indigenous chakma justice system in the chittagong … of muhammad asadullah from simon fraser...

Writing of Muhammad Asadullah from Simon Fraser University (SFU)

1

Indigenous Chakma Justice System in the Chittagong Hill Tracts (CHT): An

Exploratory Listening Project in Bangladesh.


2

Indigenous Chakma Justice System in the Chittagong Hill Tracts (CHT): An Exploratory

Listening Project in Bangladesh.

In this exploratory research-based listening project, 15 semi structured qualitative

interviews and one participant observation were conducted with the Chakma tribal leaders and

NGO officials. The primary objective of this project was to explore: 1) the leadership structure

of the indigenous Chakma Justice System, 2) the process of how justice is ensured in Chakma

communities, and 3) the nature of punishment and restitutions in this traditional Justice process.

This project holds the potential to create and strengthen transformation from small endeavors to

large public policy decisions. It can be the foundation for future study and projects on

indigenous justice system in CHT, Bangladesh. A major challenge for future research in this

area is to attempt to examine Chakma Justice System with Restorative Justice values and

compare with it with mainstream criminal justice system in Bangladesh.

Key Words: Chakma Justice System, Restorative Justice, Indigenous Justice, Raja, Headmen,

Karbari, Leadership, Listening Project

Introduction:

Indigenous people in Bangladesh practice their unique form of justice system to deal with

crime. Howard Zehr describes crime as a violation of people and relationships. It creates

obligations to make things right. Justice involves the victim, the offender and the community in a

search for solutions, which promote repair, reconciliation and reassurance (Zehr, 2005, p. 181).

Instead of isolating the offenders in prison, most of the indigenous communities invite victims,

offenders and community leaders in justice process and try to restore relationship that has been

broken because of the crime.

Knowing and understanding the dynamics of leadership structure, justice process and

restitutions and rituals of indigenous justice system in CHT through this research-based listening

project is the primary goal this study. It particularly focuses on Chakma justice system, one of

the dominant ethnic groups in Chittagong Hill Tracts (CHT), Bangladesh. The long-term

objective of this study is to explore Restorative Justice values (such as respect, relationship and

interconnectedness) in indigenous justice system in the (CHT).

The Chittagong Hill Tracts:

The Chittagong Hill Tracts (CHT) comprises three districts – Rangamati, Khagrachari

and Banderban. The total area of the Chittagong Hill Tracts is 5093 square miles, which is ten

per cent of the total area of Bangladesh. The CHT is home of 13 different tribes of diverse

cultures, languages and religions (Mohsin, 2002). Schendel (1992) mentions 12 distinct tribes

living in CHT. Among these ethnic groups, the Chakma is the largest single tribe in Bangladesh,

with a population of 300,000 (Mohsin, 1997). They are unique among the tribes in having sacred

Buddhist texts written in both their own language and in Pali, the language of Buddhist scripture.

Their ancestors are believed to have migrated from Arakan. The Chittagong Hill Tracts came

under Mughal rule by conquest in 1666 and was later lost to the British. Bangladesh was then the

legitimate successor state in what had been East Bengal and later East Pakistan (CHT


3

Commission, 1991, p. 10). In 1715, Chakma King Jallal Khan established a treaty with Mughal

Nowab (Faiz & Mohaiemen, 2010, p. 26). It has been added that:

“Unlike most industrialized countries, most countries in South Asia – as in many other

former British colonies – have been quite accommodative of legal pluralism when it

concerns personal laws based upon religion or ethnicity, dealing with such matters as

marriage, inheritance, family law matters, etc. Bangladesh is no exception to this trend.

Therefore, the customary personal laws of the indigenous peoples of the country are

generally recognized and respected” (Roy D. , 2010).

Philosophy behind Listening Project:

This listening project is based on the Socratic or John Paul Lederach elicitive model where

the researcher wanted to see himself “as a catalyst or facilitator rather than expert” (Lederach,

1995). Human Scale Development and Capability Approach (HSDCA) was used as a paradigm

in this project. Emphasizing on local and indigenous knowledge on Chakma Justice is one of the

important priorities in this project.

