Cultural Rights of Adivasi Peoples and the Indigenous Roots of Bengali Culture

by Devasish Roy*

from Bangladesh Indigenous Peoples Forum - 2001

Very few will perhaps disagree with me when I say that Bangladesh is blessed with a rich cultural heritage. The richness of Bengali literature, music, and other art forms for example, easily springs to our minds. The vibrancy of Bengali culture Is felt everywhere in the country, not the least, of course, because the vast majority of the population of this country is Bengali-speaking. But the cultural heritage of Bangladesh has been enriched by the languages, traditions, literature, and arts and crafts of various other peoples as well, those whose mother tongue is not Bengali. I will refer to these peoples as Adivasi and include both the "hill" peoples of the Chittagong Hill Tracts, and the Adivasi and other so-called 'tribal" peoples in other parts of the country. Yet, the more visible aspects of mainstream' cultural practices in Bangladesh today are scarcely reflective of this pluri­cultural heritage. Moreover, the indigenous (and plebeian) roots of Bengali culture too seem to be patent]y overshadowed by traditions that originate, or are supposed to originate, from foreign countries.

Let us take the case of the ethnic origin of the Bengali-speaking people of this country. Many Bengali speaking people take pride in an external origin from the west: that they are descended from conquerors or other immigrants from the Arab-speaking countries, or from Iran, or from Northern India, and so forth. No doubt, many people can indeed trace their ancestry from the aforesaid places, but I am sure that far more claim such ancestry than is perhaps warranted by reliable historical evidence. And why is this? Some of my friends suggest that this is so because it is felt that to be able to relate to these cultures gives one a sense of superiority over others since these cultures are supposed to be more civilised than, say cultures that have roots in present-day Bangladesh or in regions to the immediate north, east and southeast of Bangladesh - which are somehow looked upon as 'inferior' or 'less civilised". Thus we see that many take pride in being

tall, of fair or pale complexion, and of having sharp features, supposedly denoting signs or western origins. Similarly, That is why a rauga bou, a bride that is fair or pale in complexion, Is so sought after. (Whatever happened to Tagore's Krasihnakoli, one may wonder.) And of course, if she also has an aquiline' nose (Bengali: baanishir moto nakh) and large eyes (dagor dagor chokhe) and other her elements of 'sharp' features. all the better. On the other hand if someone -especially a woman - is dark-skinned and has features that are closer to those races which are known to some classical (physical) anthropologists as Austroloid, Mongoloid and Dravidian, than that woman will not generally be considered as beautiful as one who has features of races regarded as Indo-Aryan.

But of course, there are many who do not feel inferior of their non-western origins in regarding themselves agree with such a view. and I think that their number is growing. I shall come to that later. Let us first try to understand why certain elements of indigenous cultural heritage are under-valued.

I think that this hangover of an inferiority complex concerning our indigenous roots or origins from our nearby regions (except those to the west), is due mainly to two factors' One is the continuing dominance of writings of historiographers that was, and still is, clearly influenced by official versions of histories written during colonial times. And the second factor is the dominance of what I shall call the patrician or elitist conceptions of history, which can be, and often are, related to the first factor. Such a perspective of history obviously has tremendous influence on various aspects of cultural practices of today. The official versions of our histories have been written largely by the former political elite of the country, whose ancestry was rooted in a foreign country to the west of Bangladesh, or at least supposedly so. Bearing this in mind, it is not at all surprising to note a recurring theme in such writings: a series of invasions from abroad, of the establishment of ruling dynasties from foreign countries, and of the patronage of the language, culture, music, history, traditions and so forth of the people or nation who ruled our country at any given period in history. Let us take the case of the British writers of the colonial period, for example. The British were a conquering nation, and they therefore had a political interest in portraying the history of this subcontinent with an emphasis on the series of invasions by foreigners so that they could say that they were only one among many other foreign invading nations of the past.

