Colonial governmentality and Bangladeshis in the anthropocene: Loss of language,land,knowledge,and identity of the Chakma in the ecology of the Chittagong Hill tracts in Bangladesh

Introduction

We (Urmee Chakma & Shaila Sultana) met in 2000 when both Urmee Chakma and I won AusAID scholarships for doing a Post-Graduate Diploma at Monash University, Australia. Both of us just finished our BA (Hons.) and MA in English and worked as young academics at the tertiary level of education. Even though we were born in the same year and completed our post-graduate degrees in the same year from two reputed public universities in Bangladesh, our life trajectories were distinctly different in terms of temporal and spatial realities we had had.

Urmee was born and grew up in the pristine environment of the mountainous Khagrachhari - a district in Chittagong Hill Tracts (CHT) where the highest number of Indigenous people in Bangladesh live. Rangamati, Khagrachhari and Bandarban districts of CHT are the abode of 11 Indigenous groups, namely Chakma, Marma, Tripura, Bawm, Pangkhu, Lushai, Tanchangya, Khyang, Mro, Chak, and Khumi. Urmee moved to Dhaka in 1991, the capital city of Bangladesh for higher education. As a young Bangladeshi Indigenous child in the late 1970s and early 1980s, she saw the marginalization of her language, culture, and community by the nationalistic policies and practices that promoted Bangalee nationalism. By contrast, I was born and grew up in Dhaka, the capital city of Bangladesh which is 174.76 km away from Khagrachhari. Similar to her, I started tertiary education in 1991, but as a young Bangladeshi adult or child in the late 1970s and 1980s, I had little knowledge about the marginalization of Indigenous communities and the silencing of Indigenous languages by language and education policies in Bangladesh. I was left with a vague association of Chakma communities with the ‘Shanti Bahinee’/Peace Force (the armed wing of the United People’s Party of the Chittagong Hill Tracts in Bangladesh). My mind was coerced with an image of the Indigenous Chakma community as the insurgent force responsible for kidnapping, extortion, and killing of ‘innocent Bangladeshis’ and Bangladeshi Army officers deployed in Chittagong Hill Tracts to protect the peace, harmony, and law of the region. The distorted image of the Chakma community in hindsight was an outcome of the public and popular discourses, patronized by the vested interest groups with nationalistic ideologies, in which the Bangladeshis dislodging the Indigenous communities from their ancestral lands were portrayed as the victims of Indigenous fanatism.

To understand the disparities in and distortion of the representation, we explore our life trajectories through ‘feminist inquiry’. The strength of feminist inquiry is its emphasis on critical reflection at every stage of the research. Hence, feminist inquiry makes researchers critically think and aware of boundaries that marginalise and exclude some and include others (Ackerly, 2008). Following the ethos, we engage in ‘feminist reflection’ and look into the way we have experienced coloniality/decoloniality in the postcolonial context of Bangladesh (cf. McFadden, 2018 for more on feminist reflection). The feminist reflection allows us to ‘lean back’ and provided us with reading and thinking spaces. We have had the opportunity to consider all the spaces and times we have traversed in our life trajectories and the impact these spaces and times have had on our ‘constant becoming’. The purpose of the feminist reflection is to understand the ideologies, values, and practices propagated by the patriarchal system, colonialism, linguicism, genderism, or nationalism that have challenged and hindered our progression and equally pushed us to traverse the normative boundaries imposed on us. Exploring the multiple voices throbbing underneath the discursive construction of colonialism, linguicism, and nationalism, we shed light on the factors that have attempted to put us in bracketed hyphenated spaces. The decoloniality in/as praxis necessitates ongoing reflection and action processes that require theorizing from practice and practices to theories (Walsh, 2020).

As a background to the ‘feminist reflection’, it is important to understand the historical ultra-nationalism promoting the Bangla language and Bangalee culture. In 1971, following independence, the parliament passed a bill declaring Bangla as the national language to be used in education, administration, and the judiciary (Musa, 1995), and Bangladesh a ‘uni-cultural and uni-linguistic nation state’ (Bal, 2010). Bangla replaced English in administrative activities, and in a constitutional amendment in 1987, Bangla was affirmed as the state language (Article 3), citizens of Bangladesh would be known as Bengalis [bangalis] (Article 6), and the Bangla language and culture would be the basis of Bengali [bangali] nationalism (Article 9) (Bangladesh Gazette, 1987). Moreover, the anglicised ‘Dacca’ was replaced by ‘Dhaka,’ and ‘Bengali’ was replaced by bangla by an amendment in 1988, demonstrating the Government’s “decolonising impulse” (Banu and Sussex, 2001: p. 126). The constitutional changes emphasised the importance of Bangla as the national language and the marker of Bangladeshi identity. Bangla represent the largest population in this country, that is 98% of the total population speaks Bangla and the rest 2% represents the linguistically and culturally diverse Indigenous communities (Sultana et al., 2021). We are also aware that some Indigenous languages have become extinct – for example, Kuruk, the language of the Orao ethnic community – or endangered, for example, the Khumi, Khiyang, Pankho Koch, Patra, and Hajong languages (Mohsin, 2003). Bangla is also the medium of education in state-run public schools and colleges across Bangladesh (Sultana and Roshid, 2021). The linguistic realities in Bangladesh seem to reflect the ethos of linguistic imperialism, endorsing the inherent superiority of Bangla.

