Successes and failures of UPR mechanism on Bangladesh
The first ever review of Bangladesh under the newly established Universal Periodic Review (UPR) mechanism of the Human Rights Council on 3 February 2009 achieved an important success from the perspective of the indigenous peoples, that is, the assurance of the government of Bangladesh to fully implement the Chittagong Hill Tracts Peace Accord signed in 1997. But there were serious failures as well – particularly the inability to scrutinize Bangladesh for its deplorable treatment of its minorities and indigenous peoples.
The delegation of Bangladesh headed by its Foreign Minister Dr Dipu Moni made forceful defence of Bangladesh’s human rights records and highlighted a series of positive measures Bangladesh has taken to promote human rights of all sections of the Bangladeshi population. But the delegation had little to show in terms of providing rights to the indigenous peoples except that “a separate Ministry had been set up for the tribal communities residing in the Chittagong Hill Tracts”. The Ministry of CHT Affairs was established in July 1998. So, what’s new about it?
Earlier, in its national report (A/ HRC/WG.6/4/BGD/1) submitted on 19 November 2008, the government of Bangladesh painted a rosy picture on the condition of the indigenous peoples and the religious minorities. The report was very economical with the truth regarding the indigenous peoples and the religious minorities. AITPN was one of the few organizations to criticize the National Report of Bangladesh and circulated a follow-up report titled “Bangladesh: Q & A session at the UPR” among the diplomats to facilitate an effective scrutiny of Bangladesh following significant developments in the country since the submission of the National Report.
I. Successes of the UPR process
The UPR mechanism has received skepticism from various quarters from the very beginning on the ground that state members would not be critical to the state party under review. But for the indigenous peoples of CHT there are reasons to cheer about, although Bangladesh escaped scrutiny for the deplorable treatment meted out to the indigenous peoples and minorities. The Outcome Document (A/HRC/11/18) reflected little concern for the indigenous peoples in Bangladesh. But the hallmark of the Outcome Document was the recommendation to Bangladesh to: “Fully implement the Chittagong Hill Tracts Accord as a matter of priority and develop a time frame for its full implementation”.
In reply to the recommendation of Norway and Australia, the government of Bangladesh stated -
“Bangladesh accepts the recommendation, and is in the process of full implementation of the Accord. Most of the provisions of the CHT Peace Accord have already been implemented. The rest will be implemented within the shortest possible time within the framework of the Constitution of Bangladesh.” (A/HRC/11/18/Add.1)
Hence, the most important achievement of the UPR mechanism was the extraction of an assurance from the government of Bangladesh that it would fully implement the CHT Peace Accord “within the shortest possible time”. However, Bangladesh remained non-committal to ratification of ILO No. 169 and investigation into complaints of discrimination against members of religious minorities.
Recommendations and replies of Bangladesh
As expected, most governments refused to be critical of Bangladesh. In fact, they praised Bangladesh’s records and positive measures taken to improve the human rights of all sections of the population, including the indigenous peoples and the religious minorities.Nonetheless, a few important recommendations concerning indigenous peoples were made by some governments. These recommendations and the replies of the government of Bangladesh are given in the Table.
II. Failures of the UPR process
While AITPN wholeheartedly welcomes the recommendation made by Australia and Norway to the government of Bangladesh to take steps to fully implement the CHT Peace Accord and Bangladesh government’s acceptance of this recommendation, there was hardly any discussion on the situation of the indigenous peoples of CHT during the review process.
AITPN raised several critical issues and some of them have been duly reflected in the report of the Summary of the Stakeholders prepared by the OHCHR (A/HRC/WG.6/4/ BGD/3). The issues raised by AITPN Replies of the government of Bangladesh Bangladesh accepts the recommendation, and is in the process of full implementation of the Accord. Most of the provisions of the CHT Peace Accord have already been implemented. The rest will be implemented within the shortest possible time within the framework of the Constitution of Bangladesh. Bangladesh has ratified the ILO indigenous and tribal population convention, 1957 (No-107) in 1972, which covers a number of issues including fundamental rights, land rights, employment, vocational training, health etc of the indigenous and tribal peoples. The convention no 111 on discriminations (employment and occupation) was also ratified by Bangladesh in 1972. Though the Convention no. 169 on indigenous and tribal peoples is not yet ratified by Bangladesh, the tribal peoples of CHT are already enjoying most of provisions enshrined in the ILO convention No. 169 through the implementation of the CHT Peace Accord. Most of the provisions of the Accord have already been implemented. The present government is continuing the process of implementation within the framework of the constitution of the People's Republic of Bangladesh. Recommendation No. 17] The Government does not condone discrimination against anybody on the basis of race, colour, sex, religion, or any other status. Equality for all citizens is guranteed in the constitution, legal provisions as well as State practice. Moreover, positive measures are in place to facilitate access to education, job and other areas for these groups. The present Government is particularly mindful of the welfare of religious minorities. Allegations of any discrimination are being dealt with seriously. and included in the OHCHR’s report included continued presence and expansion of military bases and human rights violations by the army in the Chitagong Hill Tracts (CHT); targeting of the indigenous human rights defenders or those working for the indigenous peoples; attacks on Buddhist temples; exclusion of the indigenous peoples from participation in planning processes and denial of access to decision making; lack of constitutional recognition of indigenous peoples; state policy of grabbing lands of indigenous peoples, including in CHT by army and illegal settlers; denial of rehabilitation to indigenous IDPs while illegal settlers have been provided free rations and other facilities by the government; etc. The government of Bangladesh however escaped scrutiny on these issues.
