¹ These groups, with rough estimates of their numbers in 1981, are Chakma (260,000), Marma (120,000), Tippera (40,000), Tongchengya (25,000), Mru (22,000), Mrung/Riang (10,000), Bawm (7,000), Khumi (3,000), Sak (2,000), Pangkhua (2,000), Khyang (1,500) and Lushai (500). In 1951 there were 26,000 Bengalis in the Chittagong Hill Tracts (or 10% of the total population, up from 2.5% in August 1947), by 1981 about 260,000 (35% of the total population). Recent reports assert that Bengalis now make up about 45% of the population. For an older but most detailed count by mother tongue and religion. see Census of India, 1931.Google ScholarBedrohte Zukunft: Bergvölker in Bangladesh (Zürich: Völkerkundemuseum der Universität Zurich/IWGIA-Lokalgruppe Zürich, 1988), 13;Google ScholarBessaignet, Pierre, Tribesmen of the Chittagong Hill Tracts (Dacca: Asiatic Society of Pakistan, 1958), 4;Google ScholarChakma, P. B., ‘Chittagong Hill Tracts and its Development’, Bangladesh Journal of Buddhist Studies, 3: 1 (05, 1986), 45–6;Google Scholar‘Fresh Influx in Tripura’, Times of India (23 06 1989); 15.Google ScholarCensus of India, 1931—Volume V: Bengal & Sikkim, Part II, Tables (by Porter, A. E.) (Calcutta: Central Publication Branch, 1933), 194, 197.Google Scholar

² Cf.Royce, Anya Peterson, Ethnic Identity: Strategies of Diversity (Bloomington: Indiana University Press, 1982), 17–33.Google Scholar

³ For over 120 years it was administered as the Chittagong Hill Tracts District; in 1983 this district was split into the Khagrachari Hill District, the Rangamati Hill District, and the Bandarban Hill District.Google Scholar

⁴ Lewin, T. H., Wild Races of the Eastern Frontier of India (Delhi: Mittal Publications, 1984 [originally published in 1870]), 73.Google Scholar

⁵ In the precolonial period both raw cotton and hill textiles were exported from the port of Chittagong. Qanungo, Suniti Bhushan, A History of Chittagong, Volume One (From Ancient Times Down to 1761) (Chittagong: Signet Library, 1988), 615.Google ScholarSerajuddin, A. M., ‘The Origin of the Rajas of the Chittagong Hill Tracts and their Relations with the Mughuls and the East India Company in the Eighteenth Century’, Journal of the Pakistan Historical Society 19:1 (01. 1971), 51–60.Google Scholar

⁶ ‘An account of a Journey undertaken by Order of the Board of Trade through the Provinces of Chittagong and Tiperah, in order to look out for the places most proper for the cultivation of Spices, by Buchanan, Francis, M.D.’ (Manuscript (1798), British Library ADD 19286) (hereafter: Buchanan). I am grateful to Richard Eaton for drawing my attention to this manuscript and to Francis Rolt for providing me with a copy.Google Scholar

⁷ This group was commonly known as ‘Joomea (Mogs)’ to the Bengalis of the plain, but their leader Kaung-la Pru [Kong Hla Phru] explained that ‘the proper name of the Joomeas is Ma-ra-ma, and that they have resided in this Country from time immemorial’. (Buchanan, , 91).Google Scholar

⁸ ‘I found that the men, except a few words, understood no other language [than Bengali]. They say that they are the same with the Sak of Roang or Arakan: that originally they came from that country; and that on account of their having lost their native language, and not having properly aquired the Bengalese, they are commonly called in ridicule Doobadse. They call themselves Saksa, which word corrupted has, I suppose, given rise to their Bengalese name Sagma or Chakma. From the few words of their native language, which they retain, it is evidently a dialect of the Burma, nearly the same with that of Arakan. Their religion is that of Godama, corrupted by their having adopted many Braminical superstitions, and especially bloody sacrifices to the Devtas.’Google Scholaribid., 114). ‘A priest, who assumed the name of Poun-do-gye or Great royal virtue, informed me, that the Chakmas have in general forgot the Roang language: but that it is the dialect spoken by the Sak-mee, who still live in Arakan. The books, which this priest has, are written both in the Roang character and dialect.’Google Scholar (ibid., 121).

⁹ ‘They call themselves Mo-roo-sa…They said they knew no God (Takoor), and that they never prayed to Maha-moony, Ram, nor Khooda … their native tongue has some affinity to that of the Burmas.’Google Scholar (ibid., 67–8. Cf. 97).

¹⁰ Buchanan was unable to interview Bawm and had only second-hand information on them: ‘the Bonjoogies are by the Rakain [= Arakanese] and the Joomeas [=Marma] called Bon-zu…They have a number of slaves, originally prisoners of war: and many Lan-ga have settled among them, and are subject to their Prince.’Google Scholar (ibid., 91, 92). ‘The chief of the Bonjoogies, as I am told here, is by the Chakmas called Tai-koup. His subjects are said to be numerous, and to consist of two tribes, the Bon-zu, and Loo-sai. From the head of every family in his dominions Tai-koup receives an annual tribute of one basket of rice, and one piece of cotton cloth.’Google Scholar (ibid., 123).

¹¹ ‘Their language has some affinity to the Burma: but they did not seem to understand the Ma-ra-ma dialect, a proof perhaps of their not having been long dependent on Kaung-la-pru. They name their own tribe Zou. By the Ma-ra-mas they are named Lang-ga, which by the Bengalese is corrupted into Lingta. By the Bengalese they are commonly called Koongky, which we have corrupted into Kooky, or as it is written in the Asiatic Researches Cuci.’Google Scholar (ibid., 98–9) Other ‘rude tribes’ that Buchanan heard about include Khumi (Hkwe-myi), Shein-du, Hkyaw and Kaungme. (ibid., 41, 68; cf. 123, 139a).

¹² Again, Buchanan did not meet any Sak personally. He writes about ‘a people, whom they [= the Chakma] name Sak, and the Bengalese name Chak. These people are evidently the Thaek of the Burmas.’ ‘In order to distinguish the Sak settled here, from those called Sak-mee, who still live in Arakan, the [Chakma] priest calls them Moishang Sak.’Google Scholar (ibid., 56, 121).

¹³ Buchanan's references to this group, which he could not meet personally, are confusing in the light of later reports. He is evidently talking about the Mrung, a group closely related to the Tippera, but also refers to ‘Deinea’, apparently a form of the word ‘Doingnak’, which was later used for a group in Arakan as well as for the Tongchengya of the Chittagong hills who, according to later reports, split off from the Chakmas in 1782Google Scholar (Lewin, , Wild Races, 164–5, cf. 182–3). There is no mention of ‘Tongchengya’ in Buchanan's manuscript. Were ‘Doingnak’ and ‘Mroung’ a single group? Or did Buchanan lump two groups together? He was told: ‘The Tiperah and the Mroung…dress alike, and speak the same language. From some circumstance in collecting the revenue these Mroungs are frequently called Wa-thé Mroo. From some similar circumstance the Mroo proper [Mru] are called Lay Mroo…It is to be observed that both Mroo and Mroung are by the Bengalese called Moroong. To distinguish the last mentioned tribe from the Mroo they are often called Deinea Moroong.’Google Scholar (Buchanan, , 78, 79; cf. 81).Google Scholar [The Marma leader Kaung-la Pru said that] ‘the Mroung and Tiperah dress in the same manner, and speak Dialects of the same language, having to each other as great an affinity as the Burmas and the Rakain [= Arakanese] have.’ (ibid., 91). ‘The Mroung wear their hair tied in a knot on the nape of the neck, by which they may easily be distinguished from the Mo-roo [Mru], who wear their knot of hair on the forehead.’ (ibid., 70; cf. 68, 75).