Ron Kraybill (1995) describes product-centered development and process-centered

development. Product-centered development involves the quick delivery of technology created in

one particular setting to another. The belief is that since the product worked once, the same

results should easily be replicated by introducing the technology elsewhere. With the excitement

and strong beliefs around the technology as the ‘answer,’ product-driven development gives little

attention to context. Often in product-centered development, the proposed change is not

appropriate because the community and key stakeholders were not involved during the planning

and decision-making stages. Even if it is appropriate, people may reject new ideas outright.

Kraybill has described the importance of how decisions are made through the story of two

business meetings:

a) At one meeting, the chair unilaterally picks three women to go make coffee. The meeting

is disrupted and stalls because of the intense emotions and reactions to the decision.

b) At another meeting, three women willingly get up from the meeting to make coffee for

break after having drawn the lowest numbers from a hat.

In simple terms, the two scenarios above demonstrate the impact process has on the outcome.

With the chair deciding, the decision process was very fast; however, the implementation of the

decision (making the coffee) was very slow because of the reactions from the people affected by

the decision. In the second scene, one can imagine that the decision to draw numbers from a hat

took more time initially; but, because everyone had agreed to the process, the actual making of

the coffee happened quickly thereafter.

Process-centered development views the product as secondary to how the development

happens. In fact, the product may be changed or even created through the process, rather than the

casual transfer of the technology.


4

The entire listening project to explore Chakma justice system in CHT is based on

process-centered approach.

Chakma Justice System:

From time immemorial, indigenous people have resorted to their own traditional dispute

resolution system for resolving disputes (Schendel, 1992). Mangal Kumar Chakma noted that

“though Bangladesh is governed by a unitary system of administration, the CHT, conversely, is

governed by a form of triple legal and administrative system” (Chakma K. M., 2010). Raja

Debashish Roy termed the system as “authority sharing among the central government through

its district and sub-district officials, the traditional institutions of chiefs, headmen and karbaries,

and through elected councils at district and regional level” (Roy R. D., 2004). It is this

juxtaposition, which marks the peculiarity of Hill Tracts. The administration of district and sub-

district as well as the traditional institution of chief, headman and karbari was installed by the

then British reign (1760-1947) while the later administrative structure was formulated following

the Independence War of Bangladesh in 1971. This latest form of administration includes CHT

Regional Council, Hill District Council, CHT Development Board and the Ministry of CHT

Affairs.

There was no ‘formal’ administrative structure in the CHT until May 1, 1900 (Chakma K.

M., 2010). The region had come under the reign of the British in 1760. In 1860, passing Act

XXII, the British had excluded the hill and forest tracts (now the CHT region) from the

jurisdiction of the civil, criminal, and revenue courts and offices of the Chittagong district and

made it into a separate district in its own right known as the Chittagong Hill Tracts (CHT).

Amena Mohsin suggested that the British in May 1, 1900, passed the CHT Regulation of

1900, also known as CHT Manual, to protect the hill people from outside exploitation and to

serve the hill people better (Mohsin, 2002). The Manual had clearly defined the roles and duties

of the civil and criminal administrative wing consisting of a Deputy Commissioners (DC), Sub-

divisional Officers (SdO) and that of traditional administrative wing consisting of chief,

headman and karbari (Rahman, 2011). Roy (2004) termed the CHT Manual as a ‘constitutional

legal instrument’ for the region as it had delineated the duties and responsibilities of all the

stakeholders involved in administrative system including that of indigenous court. He further

termed it as a ‘part-bureaucratic and part-traditional’ administrative system. Though the Manual

was later amended in 2003 as CHT Regulation (Amendment) Act 2003, Roy argues that the

traditional institution remained unaffected. Moreover, he further stated “the role and power of

the traditional administration and its customary laws had more been formally and directly

acknowledged through the Peace Accord in 1997 and forming CHT Regional Council following

the accord” (Roy R. D., 2004). Kumar Chakma (2010) also mentioned that the accord

strengthened the traditional institution. Mohsin (2002) noted that the Manual placed the CHT

under the administration of a Deputy Commissioner. It also divided the region into three

administrative subdivisions – Rangamati, Ramgarh and Banderban. A Sub-divisional Officer

(SdO) administered each of the sub-divisions. These sub-divisions were further divided into

several Thanas (police station), and each Thana had numerous villages under its jurisdiction.