In the process the indigenous elements of our cultural history, among others - which was perhaps considered to be too 'plebeian' for our cultural and literary elite (not to mention some of our political leaders as well) - carne to be cast aside to the peripheries outside of the mainstream avenues into the realm of specialised subjects like sociology or anthropology. And here too, the more serious pieces of research work seem to have been done by Europeans, and not Bangladeshi or other South Asian writers. Among the few notable exceptions, we can perhaps recall Suniti Kumar Chatterjee, who has written so eloquently about the Kiratas, who are regarded as the ancestors of the Ahoms and other mongoloid peoples of Bangladesh and the surrounding regions to its west, east and southeast. Another example that springs to my mind is Mahasweta Devi, who has written, and still writes, about the Adivasis of South Asia.

Yet, there are so many aspects of what I shall call Adivasi culture that deserve to be acknowledged: the historical role of these peoples in the struggles against oppressive governments, their contribution to the national economy (past and present), their contribution to the language, arts and crafts of the country and so forth. In fact the heritage of many of these adivasi or indigenous peoples has not only enriched the multi-cultural heritage of our country as a whole but even the culture and heritage of the Bengali-speaking peoples Let me cite a few examples.

Apart from the few people who can genuinely trace their ancestry (or a part of it) from countries to the west of Bangladesh, most Bengali-speaking people both in Bangladesh and in West Bengal in India are known to have traces of adivasi peoples in their ancestry. Classical anthropologists say that the majority of the members of the Bengali race are either of Austro-Mongoloid or Mongolo-Dravidian origin. If this is true, then the average Bengali may well have traces of one or other of such peoples as the Santal, Munda, Oraon, Garo and Rakhine arnong others from the Adivasi groups. Let us also look at the origin 0£ Bengali words. Words that are classed as of Desi or native origin are all those that are not derived from Sanskrit, Persian, Arabic or from modern European languages. No doubt some of these words may be of Prokritic origin. having links with Sanskrit and other Indo-

European groups of languages, but many other Desi words are clearly originated from many Adivasi languages such as Santali. Yet, these facts are seldom acknowledged other than by a handful of linguists and anthropologists. Let us also look at other contributions of the Adivasi peoples to the national heritage. Few perhaps know that one of the most important sources of raw material for the world-famous Bengal muslin was hill cotton from the greater Mymensingh area and from the Chittagong Hill Tracts. Of course, on the other hand, the Adivasi or indigenous peoples too have accepted many elements from the language and culture of the Bengali people, the Santal, Chakma, Rajbangshi and Tripura, being prime examples. Over the centuries many of these peoples no doubt inter-married amongst themselves and with the Bengali people, or with their ancestors, as there is surely no 'pure" race in Bangladesh, as anywhere else in the world. But given the overwhelming influence of our national educational curricula and media of today, although cultural intercourse is no doubt a two-way affair, there is little doubt as to which direction the flow is stronger.

What I have said above might suggest that all our cultural, literary and other leaders have been unduly influenced by elitist and colonialist conceptions of history and culture, but that is not so. Therefore, let me try to make amends by giving justice where it is due. Of course, we also have positive examples of the sort that I have suggested is desirable. We can recall with justified pride, the Bengali Language Movement of the 1950s, for example. And in fact, the Language Movement was to influence the political struggle of the people of Bangladesh in the 1960s as well, leading eventually to the freedom struggle of 1971.

Independence in 1971 led to the adoption of a national constitution that sought to emancipate the toiling masses and to protect the rights of the peasants, workers and the "backward" [sic] section of our citizens. The Constitution also sought to protect and promote the cultural heritage of the people". But at the same time, the Constitution speaks about our "national" culture and language, and gives to Bengali the status of a "state" language. The primacy provided to the Bengali language, culture and heritage is unmistakably clear. Of course, such a development is not at all surprising - or many would say unwarranted - given the nature of this struggle and the sacrifices that were made to resist chauvinistic attempts in the 1940s and 50s to impose Urdu as the sole state language of Pakistan. But today we have an independent country where the Bengali­ speaking people form the overwhelming majority of not only those who are placed at the highest echelons of government, but are also leading the major civil society organisations, and leading the major civic movements for human rights and democracy across the country. Let us therefore pause now and reflect on the situation of those peoples whose mother tongue is not Bengali, and who too played their due role in the anti-British ­colonial movement and in the independence movement of 1971. What of their language. culture and heritage? Since members of these peoples play only a peripheral role in the governance of the country, is it not their culture and heritage which is far more threatened than the language and culture of the more than 120 million Bengali-speaking people of this country? I think we need to reflect deeply and consider whether justice has been given to the Adivasi peoples in the Constitution. The declaration of Islam as the state religion has added to the feelings of insecurity of the Adivasis. Of course, nor national constitution has many worthy provisions, but I humbly suggest that it does not afford adequate protection to the language and culture of the Adivasi peoples of the country.