¹⁴ ‘The tribe named Tiperah, Tipperah, or Teura.’ The Dewan, or Minister, of the Tippera Raja told him, ‘that the Tiperah, Reang, and Alynagur, are of the same nation, and speak dialects of the same language. The different names arise from the places they inhabit.’ (ibid., 35, 164).

¹⁵ E.g. Marma, and Sak, , Marma and Bawm, Mru and ArakaneseGoogle Scholar, ibid., 62, 67, 90, 104.

¹⁶ E.g. Chakma keeping Tippera debt peons, and Bawm keeping Lang-ga debt peons/prisoners of war,Google Scholaribid., 98, 115.

¹⁷ The Marma leader Kaung-la Pru had: ‘about twenty Hindoo Servants, and still more Mohammedans, his Dewan or Minister being of that Religion. The domestic who takes care of his table is a Rajbunjee [= Barua, a Buddhist Bengali].’ Even a minor Marma chief entitled Umpry Palong had two Bengali servants. Taubboka [Tabar Khan], the Chakma leader, also had Bengali servants, and a Tippera boy was reported to serve a Chakma monkGoogle Scholar (ibid., 63, 93, 120, 122).

¹⁸ Pru, Kaung-la, the Po-mang-gre (‘Great Captain’) of the Marma, ruled over Marma, Mru, Mroung, Tipera and Lang-ga subjects who paid him tributeGoogle Scholar (ibid., 34–5, 39, 67–8, 70, 75 (insert), 81, 98, 101). The minor Marma chief ‘Umpry Palong’ received tribute from Marma and s Sak (62). The independent Marma chief Agunnea (Bunnea) received tribute from Marma and Bawm (90).

Taubboka [Tabar Khan], the Chakma Mang (which Buchanan translates in English with ‘Prince’ and in Bengali with ‘Raja’—and renders in Burmese script as min (= ‘min, ruler)), had Chakma, Koongky and Bengali subjects in the Chittagong hills; he was also a zamindar in parts of the Rangunia region in the plains, where he had his main residence and received tribute from Bengali and Barua subjects (108–9, 120–1, 142–3, 144–5). The Ta-kang (‘Prince’; also Mang or Raja) of the Bawm received tribute from Bawm, , Lushai, and Lang-ga, (69, 90–2, 123, 136–7).Google Scholar

¹⁹ Macrae, John, ‘Account of the Kookies or Lunctas’, Asiatick Researches, 8:5 (1801), 184.Google ScholarCf.Rawlins, John, ‘On the Manners, Religion, and Laws of the Cúcì's, or Mountaineers of Tipra’, Asiatick Researches, 2:12 (1790), 187–93.Google Scholar

²⁰ Lewin, , Wild Races, 73. Forty years later Hutchinson, who described the inhabitants of the Chittagong hills as ‘more or less savages’, concurred: ‘The Bengali of the plain divides the inhabitants into two classes. Those able to understand the vernacular of Bengal are designated as Jumiyas, while the others are distinguished as Kukies.’ The ‘Kookies’, whose ethnic identities long remained a puzzle to British and Bengalis alike, were sometimes subdivided on practical grounds. According to a report of 1862 they, ‘are locally known and divided by two general names, as “Mela” (friendly) and “Ghyr Mela” (unfriendly). The former may be roughly said to live to the West of a line drawn North and South from Burkal: the latter live to the East of that line.’Google ScholarHutchinson, R. H. Sneyd, Eastern Bengal and Assam District Gazetteers: Chittagong Hill Tracts (Allahabad: Pioneer Press, 1909), 14. Government of Bengal, Judicial Department, Political Branch, Proceedings 226–7 (04 1862).Google Scholar

²¹ Cf. Francis Buchanan's remark: ‘I find, that the appellation of Mug is given by the people of this province [= Bengal] to all the Tribes, and nations, east from Bengal, who as differing from the Hindoos, and Mussulmans, are considered as having no Cast, and as therefore being highly contemptible.’ (28; cf. 56).Google Scholar

The term also was, and continues to be, used more specifically but confusingly to refer to the following distinct groups; Arakanese (or Rahkain or Rakhine), Marma, and Barua. Sometimes these were distinguished by labels such as ‘Jhumia Mughs’, ‘Roang Mughs’, ‘Inland Mughs’, ‘Hill Mughs’, and ‘Barua Mughs’, but these labels were not used consistently. Cf.Lewin, and East Pakistan District Gazetteers. The derivation of the word is unknown, and various explanations have been put forward—the most fanciful no doubt being Pogson's suggestion that Maghs are Magi, hence Jews. For other conjecturesGoogle Scholar, see Risley, , Ghosh, , and Bernot, . Lewin, , Wild Races, 95–6, 302;Google ScholarEast Pakistan District Gazetteers: Chittagong (Dacca: East Pakistan Government Press, 1970), 114–17.Google ScholarCaptain Pogson's Narrative during a Tour to Chateegaon, 1831 (Serampur: Serampore Press, 1831), 70;Google ScholarRisley, H. H., The Tribes and Castes of Bengal: Ethnographic Glossary (Calcutta: Firma Mukhopadhyay, 1981 [orig. 1891]), vol. I, 28–9;Google ScholarGhosh, Jamini Mohan, Magh Raiders in Bengal (Calcutta, etc.: Bookland, 1960), 17–25;Google ScholarBernot, Lucien, Les paysans arakanais du Pakistan Oriental: l'histoire, le monde végétal et l'organisation sociale des réfugiés Marma (Mog) (Paris/The Hague: Mouton, 1967), vol. I, 49–54.Google Scholar

²² Lewin, T. H., The Hill Tracts of Chittagong and the Dwellers Therein, with Comparative Vocabularies of the Hill Dialects (Calcutta: Bengal Printing Company, Ltd., 1869);Google ScholarLewin, , Wild Races;Google ScholarHutchinson, R. H. Sneyd, An Account of the Chittagong Hill Tracts (Calcutta: Bengal Secretariat Book Depôt, 1906);Google ScholarMills, J. P., ‘Report on the Chiefs of the Chittagong Hill Tracts’ and ‘Proposals Regarding the Chiefs’ (typescripts, 1927);Google ScholarMills, J. P., ‘Notes on a Tour in the Chittagong Hill Tracts in 1926’, in Census of India, 1931, Volume V: Bengal & Sikkim, Appendix II, 514–21.Google ScholarSee also the travel account by Riebeck, Emil, Die Hügelstäme von Chittagong: Ergebnisse einer Reise im Jahre 1882 (Berlin, 1885).Google Scholar