With Urmee’s first-hand experiences of the informed and deliberate subjugation of Indigenous communities in Bangladesh, our engagements with concepts such as linguicism, linguistic imperialism, linguistic governmentality, colonialism, and Anthropocene, and our critical awareness of the fact that many Bangladeshis like me are kept in the dark about the systematic ostracism of Indigenous communities, we would like to see how we, two academics, with distinctly different life experiences make sense of these issues. Through the ‘feminist reflection’, we like to unravel the techniques of persuasion opted by the public and popular discourses to blind the masses about social injustice and inequality of Indigenous communities in Bangladesh. We also identify the ethos of colonialism and linguistic governmentality that have justified the marginalization and peripheralization of Indigenous communities in Bangladesh. Finally, we suggest the possible ways Indigenous scholars may use the margin as a space for reflection, thought, and possibilities of transformation in the age of Anthropocene – when the Indigenous lands were forcefully taken away and Indigenous communities were displaced from their ancestral lands. We suggest posthumanism as the research methodology that may be appropriate to inquire in the Anthropocene (cf. Ulmer, 2017).

Linguistic imperialism and linguicism

Shaila Sultana: As an Indigenous child going through a predominantly Bangla-medium education, what kinds of long-lasting effects Bangla had on you? Do you see any traces of linguicism and linguistic imperialism ( Phillipson, 1992; Phillipson and Skutnabb-Kangas, 2017 ) in the way Bangla is imposed on you?

Urmee Chakma: I believe Bangla, as a source of linguistic imperialism in the context of Bangladesh has had several negative effects not only on me but on the cultural, linguistic, and social identities of Chakma and other Indigenous children. I grew up being exposed to a predominantly Bangla-medium monolingual education system. I was taught in Bangla, even though it was not my language or the language we used at home and in the community. The use of Bangla as the medium of instruction I believe has led to the erosion of my Chakma linguistic identity and the ability to communicate to some extent in my mother tongue (cf. Tollefson, 2013), and over the years I have become used to juxtaposing Chakma, Bangla, and English, often finding myself struggling to find the right Chakma words and unfortunately, this will continue for the future generations as I have seen this happening to my nephews and nieces, especially those growing up in Dhaka.

Not seeing any representation of my culture/language at school was a difficult learning experience as a young child, I felt simply ‘lost in conversation’ many times – trying to translate from Chakma to Bangla and then learning to pronounce the words correctly were challenging in comprehending and retaining the material. In primary school, my main aim was to become good at/mastering Bangla in a predominantly monolingual environment. It was almost dehumanizing to be ridiculed for my pronunciation (not being able to say the strong T/Chha/Sh sounds) because those remarks or being laughed at created a deep sense of anxiety and insecurity in my ability to speak Bangla and so I focused heavily on mastering Bangla/correct pronunciation. If I look back, I certainly would not be obsessed with Bangla if I had not been teased, or if I had rather been encouraged to be good at other things, such as painting, singing, dancing and so on.

Many of my classmates from primary and secondary schools were unable to enrol in college or university because they simply did not qualify to apply or failed the entry exams. Presumably, the use of Bangla as the medium of instruction has had a broader impact on Chakma children's academic performance being at a disadvantage in terms of their ability to comprehend and retain information and many struggles with critical thinking and problem-solving skills (McIntyre, 2014) that led to lower academic achievement and reduced opportunities for academic and professional success.

The use of Bangla as a monolingual perspective (Steele et al., 2022), the only medium of instruction also perpetuates cultural and linguistic domination, as Chakma children are taught to view their own culture and language as inferior to the dominant Bangalee culture and language leading to the erosion of Chakma cultural and linguistic heritage. It is important to note that the negative effects of linguistic imperialism are not limited to individual students but can also have broader societal implications. For example, the erosion of linguistic and cultural diversity can result in a loss of cultural knowledge and intellectual resources and can contribute to the homogenization of global cultures.

Until I came to Australia in 2000, I always carried the feeling that both my Bangla and English were not good enough. I had been extra cautious of my Bangla pronunciation whenever I would interact with my Bangalee mates. I was ridiculed, teased, and commented on mispronouncing words as far back as I remember. In primary school, I could not hear the difference between the softer t and the strong t sounds in Bangla – I was not aware of the differences. Once in class one (1^st grade), I mispronounced aloo bhorta/smashed potato and my Bangalee friends laughed at me so loud I would avoid saying the word. This is just an example of many which have had an ‘anxious’ effect on my Bangla.

Linguistic governmentality, neoliberalism, and subjectivity

Shaila Sultana: You mention about the erosion of Indigenous languages and cultures. In my research, I have observed that Indigenous students and teachers are complacent with existing policies and practices and seem to be nonchalant of the gradual language shift from the Indigenous languages to Bangla even in informal domains (Sultana, 2021; Sultana et al., 2022; Ahmed et al., 2023). This may be considered as an outcome of linguistic governmentality (cf. Urla, 2019). The underlying principle of linguistic governmentality, ‘conduct of conduct’ makes the governance and techniques of domination an acceptable rational choice. For example, language policies play a vital role in the governance of individual and collective constitutions of subjects. Indigenous communities losing their native tongues may remain complacent, while policy-makers may remain guilt-free when they impose the majority language on minority speakers. Thus linguistic governmentality gives a better understanding of the functions of language policies and practices and the mechanism of abstract invisible linguistic ideology as a tangible source of power that determines linguistic conduct in specific contexts. How do you think the non-Indigenous intellectual official, public, and popular discourses ensure linguistic governmentality in Bangladesh?

