In recent years, a debate has ensued as to whether one should call non-Bangalis living in Bangladesh as adivasis or "small ethnic groups" (Khudranri-gosthi, as suggested in a recent law).

On the one hand, there are writers and academicians who argue that calling these groups of people adivasis (the term of course has this connotation of autochthony; my emphasis) is wrong. They try to bring in issues of history, usually trying to show that they are like many other recent migrants, coming from adjacent regions to the areas where they are now located in Bangladesh. On the other hand, some argue that these groups of people are distinctly different from the mainstream Bangali people of Bangladesh. They are different in terms of culture, language and religion and are often discriminated by the majoritarian culture and population. This latter group claims that, by definition of the UN and some other international agencies such as the World Bank, they fall into the category of "adivasi"/indigenous etc.  

However, my purpose of writing today has nothing to do with proving any of these sides wrong. Although I admit that there can be various ways to look at this issue, it is not always healthy to resort to a theory of conspiracy when it comes to the question of how we can address the rights of a substantially large group of population who are not necessarily Bangalis but nevertheless are citizens of this country. But this is precisely what I see in many responses on this issue; especially people who do not support the term adivasi or take the official line in this regard, easily fall prey to such conspiracy theories.

I have often wondered what this debate has given to the marginalised population of our country who are not necessarily Bangalis (i.e. for example the Santals, Mundas or Garos). The debate has become elitist and theoretical in nature. One can, of course, bring in current and fashionable theories of ethnicity and identity formation to show that in a way this demand for naming the people adivasi (as a sort of umbrella term for all the different groups of people and ethnicities in Bangladesh who do not call themselves Bangalis) has over the years appealed to the middle class, NGOised subject who want to continue with this term – adivasi - for certain benefits in an international level. When much of the policies we see today are the result of various trans-statal discourses (MDGs, for example), one can always say what's wrong with this demand which is imagined somewhere in New York or Geneva for that matter (often dubbed as the capital of NGOs of the world). One can, of course, say this as long as the "funds" are "flowing."

On the other hand, one can take up the issue in hand more independently. The state can always – to prove its existence if nothing else – say that this definition of adivasi is wrong and hence, exercise its sovereign power. In fact in regard to this particular issue, this is exactly the case where the state is trying to show some of its power and resisting the transnational "indigenous slot."

This debate I must say is not original perse. Some renowned scholars differed on the applicability of this term for Asian countries. The UN has also found it difficult to arrive at a universal definition, which applies to both settler colonies such as the US, Canada and Australia and continents like Asia and Africa.

But it appears to me that down here in Dhaka, people are spending too much time, energy on this debate. No matter what you'd like to call these groups (my personal preference is to call them by their specific ethnonym, i.e. Santals or Mundas), can anyone deny their existence? We all know that there are groups of people and communities in Bangladesh who do not refer themselves as Bangalis but - to name a few groups - Santals, Oraon, Chakmas and by many other groups. These people were born in this country; the ones who have had the opportunity to go to school often were taught in the Bangali education system (since there were no schools in their own language). Often these groups of people are bilingual and at times trilingual (when English is accounted for; in some areas in the northwestern Bangladesh). And of course, the majority of these groups are rooted in the agricultural production of this country

The state of Bangladesh needs to develop concerted policies for these groups of population of the country. The state needs to develop plans for their education; it would be optimum if at least a part of their education was in their mother tongue. It should look into their unique livelihood practices. In areas where it is needed, it should create favourable scopes for affirmative actions for these groups.

Unfortunately, the state of Bangladesh has been criticised for denying these people and communities. NGOs, on the other hand, have constantly blamed the state for not acknowledging their demand. The state must come up with very precise policies for the betterment of the marginalised sections of these populations, for whom naming may not be the only issue. For them, education is important, job creation is important. Continuous efforts to support and restore their livelihood practices are important. I do not see any honest communication between the two debating groups.

It's saddening that over the last many years, we have not been able to clarify this simple thing: that ethnicity and citizenships are two different things. My Chakma friend from Khagrachari is a citizen of Bangladesh (like me) but we have different identities as far as our ethnicity is concerned (I am a Bangali, whereas she is a Chakma). Simply, there is a need for a slot in many forms produced by the state to accommodate this information (for passport or National ID applications etc). A slot for information on ethnicity/ethnic origin where some will write Santal and another will write Garo and someone like me will write Bangali. For this to materialise, one does not need a lot of funding. A clear-headed intervention from the state should be enough!

.....................................................................

The writer is a PhD and an Associate Professor of Anthropology, Jahangirnagar University.