²³ E.g. Löffler, G. Lorenz, ‘Chakma und Sak: Ethnolinguistische Beiträge zur Geschichte eines Kulturvolkes’, Internationales Archiv der Ethnographic, 50, (1964), 72–115;Google ScholarLöffler, G. Lorenz, ‘L'Alliance asymétrique chez les Mru (Pakistan oriental)’, L'Homme, 6:3 (1966), 68–80;CrossRefGoogle ScholarBrauns, Claus-Dieter and Löffler, G. Lorenz, Mru: Bergbewohner im Grenzgebiet von Bangladesh (Basel/Stuttgart: Birkhäuser, 1986);CrossRefGoogle ScholarSpielmann, HansJürgen, Die Bawm-Zo: eine Chin-Gruppe in den Chittagong Hill Tracts (Ostpakistan) (Heidelberg;: Südasien-Institut, 1968);Google ScholarMey, Almut, Untersuchungen zur Wirtschaft in den Chittagong Hill Tracts (Bangladesh) (Bremen: Uebersee-Museum, 1979);Google ScholarMey, Wolfgang, Politische Systeme in den Chittagong Hill Tracts, Bangla Desh (Bremen: Uebersee-Museum, 1980).Google Scholar

²⁴ The special status of the Chittagong hills was abolished in 1964 and the hills were officially closed to outsiders in that year but some anthropological research could be carried on till 1971. See Brauns and Löffler, Introduction.Google Scholar

²⁵ Lévi-Strauss, Claude, ‘Le syncrétisme religieux dans un village mog du territoire Chittagong’, Revue de l'Histoire des Religions, 141:2 (1952), 202–37;CrossRefGoogle ScholarBessaignet, Pierre, Tribesmen of the Chittagong Hill Tracts (Dacca: Asiatic Society of Pakistan, 1958);Google ScholarBernot, Denise and Bernot, Lucien, Les Khyang des collines de Chittagong (Pakistan oriental): Matériaux pour l'étude linguistique des Chin (Paris: Mouton, 1958);Google ScholarBernot, Lucien, Les paysans arakanais, 2 vols;Google ScholarBernot, Lucien, Les Cak: contribution à l'étude ethnographique d'une population de langue loi (Paris/The Hague: Mouton, 1967);Google ScholarSopher, E. David, ‘Population Dislocation in the Chittagong Hills’, Geographical Review, 53 (1963), 337–62;CrossRefGoogle ScholarSopher, E. David, ‘The Swidden/Wet-Rice Transition Zone in the Chittagong Hills’, Annals of the Association of American Geographers, 54:1 (1964), 107–26.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

²⁶ Rosén-Hockersmith, Eva, Buddhismen i Bangladesh: En studie av en minoritetsreligion (Uppsala: Religionshistoriska institutionen vid Uppsala universitet, 1985).Google Scholar

²⁷ For an overview, see Qureshi, Mahmud Shah (ed.), Tribal Cultures in Bangladesh (Rajshahi: Institute of Bangladesh Studies, Rajshahi University, 1984).Google Scholar

²⁸ The first Department of Anthropology was established at Jahangirnagar University in the early 1980s.Google Scholar

²⁹ Mey has done the most extensive work on the colonial period; he based himself on annual administration reports and published selections of records. Mey, Wolfgang, Politische Systeme, 5.Google ScholarSee Serajuddin, , ‘The Origin of the Rajas’, 122–9.Google Scholar

³⁰ For example, in 1879 the area beyond the eastern boundary of British India was described as: ‘a large area of mountainous and forest land inhabited by tribes who, paying no tribute to, and independent of, the British Government, revel in a state of almost unrestrained barbarism.’ (Administration Report on the Hill Tracts, Northern Arakan for the Year 1877–78 (Rangoon: Government Press, 1879), 6).Google Scholar

³¹ Cf.Heesterman, J. C., The Inner Conflict of Tradition: Essays in Indian Ritual, Kingship, and Society (Chicago and London: University of Chicago Press, 1985), 118, 170–1.Google Scholar

³² Cf.Sahlins, M., Tribesmen (Englewood Cliffs, N.J.: Prentice-Hall, 1968);Google ScholarFried, M. H., The Notion of Tribe (Menlo Park, Cal.: Cummings Publishing Company, 1975);Google ScholarBéteille, André, ‘The Definition of Tribe’, in: Thapar, Romesh (ed.), Tribe, Caste and Religion in India (Delhi: Macmillan, 1977), 7–14.Google Scholar

³³ Cf.Mazumder, Begum Ismat Ara, ‘Kaptai—Coexistence of Civilized and Tribal People’, in ‘Chittagong Hill Tracts: An Observer Supplement’, The Bangladesh Observer (12 November 1985), 7–8; and the quotations inGoogle ScholarMey, Wolfgang, ‘“Es ist verboten, die Chittagong Hill Tracts zu betreten”: Siedlungsgebiete der CHT-Völker’, in Mey, Wolfgang (ed.), ‘Wir wollen nicht euch—Wir wollen euer Land’: Macht und Menschenrechte in den Chittagong Hill Tracts/Bangladesch (Göttingen and Vienna: Pogrom Taschenbücher, 1988), 32–6.Google Scholar

³⁴ Such representations of the ‘tribe’ are based on the presumption that all tribes share characteristics that are fundamentally different from, even opposite to, those of civilized people. Principal among these are ‘childish’ qualities that betray a lack of socialization: immoderately emotional behaviour (revelry, sensuality, extravagance, cruelty, fear of the supernatural) and naïvety (credulity, incapacity to plan for the future). This discourse may be referred to as ‘tribalist’ because of its similarities to the Orientalist representation of ‘the Orient’. Cf.Said, Edward, Orientalism (New York: Vintage Books, 1979).Google Scholar

³⁵ Sattar, Abdus, Tribal Culture in Bangladesh (Dacca: Muktadhara, 1975), 6–7.Google Scholar

³⁶ Ibid., 4.

³⁷ Ibid., 7.

³⁸ Sattar, Abdus, In the Sylvan Shadows (Dacca: Saquib Brothers, 1971), 4.Google Scholar

³⁹ The term is taken from Wolf. It goes without saying that other views are also expressed among Bengalis in Bangladesh; but these are rarely heard, have little or no influence on national policy, and appear to be restricted largely to the academic community. Even in the most vocal collection of these counter-views to date (Qureshi (ed.), Tribal Cultures) the ‘dominant view’ manages to reassert itself occasionally. Cf. Mazumder's article, and Mey's experience in 1968: ‘Again and again I was told, even by educated Bengalis: “They are savages; they are still living in the stone age. They do not know plough cultivation and are underdeveloped.”’ Wolf, R. Eric, Europe and the People without History (Berkeley: University of California Press, 1982);Google ScholarMazumder, , ‘Kaptai’; Wolfgang Mey, ‘Es ist verboten’, 35 (my translation).Google Scholar

⁴⁰ But see Bernot's critical remarks about this popular notion. Bernot, , Les paysans arakanais, 41–2.Google Scholar

⁴¹ Buchanan, , who translates Mang as ‘Prince’, states that the titles Ta-kang and Po-mang, too, ‘are titles analogous to our term Prince: and are the Rakain [Arakanese] pronunciation of [tha-hkyin] and [min], the Burma titles for the sons of their King, and bestowed also upon Officers of high rank.’ (91).Google Scholar

⁴² Bernot, , Les paysans arakanais, 84, 86–7.Google Scholar

⁴³ Cf.Buchanan, , 119–21. For the suffix ‘khan’Google Scholar, see Serajuddin, ‘Origin of Rajas’, 51–60.Google Scholar