Urmee Chakma: Language serves as a potent instrument of governmentality in Bangladesh, a country where this is seen in how the non-Indigenous intellectual, official, public, and popular discourses ensure linguistic governmentality. This involves the government and its representatives using language as a means to oversee and manage the thoughts, behaviours, and convictions of the populace. An illustrative instance of this phenomenon is the official language of Bangladesh, Bangla, which is actively promoted across various formal domains of society, including policies, educational curricula, schools, government institutions, and the media. This creates a linguistic homogeneity that reinforces the authority of the state and perpetuates the prominence of Bangla culture and values. In accordance with Tollefson (2013), “Language policies are mechanisms for creating and sustaining systems of inequality that benefit wealthy and powerful individuals and groups, institutions, and nation-states” (p. 23).

Non-indigenous intellectual discourses contribute to upholding linguistic governmentality by favouring specific languages while neglecting others. English, for instance, is often seen as the language of progress and development, and its study and use are encouraged, whereas Indigenous languages are frequently marginalized as primitive or inferior. Similarly, public discourse reinforces the notion that certain languages hold more importance or value than others, evident in language choices in various contexts and the stigma attached to speaking certain languages in public. Popular discourses, including media and entertainment, further this linguistic governmentality by emphasizing particular languages and cultural norms. For instance, the prevalence of Bangla in Bangladeshi television and film production reinforces the perception of Bangla as the supreme language. An example of linguistic governmentality in action is the censorship of the first ever full-length feature film in the Chakma language ‘Maw Theng Gari’ (My Bicycle), because the censor board exclusively approves films made in Bangla or English.

Indeed, language undeniably plays a pivotal role in the exercise of governmentality in Bangladesh. The collective influence of non-Indigenous intellectual, official, public, and popular discourses perpetuates linguistic homogeneity, bolstering the authority of the state and reinforcing the cultural values and beliefs of the dominant group.

Shaila Sultana: I believe the ethos of neoliberalism are also making economically viable languages, such as Bangla and English more enticing than ever. While neoliberalism promotes a form of governmentality in which individuals create self-governance to reach their potentiality as human capital, it also endorses certain linguistic instrumentality and ideologies to turn linguistic capital into a complementary force to human capital. We have found that indigenous students as well want to make themselves marketable by learning Bangla and English, gaining, quantifiable test scores, and completing credits – without making sense of experiences in and out of school (Sultana and Bolander, 2021). What are your opinions about indigenous students and teachers who are more invested in learning Bangla and English, while risking the loss of their mother tongues?

Urmee Chakma: Neoliberalism as a political ideology advocates for the reduction of government intervention in the economy and the promotion of free-market principles. In this system, individuals are encouraged to maximize their potential as human capital through self-governance and the acquisition of marketable skills. This has led to an increased emphasis on linguistic instrumentality, particularly in the form of Bangla and English. In the CHT, this is particularly evident among Indigenous students who are investing more time and resources into learning these languages to improve their marketability. These days, it is common to see various families sharing rented houses in Dhaka or Chittagong just to send their children to ‘better’ schools/colleges which was rather uncommon 15–20 years ago. Conversations with many of my relatives who share flats with others revealed the increasing popularity of this trend. They believe, that if children do not study in big cities, the chances of getting into good public universities are bleak. Most Chakma families are unable to send their children to private universities, hence, they heavily rely on public universities.

However, this focus on learning Bangla and English comes at a cost. As students invest more time and energy into learning these languages, they risk losing their mother tongues, which are often deeply tied to their cultural identities. This loss of linguistic diversity can have negative impacts not only on individuals but also on the broader society, as it erodes the rich cultural heritage that makes communities unique. Despite these challenges, many students and teachers remain invested in learning Bangla and English, recognizing the benefits that come with linguistic proficiency. For students, speaking these languages can open up new educational and career opportunities, allowing them to succeed in a globalized world. For teachers, being able to teach in Bangla and English can provide them with greater job security and the ability to reach a wider audience.

While the focus on Bangla and English in the CHT reflects the broader trend of neoliberalism, it also raises important questions about the role of language in shaping individual and collective identities. As students and teachers invest in these languages, it is important to acknowledge the costs involved, including the potential loss of mother tongues. At the same time, it is also important to recognize the opportunities that come with linguistic proficiency and to work towards creating a more inclusive and equitable educational system that values diversity and supports students and teachers in their linguistic journeys.

Shaila Sultana: How do you think the Indigenous language, land, culture, and students’ and teachers’ sense of themselves got affected in the process?

Urmee Chakma: It is important to recognize that the neoliberal approach to education, which emphasizes individual success and achievement, can often overlook the cultural and linguistic diversity of students and the impact of educational policies on their communities. In the case of Indigenous students in Bangladesh, learning Bangla and English may provide economic opportunities, but it can also come at the cost of eroding their own linguistic and cultural heritage.

Moreover, the emphasis on quantifiable test scores and completing credits can create a narrow focus on academic achievement and disregard the importance of holistic education, which includes an understanding of one's own culture and history. This can lead to a disconnection between Indigenous students and their communities and can contribute to the loss of cultural and environmental knowledge that has been passed down through generations. Therefore, it is important to consider the social and cultural implications of educational policies and practices and to strive for an education system that values linguistic and cultural diversity, promotes critical thinking and social responsibility, and empowers students to engage with their cultural heritage (Tankosić et al., 2022) while also equipping them with the necessary skills and knowledge for economic success.