5

In addition to this administrative structure, the CHT manual had also delineated another

administrative structure dividing the region into three Circles – Chakma, Bhomang and Mong

Circle – and each were placed under a chief (Mohsin, 2002). A local chief who was responsible

for collecting revenues and managing internal affairs governed each circle. Each circle was in

turn divided into taluks (estates), administrated by the dewans and the taluks were further sub-

divided into ‘mouza (consist of several villages) conventionally administrated by the headmen.

Each mouza was divided into paras (villages) administrated by the karbaris (Kundu, Samadder,

Khan, & Naomi, 2011, p. 3). The size of these three Circles are: the Chakma circle of 1658 sq.

miles (excluding government reserve forest of 763 sq miles.); the Bhomang Cricle of 1444 sq

miles (excluding government reserve forest of 620 sq. miles); and the Mong circles of 653 sq

miles (Mohsin, 2002 ). Each of the Circles was divided into 373 mouzas; which is under the

supervision of Headman or Dewan; and each of the mouzas was divided into para which is

supervised by Karbari” (Kundu, Samadder, Khan, & Naomi, 2011). This structure was

formulated in concurrence with the traditional institutions of CHT (Roy R. D., 2004)

Mohsin (2002) and Kundu, Samadder, Khan, and Naomi (2011) noted that the former

administrative structure was responsible for executive, judicial, civil, criminal and financial

matters in the CHT while the latter was responsible for collecting taxes and disposal of disputes

in the traditional courts. Roy (2004) explained the role and duties of traditional courts as an

institution to administer tribal customary social and family law and custom based rights of the

indigenous people over the natural resources of the region.

The Supreme Court of Bangladesh strongly recognized the significance of preserving the

customary laws of people of Chittagong Hill Tracts. Chakma customary laws can handle crimes

related to marriage, sexual behavior inheritance of land and some other social problems.

Leadership Structure of Chakma Justice System:

The Indigenous Justice System in CHT is a three-tiered system (Rahman, 2011) which is

as Roy (2005) put it ‘highly structured’ and ‘constitutionally recognized’ unlike some other

traditional justice system in South Asia. The karbaris are the bottom point of leadership in the

system, headmen are the middle and the Raja(King/chief) is the top leadership authority in the

system. Though Roy (2005) noted the system as ‘two-tiered’ involving headman and the chief,

but existing literature manifests that it is three-tiered. Even Roy (2004) mentioned it as three-

tiered system involving karbaris, headman and the chief. Rahman (2011) and Choudhury (2008)

also mentioned the structure as three-tired. There is however no provision regarding the role and

duty of karbari in the CHT Manual. But all existing literatures reviewed confirmed the existence

of karbari as the lowest tier of indigenous justice system. “The karbari is the head of a hamlet or

village” (Roy R. D., 2004). The headman is the head of a mouza while the chief is the head of

the circle. A village consists of several paras while a mouza consists of several villages. The

main duty of this three-tiered justice system is to “supervise social functions and to administer

traditional justice in accordance with customary laws” (Roy R. D., 2004). However, according to

the CHT Manual they are entitled to administer the personal, social and family issues in the

traditional court. “The traditional justice system is also responsible for collecting taxes and to

resolve the cases regarding natural resource management of their respective jurisdictional area”

(Roy R. D., 2005)


6

Rule 38 of the CHT Manual defined the duties of headman and the chief as an advisory

council to the District Council (DC) and they are to enforce orders received from the DC.