⁴⁴ Many Bengalis claim roots in more western parts of South Asia or even in West Asia because such ‘western’ connections are considered prestigious. Nineteenth-century Chakmas’ claim to be descendants of Ksattriya migrants from ‘Champa(k)nagar’, thought to be in north India, can be interpreted as an effort at both Sanskritization and Bengalization. As we have seen, Buchanan (114) recorded the story of an Arakanese origin which was also suggested by the Qanungo's, Chittagong report in Govt of Bengal, Procs of Committee of Rev., 6 May 1784, cited in Serajuddin, ‘Origin of Rajas’, 52ff, and quoted partly inGoogle ScholarSerajuddin, A. M., ‘The Chakma Tribe of the Chittagong Hill Tracts in the 18th Century’, J. of the Royal Asiatic Soc. of Gt Britain and Ireland I (1984), 95–7.Google ScholarThe Champanagar story was first recorded in Lewin, , The Hill Tracts, 62–3; cf. Lewin, Wild Races, 170;Google ScholarMills, J. P., ‘Notes on a Tour’; Bessaignet, Tribesmen of the Chittagong Hill Tracts, 88ff;Google ScholarAli, Syed Murtaza, ‘Hill Tribes of Chittagong’, in: East Pakistan: A Profile (Dacca: Orient Longmans, 1962), 227–8.Google ScholarFor a critique, see Mey, Wolfgang, Politische Systeme, 38–43; and Serajuddin, ‘The Chakma Tribe’, 90–8.Google Scholar

⁴⁵ This development on the borders of British-controlled areas in Bengal and Lower Burma, is likely to have been related to dislocations of old trade routes. Standard explanations refer mostly to possible population expansion in the ChinLushai hills, but the connection with colonial state formation and trade should not be overlooked. For a capsule history of the Chins, see Bernot, and Bernot, Les Khyangs, 7–14. Cf. footnote 101.Google Scholar

⁴⁶ Only ‘Hill Tippera’, present-day Tripura, was an exception. It was given a special status as a Princely State in communication with the Government of Bengal.Google Scholar

⁴⁷ The precolonial Burmese state relied heavily on surplus extraction by means of non-territorial ‘crown service groups’ (ahmudan). Cf.Furnivall, John S., An Introduction to the Political Economy of Burma (Rangoon: People's Literature Committee & House, 1957), 28–41.Google Scholar

⁴⁸ Government of Bengal, Judicial Department, Political Branch, Proceedings 22–3 (September 1876), ‘Report on the Administration of the Chittagong Hill Tracts for 1875–76’, 30.Google Scholar

⁴⁹ Mey, , Politische Systeme, analyzes this change at length. In addition to the three chiefs, there were at first, ‘several petty Chiefs holding settlements in the Hills of new settlers, chiefly consisting of deserters from Independent Tipperah, under the local name of Noabad Kapass Mehals…’. Government of Bengal, Judicial Department, Political Branch, Proceeding 226 (April 1862).Google Scholar

⁵⁰ A most eloquent advocate was Lewin, (1869): ‘They [= the chiefs] are on the spot, and have enormous local influence, and in my humble opinion they are the legitimate instruments of rule placed ready to our hand. I would subordinate them in every way to our authority. Let them be guided or checked as need be, but within their own limits I would have their authority paramount.’ (emphasis in original)Google Scholar(Government of Bengal, Political Department, Political Branch, Proceedings 100–1 (May 1917), Appendix A; ‘References regarding the position of the Hill Tracts Chiefs’). Cf. the instructions of the Government of Bengal in 1860, quoted in Lewin, Wild Races, 63.Google Scholar

⁵¹ In 1874 the government decided to confer on the new Chakma chief, Chandra, Harish (ruled 1873–1885), the title of ‘Raja’ in order to underline his dependence on ‘the pleasure of the paramount authority’. But it was not deemed ‘desirable that any representative of Government should take part in the ceremonies incident on installation to the guddi [throne]; that would, I think, be assigning undue importance to the matter.’ In the event, the Deputy Commissioner at Rangamati presented the Chakma chief with a sanad (deed of grant) and a khilat (dress of investiture) in return for a nazar (ceremonial present), but did not take part in further ceremonies. The sanad read: ‘Fort William 24–3–1874–In recognition of your position as the head of the Chukma tribe in the Chittagong Hill Tracts, I hereby confer upon you the title of ‘Raja” for your life,—Northbrook.’Google ScholarGovernment of Bengal, Judicial Department, Political Branch, Proceedings 15–17 (February02 1874) and Proceeding 3 (April 1874). On the history of the Chakma chief's familyGoogle Scholar, see Lewin, , Wild Races, 162–3; Ali, ‘Hill Tribes’, 229; Wolfgang Mey, Politische Systeme.Google Scholar

⁵² Government of Bengal, Political Department, Political Branch, Proceedings 1–2 (June 1918), ‘Issue of a warning to the Mong Chief, Chittagong Hill Tracts, for dereliction of duty’.Google Scholar

⁵³ As early as 1866 this was voiced strongly: ‘I think it is unadvisable that Bengallees of all descriptions should be allowed ingress at will into the hills. Several cases of extortion have come to my own notice where Bengallees have forced hill men to give them money by the threat of a false complaint, and on the other hand murders of Bengallees for reasons unknown are by no means uncommon, and the authors of the crime have to the best of my knowledge in no one instance been ascertained.’ (Government of Bengal, Judicial Proceedings 83–4 (July 1866)). Cf.Lewin, , Wild Races, 62–8; Hutchinson, An Account, 42; Mills, ‘Notes on a Tour’, 514.Google Scholar

⁵⁴ In 1855 the Santal Rebellion had erupted in hill country some 400 km to the west, across the deltaic plains of Bengal; the area had still not been ‘pacified’ by the time the Chittagong hills were annexed. See e.g. Ray, Tarapada (comp.), Santal Rebellion: Documents (Calcutta: Subarnarekha, 1983);Google ScholarBaske, Dhirendronath, Shaontal Gonoshongramer Itihash [History of the Mass Struggle of the Santals] (Calcutta: Pearl Publishers, 1976);Google ScholarGuha, Ranajit, Elementary Aspects of Peasant Insurgency in Colonial India (Delhi: Oxford University Press, 1983).Google Scholar

⁵⁵ The appointment of a ‘Superintendent of Hill Tribes’ was ostensibly: ‘to administer justice to the Hill people in our jurisdiction, and to prevent that oppression and plunder of poor and ignorant savages by the crafty Bengallee moneylender which may lead, as in the case of the Sonthals, to violence and bloodshed.’ (Government of Bengal, Judicial Proceedings 142–3 (December 1862)). This policy was also followed in the adjacent portion of the mountain range which the British annexed as the Hill Tracts of Arakan. Here a Superintendent was appointed in 1866; his job was described in equally high-minded terms: ‘The Superintendent—a specially selected officer—has brought justice, administered in the simplest and most paternal form, to their doors.’ (Report on the Progress made in the Arakan Division from 1826 to 1869'Google Scholar, in:Report on the Progress of Arakan under British Rule from 1826 to 1875 (Rangoon: Government Press, 1873), 19).Google Scholar