Neoliberalism as a form of governmentality and homo economicus

Shaila Sultana: It seems Indigenous students have turned into homo economicus, as Brown (2015) pointed out concerning the Foucauldian definition of ‘subjects’. For Foucault (1984/2010, p. 226), homo economicus is governable and controllable according to the principle of the economy: each individual becomes “an entrepreneur and an entrepreneur of himself” (Brown, 2015: 33). When they are preoccupied with self-investing in education, they are increasing their values as human capital and making themselves materialistically ready to adjust to the changing markets. They are nonchalant about acquiring knowledge and becoming intelligent democratic citizens. In my research, Indigenous teachers claimed that they would like their students and children to learn only the national and foreign languages, Bangla and English since these languages are economically viable and lucrative. In what ways may these homo economicus teachers turn into homo reciprocans?

Urmee Chakma: The concept of homo reciprocans, as proposed by economist Samuel Bowles (2008), refers to individuals who prioritize reciprocity, fairness, and cooperation over self-interest and material gain. While the neoliberal approach to education tends to focus on developing individuals as homo economicus, it is possible for teachers, including Indigenous teachers, to adopt a homo reciprocans perspective.

One way in which these teachers could turn into homo reciprocans is by recognizing the importance of cultural and linguistic diversity in the education system. Instead of solely emphasizing the economic benefits of learning Bangla and English, they could also promote the value of preserving and revitalizing Indigenous languages and cultures. By doing so, they could help their students develop a strong sense of identity and belonging, which is essential for their overall well-being and success. Another way in which these teachers could adopt a homo reciprocans perspective is by prioritizing the needs and interests of their students and communities over economic gain. They could work to create educational programs and initiatives that are responsive to the cultural and linguistic diversity of their students, and that promote critical thinking, creativity, and social responsibility. They could also work to ensure that their students have access to a quality education that enables them to become informed and engaged democratic citizens, rather than simply economic actors by shifting their focus from a purely economic perspective to one that prioritizes reciprocity, fairness, and cooperation.

Governmentality and discursive construction of power

Shaila Sultana: I can relate to your experiences from my position as a Bangladeshi student. I knew little about Indigenous languages, communities, and their linguistic and human rights, even though I was born and raised in Bangladesh. None of the school textbooks in our school and college represented any substantial sections on Indigenous languages, communities, and their linguistic and human rights. It shows that the absence of information is a political act too. The media, at least when we were growing up in Dhaka, the capital city of Bangladesh, represented the mountainous areas as the ambiguous space where the ‘unknown’ and ‘unfamiliar’ and ‘distant’ Indigenous communities live and create unrest for civilian Bangladeshis and law-enforcing agencies, such as military personnel. I became aware of these issues when I started sociolinguistics research in the context of Bangladesh. The deliberate silencing indicates a certain kind of ‘governmentality’. Foucault (1977) first introduced the idea of ‘governmentality’ to explore the micro power and techniques of the government for the formation and establishment of the modern state. Foucault (1984/2010) also identified how governmentality ensured the imposition and operation of power through a whole series of networks and the construction of knowledge. What were the micro power and techniques of the government that instigated the marginalization of Indigenous communities in your locality?

Urmee Chakma: The Bangladeshi government employed various micro-level power and techniques in the 1980s to marginalize Indigenous communities in the Chittagong Hill Tracts (CHT), contributing to the perpetuation of existing social, economic and political inequalities and further exacerbating the marginalization of these communities.

One technique used by the government was the settlement of Bangalee migrants in the CHT region. The government encouraged the settlement of Bangalee migrants in the CHT to change the demographic composition of the region and increase its control over the region (Roy, 2002). This led to the displacement of Indigenous communities, the confiscation of their ancestral lands, and the loss of livelihoods and cultural heritage. The settlement of Bangalee migrants also heightened tensions between settlers and Indigenous communities, fostering conflict and violence in the region. In parallel, the government employed military force as another method to suppress Indigenous resistance and maintain control over the CHT. In the 1980s, the government deployed military forces in the CHT to quell the Indigenous resistance movement, which aimed to protect the rights and autonomy of Indigenous communities. This, unfortunately, resulted in widespread human rights violations, including arbitrary arrests, extrajudicial killings, and forced evictions. We have all, in one way or another, been impacted by these tragic losses.

In addition to the settlement of Bangalee migrants and the use of military force, the government also implemented policies aimed at cultural assimilation encouraging the use of the Bangla language and culture over Indigenous languages and cultural traditions, leading to the loss of cultural heritage and identity for Indigenous communities and perpetuating their marginalization. Also, the government neglected the development needs of the CHT region, resulting in poverty and underdevelopment. The lack of infrastructure development and investment in the region perpetuated economic marginalization and contributed to existing social and economic inequalities.

These tactics reflect a top-down power structure that seeks to impose its will on the affected communities. The production of conditions where individuals and communities can act upon themselves and shape their destinies, free from such external coercion, remains an ongoing challenge in the quest for justice and equality.

Shaila Sultana: From my experience and others in my surrounding, I can vouch that the general population were/are somewhat unaware of the widespread human rights violation and the loss of livelihoods and cultural heritage of Indigenous communities in Bangladesh. Foucault (1979) mentioned that power becomes pervasive, omniscient, and operational because of the population and their network. The population becomes the social body to executes the government's and the State's power. Power exists in its execution by the population and through the practice of the population. While a significant number of the population remained blinded, how do you think that the power over the Indigenous community members was realised? Why did the Indigenous community members accept the execution of power?