Let us now look at the culture-related provisions of the recent political accord on the Chittagong Hill Tracts that was signed in 1997. This agreement, and subsequent legislation consequent upon it, has expressly or impliedly recognised (although not constitutionally) that the Hill Tracts is a "tribal" [sic] area and that there is a need to protect and promote the language, culture, etc. these "tribal" [sic] peoples. Of course, this agreement has many defects and shortcomings, e.g., the absence of any constitutional arrangements, the representative rights of women and some of the less numerous indigenous groups, and the use of the word "tribal", among other things. But it does address the matter of Adivasi cultural rights to some extent, and I would like to hope that it will provide a measure of recognition to - and hopefully, protection of - the cultural rights of the hill peoples of the region. But what about the adivasi peoples in other parts of the country? Do they also not deserve at least similar protective measures? Moreover, we also have to consider the question of how far this agreement will be implemented to actually help protect and promote the culture of the hill peoples of this region.

Although legal reforms - constitutional or otherwise - are no doubt necessary in any attempt to protect and promote the cultural rights of Adivasi peoples, in order to effect substantial changes, such legislation will have to be supplanted by pragmatic administrative measures. Moreover, we also need to be aware of the shortcomings of perspectives that are so reductionist that they look upon "culture" in isolation from social, economic political issues. This is especially so when we consider Adivasi societies that are not only socially, economically and politically marginalised, but those whose traditions are rooted witb access to, and control over, land and other natural resources. To give an example, we might spend millions of dollars to establish "cultural" institutes and academies for the Mru people in the Hill Tracts, but if we take away their land and give it to industrialists and entrepreneurs - or even to a government entity like the Forest Department - to use them for raising industry-oriented plantations, we will not only uproot the subsistence base of these forest-dwelling peoples, we will taking away many things which form the basis of their religion, culture and traditions. Many such programmes were started against the wishes of the people of the areas concerned and led to their displacement and impoverisation. And in fact, such developments have occurred in the Hill Tracts in the last few decades and seem to be far from over. But adequate measures are yet to be taken to undo some of these wrongs. Recently, newspaper reports suggest that the government is considering the construction of a multi-purpose dam in Bandarban district. Surely, we do not want to create another fiasco like Kaptai in 1960, which caused the exodus of tens of thousands of refugees to India, for example?

Of course, the Adivasi peoples do have friends among the majority community, but discriminatory attitudes are still widespread. We should try to avoid the two extremes of either looking upon Adivasis as "primitive" and looking at them with "romanticised" notions that see them as "children of nature". No doubt many find Adivasi culture to be "exotic" or "simple" and "frozen in time". Actually, if one were to live among these peoples for a considerable length of time, I am sure that many of their traits would not appear to be either exotic or simple or "primitive". These peoples too have dynamism in their societies, which are far from "static", as many seem to believe. Many of their traditions and practices may then appear to be based upon sheer common sense and rational considerations. And if we are truly respectful

of these peoples and their cultures, we would do well to do more than just admire their "colourful" dresses, songs and dances and keep them as aesthetic "exhibits" for foreign and local tourists, or worse still, merely emphasise on preserving their artifacts and other material objects to be preserved and exhibited in museums and ethnological centres. These peoples are a living part of Bangladeshi society. They have differences as well as similarities with the Bengali people. We should strive to promote the things that bind the Bengali people and these peoples together, but not by trying to make them pseudo Bengalis.