⁵⁶ For the text of this Regulation, see Hutchinson and Chakma. The excluded status of the Chittagong hills was confirmed during administrative changes in 1935. Hutchinson, , An Account, Appendix A;Google Scholar and Chakma, Siddhartha, Proshongo: Parbotyo Chottogram [Topic: Chittagong Hill Tracts] (Calcutta: Nath Brothers, 1392 B.E. [1985–1986]), 149–62.Google Scholar

⁵⁷ E.g. Hutchinson, (An Account, 32): ‘The policy of the Government is to interfere as little as possible with tribal customs’.Google Scholar

⁵⁸ For applications of the concept of ‘enclavement’, developed by Edward H. Spicer, see Castille, George P. and Kushner, Gilbert (eds), Persistent Peoples: Cultural Enclaves in Perspective (Tucson: University of Arizona Press, 1981).Google Scholar

⁵⁹ Government of Bengal, Judicial Department, Political Branch, Proceedings 22–3 (September 1876), ‘Report on the Administration of the Chittagong Hill Tracts for 1875–76’, 30. This principle determined not only the position of common cultivators, but equally that of the Chiefs, in the eyes of the colonial state: ‘The Chiefs of the Chittagong Hill Tracts have no title to the ownership of the land which is vested exclusively in the Crown: they exercise only the delegated right of collecting taxes and rents on behalf of Government.’ (Government of Bengal, Political Department, Political Branch, Proceedings 1–2 (June 1918), ‘Issue of a warning to the Mong Chief, Chittagong Hill Tracts, for dereliction of duty’.)Google Scholar

⁶⁰ In 1871 almost all forest area was designated ‘Government Forest’. A few years later five reserved forests were created in which no cultivation was allowed; together they covered an area of 3,500 km² (or 26% of the total area, which covers 13,000 km²). The District Gazetteer of 1971 states that the total area of reserved forests was 2,600 km² and that of unclassed state forests 8,800 km² (20% and 67% of total area, respectively) before the Kaptai lake was created; afterwards the figures were 2,400 km² (18%) and 8,200 km² (62%), with the lake taking up 663 km² (5%). See Hutchinson, , An Account, I, 29–31, 51;Google ScholarMey, , Politische Systeme, 120–2;Google ScholarBangladesh District Gazetteers: Chittagong Hill Tracts (Dacca: Bangladesh Government Press, 1971), 99;Google Scholarcf. Anti-Slavery Society, The Chittagong Hill Tracts: Militarization, Oppression and the Hill Tribes (London, Anti-Slavery Society, 1984), Appendix 4.Google Scholar

⁶¹ Tea, coffee and orange plantations were established in the 1860s, as were teak plantations in the 1870s, but only tea was successful for some time. The main problem was the labour supply. See Administration Reports for various years, and Mey, , Politische Systeme, 121–4.Google Scholar

⁶² Lewin, T. H., in a letter to the Government of Bengal (1872),Google Scholar quoted in Hutchinson, 49–50. The idea had already been voiced a century earlier (1784), and again in 1798 and 1829. After 1860 a considerable correspondence developed on the topic of plough cultivation in the Chittagong hills. The general feeling was that it should be encouraged:

‘The advantages of this scheme would be—

1st, that we would spur the hillmen into getting civilized and settling down; there would be no danger of being [sic] any scarcity of land, or the hill people being ejected by outsiders, or of the immigrants oppressing or disagreeing with them;

2nd, we would get the country cleared and opened out to the rest of India;

3rd, we would have a population which would serve as a barrier against the wild tribes to the east;

4th, in ten or fifteen years the state would begin to draw a large revenue from this district;

5th, the district from the clearing of the jungle would become healthy.’

(Government of Bengal, Revenue Department, Land Revenue Branch, Proceeding 54 (May 1872), letter by Cochrane, A. W.) Cf. letter of 6 May 1784 from Govt to Mr. Irwin, Chief of Chittagong and letter of 21 April 1829 from Mr. Halhed, Commissioner, both quoted in Lewin, Wild Races, 58–60;Google Scholar see also Buchanan, , 103. For a dissenting view, see Hutchinson, An Account, 47–54, and for a modern contributionGoogle Scholar, Ahmad, Nafis, A New Economic Geography of Bangladesh (Delhi: Vikas, 1976), 111–13.Google Scholar

⁶³ In 1798 Buchanan had observed large communities of swidden cultivators in the hilly parts of the Chittagong plain. Chakma, Marma, Bawm, and Tippera were found in such places as the low hills between Mirsarai and Sitakund, Chattarua in the north, the Songu valley as far west as Dohazari, around Rangunia, Harbang and Chakaria, on Maheshkhali island in the Bay of Bengal, and down the coast south of Cox's Bazar. See Buchanan, , 13, 15, 19–20, 32, 46–50, 54, 69, 86, 89–90, 147, 152.Google ScholarOn the prohibition of swidden cultivation on government lands in the plains district, see Government of Bengal, Judicial Department, Political Branch, Proceedings 22–3 (September 1876), ‘Report on the Administration of the Chittagong Hill Tracts for 1875–76’, 21; andGoogle ScholarKindersley, J. B., Final Report on the Survey and Settlement Operations in the District of Chittagong 1923–1933 (Alipore: Bengal Government Press, 1939), 6.Google Scholar

⁶⁴ ‘As the lands in the vicinity of Bunderban have become exhausted by repeated Jhooming, it was found necessary that the Mugh [Marma] population of the Sungoo valley should be moved eastward, where virgin soil was available along the right bank of the river. The movement, however, was checked by the fear of raiders.’ Similarly, Khumis and Bawm [Bunjoogies] were to be moved to the frontier to protect the ‘weaker tribes behind’, and Tipperas entering the Chittagong hills from Hill Tipperah (now Tripura) were induced to settle in the far east, north of Barkal. Government of Bengal, Judicial Department, Political Branch, Proceedings 22–3 (September 1876), ‘Report on the Administration of the Chittagong Hill Tracts for 1875–76’, 2;Google ScholarGovernment of Bengal, Revenue Department, Land Revenue Branch, Proceeding 15 (September 1873).Google Scholar

⁶⁵ It is interesting to see how selective this policy was, and how changeable official views on Bengalis. In the Hill Tracts of neighbouring Arakan Bengalis were welcome immigrants. Here the authorities did not perceive them as rapacious fleecers of ignorant tribals but as ‘timid’. According to the Administration Report of 1877–78, plough cultivation should be stimulated at the foot of the hills around Myouktoung, and it should be carried out by ‘the timid Chittagonian immigrants who are commencing to arrive here’ (Administration Report on the Hill Tracts, Northern Arakan for the Year 1877–78 (Rangoon: Government Press, 1879), 14).Google Scholar

⁶⁶ The Gurkhas were allowed to jhum for the first few years, and then had to switch over to plough cultivation. Lewin argued that ‘The introduction of Goorkha colonists into our scantily peopled Hill Tracts would, I think, be productive of unmixed good’. (Government of Bengal, Revenue Department, Land Revenue Branch, Proceeding 53 (May 1872). Other groups were also welcomed (e.g. Banthallees, Dangurs, Assamese), but: ‘Bengallees are the only race which I would exclude; they have an unhappy bias at least. The classes of them that would be likely to come in here have to [sic] usury litigation and fraud; they would be of no use in frontier protection, and they would worry the hillmen as they do so far as they are allowed at present’Google Scholar(ibid., Proceeding 54).