Urmee Chakma: In the 1980s, and 1990s, the Bangladeshi population with vested interests, including the government and Bangalee settlers, realized their power over the Indigenous communities in the Chittagong Hill Tracts (CHT) through a combination of factors. Firstly, the government's encouragement of Bangalee migration to the CHT region allowed for an increase in the number of Bangalees in the region and a change in the demographic composition. This change in demographics allowed the government and the settlers to exert their power over the Indigenous communities and perpetuate their marginalization.

Additionally, the use of military force by the government to suppress the Indigenous resistance movement further entrenched their power over the Indigenous communities. The widespread human rights violations committed by the military, including extrajudicial killings and arbitrary arrests, created an atmosphere of fear and repression, effectively silencing the Indigenous resistance movement and consolidating the government's power over the region. The government's implementation of policies aimed at cultural assimilation, such as the promotion of the Bangla language and culture, also contributed to their power over the Indigenous communities. The loss of cultural heritage and identity for the Indigenous communities further perpetuated their marginalization and weakened their ability to resist the power of the government and Bangalee settlers.

The Indigenous communities accepted the execution of power due to several factors. Firstly, the lack of infrastructure development and investment in the CHT region perpetuated poverty and underdevelopment, leaving them with few alternatives to survive. This limited their ability to resist the power of the government and Bangalee settlers. Secondly, the use of military force and human rights violations by the government created an atmosphere of fear and repression, making it difficult for the Indigenous communities to organize and resist. Additionally, the lack of support from the international community contributed to the acceptance of power by the Indigenous communities.

Sadly, all the above mentioned continue to happen to date – the most appalling thing is the presence of the military camps – I fail to comprehend why in an independent country, there are hundreds of operating camps whose primary aim is to harass the ‘nak chaeptas’/flat nosed as we were referred by others. This is OUR place, OUR land, why on earth just because I am a Chakma woman would be physically checked if I am carrying something dangerous on the bus, tomtom, or even private cars (I experienced all of these during my last visit to Khagrachhari in 2021), why would the nation-state treat its rightful citizens like third class citizens?

Shaila Sultana: This sort of humiliation of and execution of power over the minority communities in the name of safety and security is also an example of governmentality which may be better explained as the ‘apparatuses of security’ – techniques specific to the management of the population in the name of security. The apparatuses of security become a logical and rational choice because they ensure the collective economic security of the population. It is desirable because security is implemented to ensure the economic, political, and cultural well-being of society with planned and strategic steps to control risks. In other words, the population itself sees the viability of the ‘apparatuses of security’ and political economy as a principal form of knowledge and the security measures indispensable to systemize society. Do you remember any specific events in which the ‘ apparatuses of security’ have been used for the occupation of lands, mountains, or displacement of Indigenous communities from their ancestral lands? What have been the consequences of these security measures?

Urmee Chakma: There have been several instances in which the apparatuses of security have been used to occupy lands, and mountains, and displace Indigenous communities from their ancestral lands in Bangladesh. Some examples are:

1. The construction of the Kaptai Dam: The Kaptai Dam, built in the 1960s, flooded the lands of the Chakma people, who had been living in the hills and valleys of the Chittagong Hill Tracts for centuries. The project involved the forced displacement of thousands of Chakma people from their homes, with the government providing little compensation or assistance in resettlement. Many of them fled to India and became refugees.

Overall, the use of security apparatuses in these contexts has had a devastating impact on the Indigenous communities in Bangladesh.

Shaila Sultana: Frustratingly, all these decisions were justified in the name of the development of the nation and the security of the general population. As the greater Bangladeshis benefitted from the use of the security apparatuses in these contexts, they were coerced into these decisions with consent. This sort of acceptance of decisions from the authority reminds me of ‘political economy’ – yet another dynamic of ‘governmentality’. ‘Political economy’ is the principal form of knowledge and the ‘ultimate truth’ that informs, justifies, and allows the governance of the population. In a dyad relationship, one is the container of the ‘ultimate truth’/knowledge, aka, political economy, whereas the other is the passive ignorant recipient of the knowledge. The knowledge also makes the hierarchies between people acceptable. How did the Indigenous community react to this sort of construction where the Indigenous communities are depicted as inferiors compared to the Bangladeshis?

Urmee Chakma: The Indigenous communities have historically reacted to the construction of their inferiority compared to Bangladeshis through a variety of means. Firstly, they have organized resistance movements to assert their rights and challenge the dominant narrative perpetuated by the government and Bangalee settlers. These resistance movements have taken various forms, including peaceful protests, civil disobedience, and armed resistance.

Despite government policies promoting the Bangla language and culture, Indigenous communities in Bangladesh have preserved their traditional practices to maintain their cultural identity. They have also raised awareness about their struggles through advocacy (Chakma, 2023) and social media platforms, sharing their stories and cultural practices with a wider audience.

Despite these efforts, the Indigenous communities have faced significant obstacles in their struggle for equality and recognition, particularly to get Indigenous recognition officially. As you might be aware the use of military force by the government to suppress the resistance movement, along with widespread human rights violations, has created an atmosphere of fear and repression, making it difficult for the Indigenous communities to organize and assert their rights. I strongly believe, the marginalization of the Indigenous communities has been perpetuated by the political economy, which has prioritized the interests of the government and Bangalee settlers over those of the local Indigenous communities.

Decolonisation as praxis

Shaila Sultana: Amidst such Bangalee ultra-nationalism in the formal domains, how did you make sense of your language, culture, and self as a young child?

Urmee Chakma: Like other Indigenous children in the Chittagong Hill Tracts (CHT), I made sense of my language, culture, and self through a combination of cultural transmission and personal experience.