But all is not lost, I think. Let me cite an example related to the classical concept of "beauty" mentioned earlier. If we look at some of the actresses and women models on Bangladesh television, for example, we see many who don't fulfill the criteria of the classical concept of an Indo-Aryan "beauty" (I apologise that I only mention women in this context). Many of these artistes do not have pale skin, or sharp features or long wavy tresses. One well-known Bengali poet of Bangladesh once told me that he was proud to have discovered that his ancestors were adivasis or aboriginals, Santals, in fact. I wish we had more people like him: not people who are necessarily of Santali "stock", but people who are not ashamed of a family lineage that cannot be traced to a western origin. The same also goes for the Bengali language and other aspects of our "national" [sic] culture.

If we are to really take effective measures to protect the multi-cultural heritage of Bangladesh, I feel that we should start by considering amendments to the national constitution to both recognise the cultural identities of the Adivasi peoples and to adopt measures to protect and promote them. To label the adivasi peoples as members of a "backward" [sic] section of citizens is not only disrespectful towards them but it also totally disregards their cultural identities, since "backwardness" connotes a disadvantaged situation with regard to social and economic opportunities only. And surely, the Adivasi peoples' unique identities contain many other features than just their marginal and peripheral situation with regard to social and economic justice. Labeling the Hill Tracts unrest as an "economic" problem did not bear any fruits in bringing peace, as we all know. Recognising the Adivasi peoples in the Constitution will not threaten the integrity of the country; rather, their recognition is more than likely to make them feel a far more "integral" part of Bangladeshi society. And when I say "integration", I mean it in the sense of a positive and substantive role in "mainstream" activities, by keeping their cultural integrity intact, and not my assimilating themselves in an artificial manner. But even if constitutional amendments do take place in the foreseeable future, they must be supplanted with adequate administrative and other measures from a holistic perspective that also gives due regard to the political, social and economic rights of these peoples by providing them a measure of self-government, as appropriate for the various regions of the country.

Prejudicial perspectives play a large role in denying their due cultural and other rights to the Adivasi peoples. And discriminatory nomenclature too plays its role in influencing prejudicial attitudes. The words "tribe" and "tribal", which gained currency among European anthropologists of the 19th century during the heyday of British colonial expansionism, suggested a hierarchical categorisation of nations and peoples based on their level of "civilisational" advancement. with the "tribal" peoples occupying the bottom-most rung of this ladder. These terms necessarily conjure up visions of "uncivilised" and "primitive" peoples, which should therefore no longer be used to refer to peoples that do not accept such nomenclature. I understand that the Bengali equivalent of "tribe" came to be used only after this sub­continent was colonised by European nations. Hitherto there was no Bengali word that distinguished between so-called "tribal" and other peoples. To my knowledge, none of the languages of the Adivasi groups of this country contain any synonym of tribe or tribal. We should therefore avoid the use of this word, both in order to avoid discriminatory practices and to respect the self-determination of the peoples concerned - who reject this appellation when applied to them.

In any event we can take other attempts as well to attempt to remove these tendencies, at least partly. by following - to the extent that is appropriate to our country - the themes set by the International Covenant on Economic. Social and Cultural Rights (ICFSCR). the Convention on the Elimination of Racial Discrimination (CFRD ) and the (which recognizes the right to self-determination of all peoples). the Convention on the Elimination of Racial Discrimination and the ILO Convention on lndigenous and Tribal Populations (Convention 107 of 1957). all of which have been ratified by the Government of Bangladesh. The ICECSR, among others, acknowledges the all "peoples" have the right to self-determination. among other things. The CFRD advocates measures outlawing discrimination based on race, and has in fact influenced various provisions of our national constitution. Convention 107 recognises the individual and collective land rights of indigenous -tribal people- and their right to use their mother tongue. A few small measures could start a trend in the right direction by: (a) taking step to remove discriminatory and incorrect portrayal of Adivasi people and their culture in the national educational curricula. (b) by including write-ups on Adivasi peoples and their culture in a respectful and accurate manner in the national curricula; (c) by providing autonomy to "Tribal" [sic] Cultural Institutes and Academies with adequate funding; (d) by providing necessary training to all government functionaries dealing with policies and programmes that affect the lives and cultures of the peoples concerned; and most importantly; and (e) by promoting their social and economic welfare by recognising their land and resource rights and by giving them a meaningful say in governance at various levels.