⁶⁷ These and other products and the rates levied on them were itemized in a highly detailed manner (e.g. thirteen different kinds of timber) in Revenue Department, Land Revenue Branch, Proceedings 120–2 (March 1862). See also the Annual Reports of the Chittagong Hill Tracts, e.g. the one for 1878–79, in Judicial Department, Political Branch, Proceeding 11 (September 1879), 2–3.Google Scholar

⁶⁸ E.g. Bajalia on the Songu river, described by Buchanan, (88–89) as a ‘market place made by [Marma chief] Kaung-la-pru for the convenience of his people, who here exchange their Commodities for those of the Bengalese. A Mussulman attends here, and procures all the luxuries of Bengal, that are wanted by the Chief.’Google Scholar

⁶⁹ During his trip in 1798 Buchanan reported extensively on Bengali trade in the Chittagong hills. See his observations on pp. 34, 117, 118–19, and 134–5.Google Scholar

⁷⁰ Judicial Department, Political Branch, Proceeding 11 (September 1879): ‘Annual Report of the Chittagong Hill Tracts for 1878–79’, 3. Cf. Lewin, Wild Races, 23–4. Hutchinson, An Account, 44–6.Google Scholar

⁷¹ In the words of the Report on the Administration of the Chittagong Hill Tracts for 1875–76: ‘Hillmen dislike cultivation by the plough alone, because they cannot under that system grow cotton and the vegetables and fruits produced in jhooms…It is no light thing to change the method of life of an intensely conservative people.’ (Government of Bengal, Judicial Department, Political Branch, Proceedings 22–3 (September 1876), 29).Google Scholar

⁷² Löffler, Lorenz G., ‘Carrying capacity, Schwendbauproblem in Südostasien’, in: VIe Congrès International des Sciences Anthropologiques et Ethnologiques, Paris 1960 (Paris, 1963), vol. 2, 1, 179–82.Google Scholar

⁷³ Ibid., 179–80, 182.

⁷⁴ In 1869 Lewin remarked: ‘Throughout the whole of the Hill Tracts, I know no single instance of a hill man cultivating with the plough; indeed, it is rare to find a man earning his livelihood in any other way save by joom [swidden] cultivation.’ Three years later A. W. Cochrane, the officiating Deputy Commissioner of the Chittagong Hill Tracts, wrote: ‘I do not believe that the hill men will ever devote themselves to it [= plough cultivation] unless urged by emulation, and having the advantages brought clearly before them’. He attributed this reluctance to the ‘dislike to change characteristic of them and other half or quarter civilized people’. For the later shift to plough cultivation, see Löffler and Sopher. Lewin, , The Hill Tracts, 13; Government of Bengal, Revenue Department, Land Revenue Branch, Proceeding 54 (May 1872). Lorenz G. Löffler, ‘Der Uebergang vom Schwendbau zum Ackerbau im Chittagong-Gebiet’ (unpublished ms, n.d.); Sopher, ‘The Swidden/Wet Rice Transition Zone’.Google Scholar

⁷⁵ The one sizeable factory in the Chittagong Hill Tracts was at Chandraghona, on the border with the plains. Employment at the Karnafuli Paper Mills, which used bamboo cut in the hills, was a predominantly Bengali affair. According to the district gazetteer, hill people constituted less than 0.5% of the labour force of 3,920 ‘at one stage of its normal operation.’ Bangladesh District Gazetteers: Chittagong Hill Tracts, 139; cf. Mey, Politische Systeme, Appendix, iv.Google Scholar

⁷⁶ The anomalous nature of this decision and the confusion around the ‘Radcliffe Award’ in the Chittagong hills in August 1947 are discussed in Chakma, Siddhartha, Proshongo.Google ScholarCf.Talukdar, S. P., The Chakmas: Life and Struggle (Delhi: Gian Publishing House, 1988), 47–58.Google Scholar

⁷⁷ Bangladesh District Gazetteers: Chittagong Hill Tracts, 42.Google Scholar

⁷⁸ According to various sources 650 km² (5% of the total area of the Chittagong Hill Tracts) were flooded, destroying 40% of the arable land. The Gazetteer states that compensation was adequate but Almut Mey and Wolfgang Mey disagree. Cf. Bangladesh District Gazetteers: Chittagong Hill Tracts, 42–4, 99;Google ScholarPopulation Census of Bangladesh 1974: District Census Report Chittagong Hill Tracts (Dacca: Bangladesh Bureau of Statistics, 1979), 12;Google ScholarMey, Almut, Untersuchungen, 280–7; Mey, Politische Systeme, 210–18; Ahmad, A New Economic Geography, 123.Google Scholar

⁷⁹ The national oil company, Petrobangla, reached a 25-year agreement with Shell Petroleum Development for oil exploration in the Chittagong hills and plain in 1981. Wolfgang, Mey (ed.), They Are Now Burning Village After Village: Genocide in the Chittagong Hill Tracts, Bangladesh (Copenhagen: International Work Group for Indigenous Affairs, 1984), 120–2.Google Scholar

⁸⁰ In 1972 a delegation from the Chittagong hills met Bangladesh's new leader, Sheikh Mujibur Rahman, demanding regional autonomy, retention of the Regulation of 1900, continuation of tribal chiefs' offices, and a ban on in-migration. Mujibur Rahman replied that fulfilling such demands would encourage ethnic feelings and, according to Montu, he advised the delegation to go home and ‘do away with their ethnic identities’. In 1975, during a visit to Rangamati, the district headquarters, he ‘addressed the tribals as brethren and told them to become Bengalis, to forget the colonial past and join the mainstream of Bengali culture. At this, the tribal people left the meeting.’ Successive governments in Bangladesh have not departed from this basic position, despite occasional gestures towards preserving ‘Tribal Insurgency in Chittagong Hill Tracts’, Economic and Political Weekly (6 September 1980), 1511;Google ScholarChakma, A. B., ‘Look Back from Exile: A Chakma Experience’, in: Mey, Wolfgang (ed.), They Are Now Burning, 58.Google Scholar

⁸¹ There had been one sizeable rebellion against British expansion between 1776 and 1787 (see Buchanan, , Chakraborty, and Islam, ) and in 1864 a short-lived revolt by the minor chief ‘Ougyphroo’ took place against the Marma chief. Ougyphroo thought that he was to be the Marma chief ‘and that his dominion was to extend all over the Hill Tracts and from Cox's Bazaar to the Mugh Bazaar at Dacca.’Google Scholar(Government of Bengal, Judicial Department, Political Proc. 187 (June 1865)). Serajuddin, , ‘Origin of Rajas’, 54–5;Google ScholarChakraborty, Ratan Lal, ‘Chakma Resistance to Early British Rule’, Bangladesh Historical Studies, 2 (1977), 133–56;Google ScholarIslam, Sirajul, ‘Tribal Resistance in Chittagong Hill Tracts (1776–1787)’, in: Nishit, Ranjan Ray (ed.), Saga of Freedom (Delhi: People's Publishing, 1983), 122–9.Google ScholarCf.Lewin, , Wild Races, 57.Google Scholar