In the context of Bangalee ultra-nationalism, I experienced feelings of disconnection at school, with all the characters in the textbooks looking different; their names, and dresses did not represent what I saw around - how I saw the world, what I ate, or who I was. Constantly hearing, referred to that you are ‘upojati’ sub-nation is lesser in every sense – not being good enough with your food habit (perceived misconceptions that Chakmas eat shap/snake, shukor/pig, baeng/frog, most of the prohibited food for Muslims), not being good enough with your culture (often referred to as primitive, uncivilized) and your language (why can’t you speak proper Bangla?). All these overall negative experiences resulted in a lack of motivation and engagement (Beresford et al., 2003) in the learning process. All these points out to cultural erasure, as the dominant culture seeks to suppress or ignore our traditions, beliefs, and practices of the Indigenous communities. Despite these challenges, I believe we have been able to preserve and maintain a strong sense of cultural identity through continued exposure to traditional stories, songs, and rituals.

Research has shown that cultural transmission is a key factor in shaping children's understanding of their language, culture, and identity. For me, this transmission took place through a variety of channels, including interaction with family members and other members of the community, the murrubbis/respected senior members, participation in cultural (Bizu, e.g.), religious rituals (Kothin Chibor Daan) and festivals, and exposure to traditional stories, songs, and beliefs (Rogoff, 2003). Through these experiences, I was able to internalize and make sense of the values, beliefs, and practices of the Chakma culture, and develop a strong sense of self as an Indigenous person.

In addition to cultural transmission, personal experiences also played a significant role in shaping my understanding of my Chakma language, culture, and self. For example, experiences of discrimination or marginalization have led to a greater sense of solidarity with other Indigenous people (with Australian Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander People, e.g.) and a stronger identification with one’s cultural heritage (McIntyre, 2013). Conversely, experiences of cultural validation and recognition have had a positive impact on my sense of self and cultural identity (Chakma, 2022). During my PhD, my supervisor often commented how strongly I upheld Chakmaness and that it comes out very strongly in my writing. Cultural traditions and practices are deeply ingrained in the fabric of Indigenous communities and are often passed down from one generation to the next.

Shaila Sultana: Ahmed et al. (2023) empirically proved the invisibility and silencing of indigenous languages at the grassroots level. They also showed that the non-existence of indigenous languages is reinforced by the linguistically minoritized subjects themselves and their positive emotion toward the national and official language. Based on your life trajectories, what do you think we should do to raise awareness about the imperialist forces of the national and the official language?

Urmee Chakma: Raising awareness about the imperialist forces of the national and the official language in Bangladesh is crucial for emphasizing the values of freedom, democracy, anti-colonialism, and anti-imperialism, as well as the struggle for establishing people's rights. To achieve this goal, several initiatives can be taken. Firstly, educational institutions can play a crucial role in raising awareness by incorporating the history of imperialism into the curricula. This can be done by teaching students about the legacy of colonialism and its impact on the region. Additionally, students can be taught about the anti-colonial struggles that took place in Bangladesh and the significance of these struggles for the establishment of democracy and freedom. Secondly, civil society organizations can also play an important role in raising awareness. These organizations can organize seminars, workshops, and roundtable discussions on the topic of imperialism and its impact on the people of Bangladesh. These events can bring together scholars, activists, and community leaders to discuss and share their perspectives on the issue. Thirdly, the media can also play a crucial role in raising awareness. Media outlets can be encouraged to cover stories about the history of imperialism and its impact on the people of Bangladesh. This can help to educate the public about the importance of the anti-colonial struggle and its impact on the region. Finally, the government can also play an important role in raising awareness by funding initiatives that aim to educate the public about the history of imperialism and its impact on the people of Bangladesh. This can be done by providing resources to educational institutions, civil society organizations, and media outlets to support their efforts to raise awareness about the issue.

In short, raising awareness about the imperialist forces in different types and forms in Bangladesh is crucial for emphasizing the values of freedom, democracy, anti-colonialism, and anti-imperialism, as well as the struggle for establishing people's rights. By incorporating the history of Bangla imperialism into the curricula, organizing events, encouraging media coverage, and providing resources, the goal of raising awareness about the issue can be achieved.

Shaila Sultana: The promotion and accentuation of Bangla have not allowed constructive discussion at the policy level about the Indigenous classrooms and also do not encourage pedagogic practices that lead to educational, social, and economic transformation. How did you make your language and yourself acceptable in the intensely Bangladeshi space, when you moved to Dhaka, the capital city of Bangladesh to pursue higher education? Did you have to leave a ‘bit’ of yourself in the transition?

Urmee Chakma: When I moved to Dhaka as a 16-year-old, naïve, pahari/mountain girl for higher education, I felt like entering a space that is intensely Bangalee, and where the dominant language and culture is Bangla. This presented challenges for me in terms of feeling accepted and fitting in.

To navigate this transition, I needed to find ways to balance my own cultural identity with the dominant culture of Dhaka. I had to learn to speak Bangla fluently and adapt to cultural norms that were significantly different from my own. At the same time, I held onto my cultural heritage and identity. I became actively involved with other Chakma students, communities, and some organizations, such as, Hill Women’s Federation and Pahari Chhatra Porishod based in Dhaka University and Jahangirnagar University and we tried to find ways to celebrate Chakma cultural events and traditions, for example, celebrating the biggest cultural celebration Bizu on 13 April, or going on annual picnics where we would eat traditional food and play traditional games and so on.