The reply of the government of Bangladesh that “Most of the provisions of the CHT Peace Accord have already been implemented” while accepting the recommendation to fully implement the CHT Peace Accord is completely false and misleading.
Recommendations concerning IPs/
minorities |
Replies of the government of Bangladesh Recommendation No. 17] |
| “Fully implement the Chittagong Hill Tracts Accord as a matter of priority and develop a time frame for its full implementation” (Norway, Australia) [Recommendation No. 34] |
Bangladesh accepts the recommendation, and is in the process of full
implementation of the Accord. Most of the provisions of the CHT Peace
Accord have already been implemented. The rest will be implemented within the shortest possible time within the framework of the Constitution of Bangladesh. |
| Consider ratifying ILO No. 169 Convention on Indigenous and Tribal Peoples (Mexico) [Recommendation No. 2] |
Bangladesh has ratified the ILO indigenous and tribal population convention, 1957 (No-107) in 1972, which covers a number of issues including fundamental rights, land rights, employment, vocational training, health etc of the indigenous and tribal peoples. The convention no 111 on discriminations (employment and occupation) was also ratified by Bangladesh in 1972. Though the Convention no. 169 on indigenous and tribal peoples is not yet ratified by Bangladesh, the tribal peoples of CHT are already enjoying most of provisions enshrined in the ILO convention No. 169 through the implementation of the CHT Peace Accord. Most of the provisions of the Accord have already been implemented. The present government is continuing the process of implementation within the framework of the constitution of the People's Republic of Bangladesh. |
| Investigate complaints concerning discrimination against members of minority religions, while developing educational and awareness programmes addressing these human rights violations (Holy See) [Recommendation No. 17] |
The Government does not condone discrimination against anybody on the basis of race, colour, sex, religion, or any other status. Equality for all citizens is guranteed in the constitution, legal provisions as well as State practice. Moreover, positive measures are in place to facilitate access to education, job and other areas for these groups. The present Government is particularly mindful of the welfare of religious minorities. Allegations of any discrimination are being dealt with seriously. |
As AITPN in its submission pointed out the CHT Peace Accord of 1997 remained largely unimplemented. The government failed to implement key provisions of the Accord: demilitarisation of CHT, returning back the lands to the original indigenous owners and rehabilitation of returnee Jumma refugees. Neither the CHT Land Commission nor the Task Force for Implementation of the Peace Accord nor the Task Force on Internally Displaced Persons has been functioning. The government has also failed to hold elections in the CHT Regional Council since its establishment in 1998 and the CHT Hill District Councils since 1989.
The CHT continues to remain heavily militarized and the biggest threat for the indigenous peoples today comes from systematic land grabbing both by the army and the illegal setters with the aid of the army. An estimate suggested that during March -November 2007 alone, a total of 399.22 acres of land belonging to 133 Jumma families and a primary school in 14 villages under four Unions of Maischari, Kiang-ghat, Kamalchari and Khagrachari Sadar No.1 under Khagrachari district have been forcibly grabbed by illegal plain settlers. The attack on indigenous Jummas by the illegal plain settlers in Sajek is an “emblematic case of Bangladesh policy in the CHTs”. On 20 April 2008, hundreds of illegal plain settlers attacked seven indigenous Jumma villages of
Surprisingly, these critical issues raised by AITPN did not find place in the Summary of the Stakeholders’ Report prepared by the OHCHR.
The Bangladeshi delegation was totally silent on the rights of the indigenous peoples living in plain areas, outside the CHT. In its National Report, the government of Bangladesh stated “The country hosts many tribal communities that reside in both plain lands and hilly areas”. Yet, as for measures taken for “the development of religious and ethnic minority groups” Foreign Minister Dr Dipu Moni had nothing more to show other than “a separate Ministry” [Ministry of CHT Affairs] set up in 1998. No country raised questions on the conditions of the indigenous peoples residing in plain lands of Bangladesh.
In its submission “Bangladesh: “We want the lands, not the indigenous peoples”, AITPN highlighted the ongoing human rights violations against the indigenous peoples in the plain areas of Bangladesh. The indigenous peoples living in plain areas in mainland Bangladesh faced land grabbing by the mainstream Bengalis as well as the government agencies. AITPN, quoting a survey conducted by Jatiya Adivasi Parishad (National Indigenous Peoples Council) which was released in Dhaka on 10 May 2008, stated that around 1,983 indigenous families in 10 Northwestern districts of Bangladesh have lost 1,748 acres of their ancestral land due to land grabbing including by Forest Department and mainstream Bengalis. Many indigenous leaders were killed including Cholesh Ritchil, a Garo leader, who was killed in custody of the security forces at Khakraid under Modhupur Police Station in Tangail district in March 2007 for protesting against acquisition of indigenous peoples’ land to establish an Eco-Park.
Unfortunately, the Summary of the Stateholders report prepared by the OHCHR failed to reflect the critical issues highlighted by AITPN about the plight of the indigenous peoples living in plain areas in mainland Bangladesh.
The Bangladeshi Foreign Minister, Dr Dipa Moni during the review process stated that the government has ensured “representation of religious and ethnic minorities at all levels of government service, parliament and public life” (A/HRC/11/18, Para 61). This runs contrary to the claims made by AITPN that in plain land Bangladesh, indigenous peoples do not have representations in the Parliament, Upazila Parishad (Subdistrict Council) and in the Union Parishad, the lowest representative body.