⁸² See e.g. Amnesty International, Unlawful Killings in the Chittagong Hill Tracts (London: Amnesty International, 1986);Google ScholarSurvival International, Bangladesh—Chittagong Hill Tracts Report for 1988: No End to Human Rights Abuses (London: Survival International 1988);Google ScholarRashid, Kazi Mahmudar et al. , ‘A Study on Administration of Indigenous People of the Chittagong Hill Tracts’ (typescript, 1980); Devasish Roy (Chakma Raja), 04/05/89 Ing roj brihospotibar Rangamati Parbotyo Zelar Longodu Upozelar upojatiyoder biruddhe shonghotito shohingsho ghotonar protibade smaroklipi [A Memorandum in Protest Against the Genocidal Attacks on Tribals in Langadu Upazilla, Rangamati Hill District, on Thursday 4 May, 1989] (typescript petition, Rangamati, 1989);Google ScholarChakma, Siddhartha, Proshongo; Mey, Politische Systeme; Mey, ‘Esist verboten’; Mey, (ed.), They Are Now Burning.Google Scholar

⁸³ The Bangladesh government estimates the number of refugees to be much lower. In 1987, at a time when Indian officials talked of 50,000 refugees, the Foreign Secretary of Bangladesh said that there were 29,920. Since then there have been various estimates, from 24,000 according to Bangladesh officials (June 1989) and 45,380 according to an Indian observer (June 1988) to 70,000 according to the JSS [Jana Samhati Samiti] (May 1989). Cf Bangladesh Groep Nederland, ‘Bangladesh: Refugees from an Unknown War—Bangladeshi Tribals in India’, IWGIA Newsletter 53/54 (May/August 1988), 35;Google ScholarKamaluddin, S., ‘Bangladesh—Tribal Insurgents Try to Disrupt Hill Council Polls: Intimidatory Tactics’, Far Eastern Economic Review (29 June 1989), 24; Survival International, Bangladesh—Chittagong Hill Tracts Report for 1988, 3;Google ScholarDewan, R. S., ‘The Jumma Representative's Statement on the Systematic Genocide of the Helpless Jumma People of the Chittagong Hill Tracts being carried out by the Bangladesh Armed Forces’ (Working Group on Indigenous Populations, United Nations Economic and Social Council, Geneva, 31 07–4 August 1989), 5; cf. ‘Fresh Influx’.Google Scholar

⁸⁴ E.g. Mey, (ed), They Are Now Burning: Amnesty International, Unlawful Killings; Survival International, Bangladesh—Chittagong Hill Tracts Report for 1988.Google Scholar

⁸⁵ Bengali disdain for the people of the Chittagong hills has been amply documented, beginning with Buchanan in 1798. By contrast, hill people's feelings of superiority towards each other and towards Bengalis have been rarely recorded. See, however, Bernot's analysis of the ambivalent sentiments of Marmas towards their Bengali and Mru neighbours.Google ScholarBernot, , Les paysans arakanais, 748–50; cf. discussion in Mey, Politische Systeme, 232–3.Google Scholar

⁸⁶ In 1915 Rajmohon Dewan had started the ‘Chakma Jubok Shomiti’ (Chakma Youth Association), and in 1928 this was followed by Ghonoshyam Dewan's ‘Chakma Jubok Shongho’ (Chakma Youth Society). See Chakma, Siddhartha, Proshongo, 5–6.Google Scholar

⁸⁷ These were the ‘Hill Men Association’ (1946?), the ‘Parbotyo Chottogram Jono Shomiti’ (People's Association of the Chittagong Hill Tracts; 1947), and the ‘Hill Tracts People's Organization’ (1950). Rashid, Kazi Mahmudar, ‘A Study on Administration’, 28; Siddhartha Chakma, Proshongo, 6–22.Google Scholar

⁸⁸ Rashid, Kazi Mahmudar, ‘A Study on Administration’, 29;Google Scholarcf.Chakma, A. B., ‘Look Back from Exile’, 35–62.Google Scholar

⁸⁹ Other organizations exist but appear to be much weaker or inactive. These organizations, most of which the JSS considers creatures of the Bangladesh government, include the Pahari Jono Kolyan Shomiti [Hill People's Welfare Association], Tribal Convention, Marma Unnoyon Shongshod [Marma Development Council], Tripura Unnoyon Shongshod [Tripura Development Council], Hill District Coordination Committees, and Headmen's Association. It is significant, however, that a recent protest against killings in Longodu, signed by representatives of several of these organizations ‘on behalf of the tribal people’, also spoke of ‘genocidal attacks’ and demanded the removal of all Bengali settlers from the Chittagong hills. Cf. An Urgent Statement of the Jana Samhati Samiti on the Parbatya Zilla Parishad Bills Placed in the Jatiya Sangsad (Parliament) by Bangladesh Government (n.p.: Department of Information and Publicity, Parbatya Chattagram Jana Samhati Samiti, 18 02 1989), 3;Google ScholarRoy, Devashish et al. , 04/05/89 Ing roj brihospotibar Rangamati.Google Scholar

⁹⁰ C. M. T., ‘Beleaguered tribals’, Far Eastern Economic Review (6 October 1988), 8.Google Scholar

⁹¹ E.g. Urgent Statement (1) speaks of the ‘national entity of the jumma people’ and claims: ‘The Jumma national unity and solidarity has been jeopardized dividing ten linguistically different Jumma national minorities into three Zilla Parishads.’ The third use of ‘national’ apparently refers to Bangladesh. In 1985 the JSS had spoken of Jumma peoples (‘The Jumma Peoples were compelled to organize a Movement for ensuring their National Identity and the integrity of their Motherland’), but significantly the plural was later dropped. Central ExecutiveGoogle Scholar, Samity, Jana Samhati, ‘An Open Letter to Lt. General Ershad, Chief Martial-Law Administrator of Bangladesh, on his October 3 Proclamation’ (printed leaflet dated 25 November 1985), 2.Google Scholar

⁹² In the 1970S Jummas were often equated with Buddhists because the majority of the hill people consider themselves Buddhists. More recently, this has been played down in deference to non-Buddhist influences among the hill people: e.g. Hinduism among the Tippera, Christianity among the Lushai and Bawm-Zo, and the local religions such as that of the Mru.

⁹³ Bernot, , Les paysans arakanais, 749–50 (my translation).Google Scholar

⁹⁴ The Chakmas now speak a language closely akin to Chittagonian Bengali but used to speak an Arakanese dialect which was already largely lost when Buchanan visited them (see footnote 8). Lewin, (Wild Races, 307) reported, however, that Arakanese was the lingua franca in the Chittagong Hills, ‘spoken and understood by every one’, as late as the 1860s. The Chakma language was written in a script closely related to the Burmese script; during the 20th century it was gradually replaced by the Bengali script.Google Scholar The best introduction to the history of the Chakma language is Lorenz G. Löffler, ‘Chakma und Sak’. See also Chakma, C. R., ‘Changma Kodha Bhandal / Chakma Bhashar Obhidhan [Dictionary of the Chakma Language] (Calcutta: Pustok Biponi, 1391 B.E. [1984–1985]);Google ScholarChakma, C. R., Jug-Bibortone Chakma-Jati (Prachin Jug) [The Chakmas Through the Ages (Ancient Period)] (Calcutta: Pustok Biponi, 1394 B.E [1987]), 13;Google ScholarChoudhuri, Dulal, Chakma Probad [Chakma Proverbs] (Calcutta: Pustok Biponi, 1980);Google Scholar and Maniruzzaman, , ‘Notes on Chakma Phonology’, in: Qureshi, (ed.), Tribal Cultures, 73–89.Google Scholar