The broader issue you raise about the promotion of Bangla and its impact on Indigenous classrooms is also an important one. Policymakers need to recognize and support the diversity of cultures and languages in Bangladesh, and to ensure that educational policies and practices are inclusive and respectful of all communities. Ultimately, the transition to Dhaka for me required some adjustments, but I did not have to leave behind a core part of my identity. With support from my fellow Chakmas – cousins who were studying in Dhaka, friends, communities, and fellow students, I believe I had found ways to thrive in the intensely Bangalee space of the capital city while remaining true to my cultural heritage.

Shaila Sultana: In what ways did the colonization of language and land put you in an aesthetically, intellectually, or physically marginalized position? If the spaces are gentrified and colonized, how did you occupy the space? What contradictions did you experience? Did you encounter a simultaneous sense of belonging and non-belonging?

Urmee Chakma: The colonization of language and land has put the Chakmas and other Indigenous communities in the Chittagong Hill Tracts in an aesthetically, intellectually, and physically marginalized position. Chakmas have experienced displacement, forced assimilation, and cultural erasure, as their land and resources were taken over by external powers and their language and culture were suppressed or marginalized. This has resulted in the loss of their traditional knowledge, practices and social structures, as well as the disruption of their relationship with their environment.

The gentrification and colonization of spaces have further marginalised the Chakmas, as they have been excluded from decision-making processes that shape the environment and their access to resources and opportunities making it difficult for them to occupy these spaces and assert their presence in the region. They are forced to adapt to a new reality that is often hostile to their cultural heritage and traditions.

The forced imposition of the Bangla language and culture as the dominant narrative has led to the suppression of the Chakma language and cultural practices. This has resulted in the erosion of their cultural identity and a loss of connection to their traditional ways of life as I mentioned multiple times. The gentrification of our lands has further compounded these issues, as Chakma communities are often displaced from their ancestral homes and their traditional territories are exploited for natural resources. This has contributed to poverty and increased marginalization for many Chakma families.

Growing up in this context, the experiences of marginalization and colonization have been both confusing and challenging. I certainly encountered a simultaneous sense of belonging and non-belonging, as part of my people, community and culture but also subject to the dominant narrative imposed by the colonizing culture. I grew up with feelings of cultural displacement, leading to a sense of not fully belonging in either my own culture or the dominant culture with conflicting cultural values, a lack of access to education and resources in my mother tongue, and seeing the loss of our ancestral lands and territories. These experiences have had a profound impact on my sense of Chakmaness, belonging, and self-worth.

It is important to recognize the ongoing effects of colonization and to support initiatives that promote the revitalization and preservation of the Chakma language and culture, as well as the protection of our ancestral lands and territories. Additionally, it is crucial to support education initiatives that prioritize the use of the Chakma language and provide access to educational resources and opportunities that are culturally relevant and respectful of the Chakma community.

Anthropocene futures: Colonialism and environmentalism

Shaila Sultana: In recent times, the Anthropocene is considered a variation of spaces in which Indigenous ideas and experiences are hindered by non-Indigenous practitioners. The destruction of the Indigenous land, water, and habitat in Chittagong Hill Tracts (e.g., the building of the Kaptai dam or development of Sajek – the tourist spot) has been done in the name of collective development, keeping in consideration little regard for Indigenous well-being. Cole and Malone (2019) suggested the knowledge, experiences, and practices of Aboriginal Australians as a significant resource to fight the climate crisis called Anthropocene. How may we consider decolonization and Indigenization necessary to bring Indigenous epistemologies, ontologies, and practices to the fore in a meaningful and ethical way and minimize the effects of the Anthropocene?

Urmee Chakma: Decolonization and Indigenization are crucial for bringing Indigenous epistemologies, ontologies, and practices to the forefront in a meaningful and ethical way. Only then we engage critically with the mechanisms of the Anthropocene. Decolonization involves the process of undoing the historical, cultural, and political structures that were imposed upon Indigenous peoples through colonization, to return power and control to the marginalized communities. Indigenization, on the other hand, involves the revitalization and restoration of Indigenous culture and traditions, as well as the promotion of their recognition and integration into mainstream society.

In the context of the Chittagong Hill Tracts, decolonization and Indigenization could involve several key steps:

1. Recognition of Indigenous rights: The rights of the Chakma people and other Indigenous communities in the Chittagong Hill Tracts must be recognized and protected by the government and other relevant organizations. This includes the right to their ancestral lands and territories, as well as their cultural and linguistic heritage.

Decolonization and Indigenization are crucial for promoting the recognition, revitalization, and preservation of Indigenous epistemologies, ontologies, and practices. By supporting these initiatives, we can help to create a more just and equitable future for Indigenous communities in the Chittagong Hill Tracts and beyond.

Shaila Sultana: The governmental policies, practices, and discourses about language, culture, education, or land universalize Bangladesh, as it is done in the notion of Anthropocene as a narrative tool. The narrative collapses the complex and paradoxical experiences of diverse people as humans in Bangladesh. In what ways do you think we may question the narratives of development that the Anthropocene describes?

Urmee Chakma: The narratives of development and the Anthropocene can be questioned in the context of the Chakmas in Chittagong Hill Tracts by considering the following perspectives:

1. The Indigenous experience: The Chakmas have their own unique cultural and historical experiences, which may not fit neatly into the broader narratives of the Anthropocene. It is important to recognize and validate the experiences of the Chakmas and other Indigenous peoples, and to recognize that their perspectives may differ from those of the dominant society.

