Bijhu Nijeni 2011 - MAADI

section of humanity, this is surely disrespectful,
and more importantly, grossly inaccurate,
and hence worthy of being permanently exiled
into oblivion.
For the same reasons, there is every
reason that we shun the term ‘upajati’ as well.
Although the Khudro Nrigoshthhi Sanskritik
Protisthhan Act of 2010 fails to satisfy the
aspirations of those peoples in Bangladesh
who regard themselves as indigenous or
adibashi, it, however, provides, and quite
rightly too, a clear rejection of the term
‘upajati’, which was hitherto attached to the
name of the institutes concerned. This term
should be condemned to the gutters for its
colonialist and racist connotations. May I be
permitted to congratulate the Government
of Bangladesh on this, however much I (and
other citizens) totally disagree with the use
of the term ‘nrigoshthhi’ in this context
(small, medium or large!). The respected
academics who were engaged as experts by
the Ministry of Culture to advise it on the
terminology to be used in the law had unanimously
urged the government to use the term
“adivasi/adibashi” and to refrain from using
other terms such as “upajati” or “nrigoshthhi”
or “nritattik jonogohsthhi”. The use of the
term “upajati” is also dying out in West Bengal
and in Tripura State, India. And Hindi
and Nepali never, thankfully, translated ‘tribe/
tribal’ in this way. The latter two languages
use the term ‘janajati’, which some accept
and some find disparaging too. But surely it
is less objectionable than ‘upajati’.
SMALL ETHNIC GROUPS
While the term “small ethnic groups” may
be preferable to ‘upajati’ or ‘tribe/tribal’, it
too is problematic. In the first place, the indigenous
peoples and the Bengali people are
BB vIyUElt gIEsgIH
2011 BB
both ethnic groups and the ‘smallness’ of the
indigenous peoples (in population?) should
not be the basis to distinguish between the
different ethnic groups because the difference
in the numbers would lead to discrimination
against those with small numbers and promote
discriminatory attitudes among those
with large populations. It is also inaccurate,
because Urdu-speaking Bangladeshis would
also then qualify as a “small ethnic group”.
This would therefore be confusing and imprecise.
MINORITIES
While the term minorities – whether ethnic,
linguistic or religious – could accurately describe
the indigenous groups of Bangladesh,
it is still not as appropriate as indigenous as
a human rights construct. In some respects,
the discrimination that members of indigenous
groups suffer may be similar to that of
non-indigenous members of religious minority
groups (e.g., Christians and Hindus) and
ethnic and linguistic minority groups (e.g.,
urdu-speaking Bangladeshis), but in other
respects the nature of discrimination against
indigenous people is far deeper (on account
of racist attitudes towards indigenous
groups) and grounded in more structural and
historic circumstances unlike in the case of
other minorities groups (indigenous minorities
were totally excluded from modern state
formation and development, while non-indigenous
minorities were not so excluded). Thus
if we look at the UN Declaration on the
Rights of Persons Belonging to National or
Ethnic, Religious, and Linguistic Minorities
(1992), we will see that while this brief instrument
contains several provisions that
address discrimination, such as of the nature
that are suffered by members of indigenous
14 BB