⁹⁵ JSS resistance led to the discontinuation or suspension of various development projects in which the Dhaka government was involved, e.g. a Swedish-funded forestry project, Australian-funded road-building project, and oil prospecting by Shell. An overview of the government development programme can be found in ‘Chittagong Hill Tracts’. Anti-Slavery Society, The Chittagong Hill Tracts, 37–41; ‘Shantibahini activities hinder road works in Ctg Hill Tracts’, New Nation (13 February 1986); Syed Murtaza Ali, ‘Hill Tracts solution in sight?’ Holiday (12 September 1986), 5, 7; ‘Chittagong Hill Tracts: An Observer Supplement’, The Bangladesh Observer (12 November 1985).Google Scholar

⁹⁶ For a general analysis of ‘invented traditions’ and attendant re-interpretations of the past, see Hobsbawm, Eric and Ranger, Terence (eds), The Invention of Tradition (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1983), 1–14.Google Scholar

⁹⁷ Several other ethnic minorities live elsewhere in Bangladesh; their numbers are smaller and they live more dispersed than the Chittagong hill people. National organizations called Bangladesh Adibashi Upojati Kolyan Federation (Bangladesh Aboriginal-Tribal Welfare Federation) and Aboriginal Development Services of Bangladesh were established around 1980. Information can be found in their journals, Matir Manush (People of the Soil) and Aronyok (Forest People).Google Scholar

⁹⁸ ‘But circumstances so led them [the Jumma peoples] that at last, a full decade ago, they had to take to Arms in demand of SELFDETERMINATION…. The War of Selfdetermination shall run unabated’.Google ScholarCentral Executive, ‘Open Letter’, 2.Google Scholar

⁹⁹ E.g. Mey, , Politische Systeme, 226–46; Bernot, Les paysans arakanais, 748–50.Google Scholar

¹⁰⁰ Amnesty International reports that the term miscreant is ‘officially used for Shanti Bahini forces’. They are also frequently called ‘terrorists’ but the authorities no longer dismiss them as simple criminals. In the words of Major-General Abdus Salam, Area Commander of the Chittagong Hill Tracts, as reported in the Bangladesh press: ‘We are not fighting just a bandit group. The insurgents are really quite deep into their mission and they are organized and motivated.’ Amnesty International, Bangladesh: Report of a Mission Concerning Reported Human Rights Violations in the Chittagong Hill Tracts, 24–30 January 1988 (London: Amnesty International, 1988), 5;Google ScholarNaser, Moinuddin, ‘Shantibahini now uses remote control explosives’, Holiday, 25:24 (l2 01 1990), 8.Google Scholar

¹⁰¹ The cultural and political problems surrounding the search for an acceptable generic name for all the ‘Chin-Kuki-Mizo-Zoumi’ groups inhabiting the area to the east of the Chittagong hills should alert us to the potential limitations of the use of ‘Jumma’ in the Chittagong hills. Cf.Kamkhenthang, H., The Paite: A Transborder Tribe of India and Burma (Delhi: Mittal Publications, 1988), esp. 1–11.Google Scholar

¹⁰² See e.g. Chakma, Siddhartha, Proshongo; and A. B. Chakma, ‘Look Back from Exile’, 35–62.Google Scholar

¹⁰³ ‘A part of Zoram lies in the eastern part of the Chittagong Hill Tracts of Bangladesh…The Zo clans in Bangladesh are Bawmzo, Asho (Khyang), Khami, Lusei, Masho (Mru), and Pankhu.’ Vumson, , Zo History, with an Introduction to Zo Culture, Economy, Religion and their Status as an Ethnic Minority in India, Burma, and Bangladesh (Aizawl, Mizoram: the Author, 1986), 316.Google ScholarCf.Bhaumik, Subir and Vanlairuata, H. C., ‘Sailo's grand strategy: The former CM has picked up the Greater Mizoram cause to come out of the political wilderness’, Sunday (19–25 June 1988), 64; Ramesh Menon, ‘Mizoram—Wild Dreams: Plans to carve a new state’, India Today (30 June 1988), 63–7.Google Scholar

¹⁰⁴ Similarly the ethnic consequences of migration are usually studied among inmigrants; the Chittagong hills case reveals that this is insuflicient: it may result in critical ethnic change among the ‘receiving’ population. Fishman, J. A., ‘Language and Ethnicity’, in: Giles, Howard (ed.), Language, Ethnicity and Intergroup Relations (London, etc.: Academic Press, 15–57;Google ScholarRoyce, , Ethnic Identity, 108–41.Google Scholar

¹⁰⁵ Smith mentions six main strategies; in the Jumma movement the dominant one is ‘autonomism’ but ‘separatism’ is a second option. Smith, Anthony D., The Ethnic Revival in the Modern World (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1981), 15–17.Google ScholarCf.Fishman, , ‘Language and Ethnicity’, 35–8.Google Scholar

¹⁰⁶ The cultural diversity of the Chittagong hill groups (with their separate links with Arakan, Chin country, Tripura, and Bengal) is greater than elsewhere in the mountain range, where overarching collective identities were usually available for diverse cultural groups from an early age. The ‘Naga’ identity is a case in point; it helped overcome local antagonisms and organize resistance in the far north from a much earlier date, first against the British, and then against the independent Indian and Burmese states.

Similarly, the ‘Jharkhand’ identity was first used in Chhota Nagpur and Santa! Parganas in 1938, and followed the much older concept of ‘diku’ (alien oppressor) which had fired earlier rebellions; however the Jharkhandi identity is even now ‘an extremely amorphous concept’. There are many historical, political and economic differences between the Jharkhand and Jumma movements, e.g. the role of the Jharkhand urban middle class, the activities of Christian missionaries, extensive ‘non-tribal’ support, and close links with all-India political parties from the 1930S. See Dubey, S. M., ‘Inter-Ethnic Alliance, Tribal Movements and Integration in Northeast India’, in: Singh, K. S. (ed.), Tribal Movements in India (Delhi: Manohar Publications, 1983), vol. 1, 1–25;Google ScholarThe Naga Nation and its Struggle against Genocide (Copenhagen: International Work Group for Indigenous Affairs, 1986);Google ScholarSingh, K. S., ‘Tribal Autonomy Movements in Chotanagpur’, in: Singh, K. S. (ed.), Tribal Movements, vol. II, 1–29;Google ScholarSengupta, Nirmal, ‘Background to the Jharkhand Question’, in: Sengupta, Nirmal (ed.), Fourth World Dynamics: Jharkhand (Delhi: Authors Guild Publications, 1982), 3–39.Google Scholar

¹⁰⁷ The distinction between ‘ethnic group’ and ‘nation’ becomes rather arbitrary in acute conflicts: ‘when nations stand in a conflictive relationship with one another, the confrontation bears many of the earmarks of ethnic conflict.’ Royce, , Ethnic Identity, 84.Google Scholar

¹⁰⁸ On the ‘saliency’ of ethnicity, see Fishman, , ‘Language and Ethnicity’, 32–4.Google Scholar

¹⁰⁹ Fishman, , ‘Language and Ethnicity’, 26.Google Scholar