I strongly believe it is crucial to recognize and question the dominant narratives of development and the Anthropocene, and to consider the perspectives and experiences of marginalized groups, such as the Chakmas, to ensure that their rights and interests are protected.

Shaila Sultana: What could be the liberatory alternative? Should we think about posthumanism as a research methodology to inquire about the Anthropocene? What do you think of doing as an Indigenous woman academic for the Indigenous communities challenging the Anthropocene futures?

Urmee Chakma: Critics of the Anthropocene narrative argue that it oversimplifies and universalizes experiences. A more liberating approach would prioritize narratives that acknowledge marginalized perspectives, such as Indigenous peoples' stories (cf. Clary-Lemon, 2019). For example, Chakma folklore portrays mountains as sacred places that serve as mediators between the human and spirit worlds, playing significant roles in their beliefs and daily lives. These stories should be brought to the forefront. As Clary-Lemon (2019) suggested, Indigenous thinkers, writers, and academics should come to the fore and share how the materials in the surrounding nature compose the ontology of our beings. Similarly, Ulmer (2017: 6) identified posthumanism as an effective methodology that allows exploring how “humanity has altered the planet and (2) how bodies are ethically and politically situated within material environments”.

As a Chakma Indigenous woman academic, I aim to challenge Anthropocene futures by amplifying Indigenous voices and perspectives in the Chittagong Hill Tracts. I conduct research and advocacy to promote education and awareness of their cultural, linguistic, and environmental heritage, collaborate with others to develop policies that support Indigenous rights and contribute to alternative futures as well as alternative research methodologies that prioritize Indigenous experiences in preserving the planet for future generations.

Conclusion

With reference to notions such as linguicism, linguistic imperialism, and governmentality in the era of the Anthropocene, in this paper, we untangle the ways Indigenous communities are given less priority politically, historically, socially, and culturally and how the violation of human rights of Indigenous ethnic communities have been justified in the name of nationalization and development since the independence of Bangladesh in 1971. We also problematise the ingrained beliefs and ideologies associated with the superiority of the Bangladeshi communities in terms of language, nationality, and ethnicity that have enabled the Bangladeshi communities to justify forced migration, displacement of Indigenous communities from their traditional land, extinction of Indigenous languages, disengagement with Indigenous and local languages, and consequently, the destruction of biodiversity of Chittagong Hill Tract.

In the end, we want to refer to the last stanza of the poem, ‘Joli No Udhim Kittei!’ (Why shall I not resist) a Chakma poem written in Bangla script as ‘Rukhe Darabo Na Keno?’ by the author Kabita Chakma in 1992, translated into English by Meghna Guhathakurta. This poem epitomizes the ongoing violation of human rights that Chakmas experience in the Chittagong Hill Tracts (CHT).

“Neglect and humiliation cause anger

The last stanza of the poem “Joli No Udhim Kittei!” (Why shall I not resist) highlights the emotional impact of neglect and humiliation on the Chakma people in the Chittagong Hill Tracts. The poem expresses the anger and frustration that arise from the ongoing violation of human rights experienced by this community. The stanza portrays the power and determination of the youthful spirit, breaking through the barriers of oppression and surging forward with a fierce determination to resist.

This stanza speaks to the importance of resistance in the face of injustice, and the need for individuals to assert their agency and self-determination in the face of oppression. It also highlights the power of community, as the “fury of youth” is described as piercing the “sea of consciousness.” This suggests that the struggle for justice is a collective effort and that the power of resistance lies in the solidarity of the community. This stanza serves as a call to action, urging individuals to resist oppression and to fight for their rights and dignity. It is a powerful expression of the determination and resilience of the Chakma people in the face of ongoing human rights violations.

We also show that the acceptance of subjugation and marginalization by the Indigenous communities is an ‘epistemic violence’ initiated by an apt use of governmentality. Only by critically questioning the methods for creating and disseminating knowledge, we understand the political need to question the historical and colonial production and legitimization of the existing epistemology and ontology of knowledge and may instil decolonial attitudes in all communities going beyond nationality, ethnicity, and race.

The Eurocentric approach to human-environmental relationships that is often used to promote the Anthropocene narrative can perpetuate new forms of colonialism in Indigenous lands. This approach can often be dominated by Western scientific and economic perspectives that fail to take into account the diverse ways in which Indigenous communities understand and interact with the environment. In addition, when the Indigenous people and their language, culture, land, and nature in Bangladesh have been exploited to such a grave extent, mere academic discourses may not be adequate for ensuring epistemic fairness. Carneiro and Silva (2023: 143) stated that

The difficulty of surviving and fostering optimism in the Anthropocene is more than just developing solid academic insights and being politically involved with communities; it is a challenge of cohabitation and acknowledging that because all of us have the same shape-shifting destiny, which necessitates developing collective strategies.

It is, hence, important to engage in active and engaged governmental and academic praxis that prioritizes Indigenous knowledge and perspectives. It is important to engage with research and theoretical, methodological, and ethical debates that encourage shifting attention from humans to the natural ecology and sustainable living practices (Ulmer, 2017). This may involve partnering with Indigenous communities and organizations (Gower et al., 2020), implementing community-led research initiatives, and incorporating traditional ecological knowledge into decision-making processes. Additionally, it may involve supporting Indigenous-led conservation and sustainability efforts and advocating for the recognition and protection of Indigenous rights and sovereignty. Finally, it is crucial to critically examine and challenge Eurocentric assumptions about the relationship between humans and the environment, and to work towards creating a more inclusive and equitable understanding of the Anthropocene.