I have mentioned that the 1997 Accord on the Hill Tracts has at least partly recognised the need to protect the cultural integrity of the hill peoples of the region. But if the global trend of profit-oriented economic processes are allowed to envelope the economy of the Hill Tracts in an unrestricted manner then there is little doubt that the peripheral and marginalised situation of the hill peoples. especially those living in the "remoter" areas. is bound to deteriorate further. This is because the vast majority of the hill people are economically and socially marginalised. Have little or no access to much capital and have little entrepreneurial experience. It should also be borne in mind that some of the hill peoples of numerically small indigenous groups of the hill region have not been provided adequate and direct representation in the CHT self-government system. Even apart from political representation, if measures are not undertaken to provide them a real say in the governance of the region and in the "development" process. then in the foreseeable future these peoples and their communities may well wither away or migrate to our neighbouring countries (as it has happened in the past). This is as true for the hill Tracts as for the other Adivasi populated regions of the country.

Let me now turn to issues concerning Adivasi women. Although women from most Adivasi or hill peoples of the country face less discrimination with regard to social issues than in the lowlands of the country, they are still a long way away from achieving social and economic justice and in being politically empowered. This is important both for the sake of justice, and because of the fact that in the case of cultural matters, women have in many instances upheld and protected our cultural heritages far more than our menfolk. This applies both to the Adivasi women and to women from the numerically majority peoples and communities of the country.

Although I have painted quite a dreary picture, I would like to end with a positive note. Let us recall with justifiable pride that the Bengali people of this country have set a unique example in the world by successfully protecting their language and culture from foreign aggression as has been recently recognised by the United Nations. No people will perhaps better understand the pains of cultural aggression than them. Therefore, let us hope that cultural activists from the Adivasi peoples will gradually gain more support from the enlightened leaders from the mainstream Bengali community in their just struggle for cultural rights. And that will not only bring all our different peoples a little closer to each other, it is also likely to deepen our sense of pride in the indigenous roots of the cultural heritage of this country, including that of the Bengali-speaking majority.



Bibliography

Ahmed. lmtiaz & Guhathakurta, Meghua (eds.), 1992. SAARC: Beyond State-Centric Cooperation. Academic Puhlishers, Dhaka.

Bandhyopadhyay, Sekhar et al (eds), 1995. Bengal: Communities, Development and States, University Press Ltd, Dhaka

Brauns, Claus-Dieter and Loffier, Lorenz Ci.,

1990. Mru: Hill People on the Border of Bangladesh, Birkhauser Verlag, Basel, Boston, Berlin

Gain, Philip (ed.), 1998. Bangladesh: Land, Forest and Forest People, Society for Environment and Human Development, Dhaka

Hutchinson, R. H. S., 1978. Chittagong HiIl Tracts, Vivek Puhlishing House. Delhi

Jahan, Rounaq (ed), 2000. Bangladesh:Promise and Performance, University Press Limited, Dhaka, 2000.

Mohsin, Amena, 2000. Identitv, Politics and

Hegemony: The Chittagong Hill Tracts, Bangladesh. in 'Identity, Culture and Politics", Vol. 1, No.1, January, 2000, ICES. Dhaka

Qureshi, Mahmud Shah Qureshi (ed.). 1984. Tribal Cultures in Bangladesh, Institute of Bangladesh Studies, Rajshahi University. Rajshahi

Roy, Raja Devasish, 2000. Occupation and economy in Transition: a case study of the

Chittagong Hill Tracts, in Traditionai Occupations of Indigenous and Tribal Peoples: Emerging Trends". ILO, Geneva

Schendel, Willem van, Mey, Wolfgang and Dewan, Aditya Kumar, 2000. The Chittagong

Hill Tracts: living in a border land- White Lotus Press, Bangkok

Timm, Father R. W., 1991. The Adivasi of Bangladesh, Minority Rights Group Report No. 92/1. London

*Raja Devasish Roy

Circle Chief Chkama Circle, CHT, Bangladesh

Source: http://xoomer.virgilio.it/bguizzi/bangladesh/adibasi/culturaladivasi.htm

Share on Google Plus

About Santali Pạrsi