of Emergency Provisions (Repeal) Act 1974, “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.”

Clearly, therefore, Hindus are “legally identified enemies” in Bangladesh.

In its reply, the Government of Bangladesh also stated: “No property of any bonafide Bangladeshi Hindu National has been enlisted as vested property since independence of Bangladesh till date.”

The assertion of the Government of Bangladesh is untrue. The United Nations Special Rapporteur on Religious Intolerance stated in his report: “[T]o this day, interest groups and individuals continue to appropriate property belonging to the Hindu community, and indeed to do so with the complicity of the authorities and of influential people. In a significant number of cases, Hindus are dispossessed of their property, even when they are the legal owners of such assets.”

The Law Ministry of the Government of Bangladesh in a direction issued after the communal riots that followed the demolition of the Babri mosque by Hindu fundamentalists in India in 1992 urged the Government to “determine whether there are other enemy properties.” The order further stated “If the Committees find out [sic] any concealed properties it will investigate into the matter and bring it to the notice of the Government…

On 9 April 2001, the Parliament of Bangladesh passed the Vested Properties Return Act, 2001. It was passed after being referred to the Parliamentary Standing Committee on Ministry of Land for cursory scrutiny. The law was an exercise in political tokenism before the general elections. It also does not adequately address the issue. This is reflected in the UN Special Rapporteur’s report. (see box below)

The Vested Properties Return Act, 2001, is intended to return the vested properties to their original owners. However, in all probability, it will merely serve to legalise the omissions and commissions committed under a patently discriminatory law.

With Dhaka’s consistent refusal to acknowledge the fact of discrimination against its minorities, and in view of its record on ameliorating their condition, it is also highly improbable that a regulation - and a flawed one at that - such as the Vested Properties Return Act will be implemented in the near future.

Special Rapporteur’s report, 9 August 2000

"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... 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.”