http://www.hrdc.net/sahrdc/hrfquarterly/Jan_march_2002/bangla_hindu.htm
In the weeks following the 1 October 2001 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 had left their homes following attacks by activists of the fundamentalist Jamaat-i-Islami party and had taken shelter in neighbouring Gopalganj district, the electorate of the former Prime Minister Sheikh Hasina. Many others fled to the Indian states 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 60-year-old father and four-month-old daughter. They also attacked and attempted to strip the teacher's two sisters and their mother when they came to the father’s defence.
Dhaka, in a permanent state of denial regarding any influx of minorities into India, took a regrettable approach to the violence. Ministers in the newly sworn-in government characteristically dismissed reports of the attacks as “exaggerated” and “politically motivated.”
The Government's sensitivity to any scrutiny of its treatment of minorities is indicated by the detention of Shahriar 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 was kept in detention and later charged with sedition. He was released after a month in custody on six-month ad-interim bail.
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 had not taken action against those responsible for the attacks on minorities. Earlier, on 24 November 2001, the Court had ordered the Government to explain why it had not taken steps to halt 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 general parleys on security issues. The subject was also raised in the Indian Parliament.
Attacks on Hindus in Bangladesh however 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 what was 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 antithetical to 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 victims of the VPA/EPA.
These estimates, although based on various plausible assumptions, should be considered as sufficiently indicative of the problem.
The Hindu minority has suffered under Governments of both the Awami League and the Bangladesh National Party (see box). Because of the 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 (the 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 of lebensraum has been equally devastating for the indigenous peoples in North East India. As a result of the exodus of Hindus in 1947 to escape 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 the 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. Though, 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. Many refugees tried to enter Tripura from the Chittagong Hill Tracts (CHT) of Bangladesh following large-scale communal violence on 25 June 2001 in which more than 200 houses were gutted. However, within 24 hours, the Border Security Force personnel on the Indian side had 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 of 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. It is also obliged to provide refuge to those fleeing 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 visits by the National Security Advisor are meaningless.
Nor can the issue be resolved by opening the floodgates to millions of Bangladeshi Hindus. The large influx and the connivance of the local administration in Tripura and West Bengal, coupled with New Delhi's tacit approval to the clandestine integration of the Hindus, is only contributing to insurgency in the North East.
It is time New Delhi woke up and addressed the root causes of its own problems.