Headman will collect revenue, conservation of resources, obey the orders of DC, SdO and the

chief and maintain law and order in their respective areas. Rule 40 of the CHT Manual further

mentioned that the chief and the headman would adjudicate the tribal cases in accordance with

their social norms. Regarding tribal cases, their decision is final but the DC holds the general

revisional authority over them. The chief can fine Tk 50 (Taka is the currency of Bangladesh)

while the headman Tk 25 highest according to the CHT Manual 1900.

It is evident from Kundu, Samadder, Khan and Naomi that the indigenous court

consisting of chief, headman and karbari will resolve social, family and personal disputes, and

conflicts regarding natural resource management in their respective areas. The headmen are

responsible for resource management, land and revenue administration, maintenance of law and

order and administration of traditional justice in the mouza circle. (Kundu, Samadder, Khan, &

Naomi, 2011). Roy (2005) noted that cases such as elopement and their restitution, conjugal

disputes, divorce and child custody, disputes over wild game and over customary laws are

resolved in indigenous court. Roy (2011) also mentioned that besides the conducting disputes

over customarily laws, the indigenous court of CHT also handles the disputes over untitled land.

Kundu, Samadder, Khan, & Naomi (2011) further mentioned that social crime including jhum

cultivation (traditional farming) in others’ identified land, plundering, killing, stealing crops and

domestic animals, destroying common peace, seizing natural source of water are tried in the

indigenous court. Acknowledging the above duties of the chief, headman and karbari, Kumar

Chakma (2010) mentioned that the chief, headman and karbari issue permanent residency

certificate in CHT. “They are responsible to maintain law and order and they can also conduct all

civil and criminal cases under the indigenous court” (Chakma K. M., 2010)

However, Rule 40 of the CHT Manual limited the power of the indigenous court on some

crimes such as treason, offences against government officials, riot, uses of deadly weapons,

murder, culpable homicide, wrongful confinement, rape, abduction, kidnapping, unnatural

offence, extortion, robbery, dacoit, lurking, house trespass and forgery. Kundu, Samadder, Khan

and Naomi (2011) and Roy, Hossain, and Guhathakurta (2007) argued that all civil and minor

criminal cases in the tribal society are tried under the indigenous justice system.

There are differences of opinion over which offences will be tried under the traditional

institution. According to the Rule 38, 39 and 43 of CHT Manual, the chief, in addition to his duty

as chief of the indigenous court, also advises the Deputy Commissioner (DC) in administrative,

revenue collection matter. He also advises the Hill District Council, the CHT development board

and the ministry of CHT Affairs.

There are also differences of opinion among the experts over the appointment of the

headman and karbari and whether these posts are hereditary or not. Article 48 of the Manual

stated that the Deputy Commissioner (DC) in consultation with the chief would appoint the

headmen and they may be dismissed by the DC for incompetence or misconduct after a reference

to the chief concerned. The DC will not be bound in any case by the wishes of the chief. But full

consideration should be given to them. This appointment is not hereditary. A son, when

competent, may succeed his father. Kundu, Samadder, Khan, Naomi and Rahman agreed on this.


7

Choudhury (2008) and Rahman (2011) also mentioned that chief nominate a karbari upon

headman’s selection. Then the chief has his selection of headman and karbari endorsed by the

DC.

But Roy (2004) argued that the post of chief, headman and karbari is hereditary and held

for life. He also went on to add, “Though formally the DC is to appoint headman and karbari

with consultation with the chief, it is an unwritten convention that the DC endorses the circle

chief’s nominee except in very rare cases” (Roy R. D., 2004). He further argues that the village

men can also select headman and karbari and get it approved by the chief. Vacancy occurs only

through death of the incumbent or the villagers raise no confidence motion or the incumbent’s

malfeasance and misconduct are proved. Roy (2004) mentioned that deposition as a result of

misconduct or malfeasance is very rare case in CHT. “Succession usually goes to the male heirs,

though wives or daughters of incumbents may sometimes succeed to this position” (Roy R. D.,

2005).

This leads to the fact that women’s participation in traditional justice system is very

limited. Roy (2004) explained this saying that in the few instances where the offices of headman

and chief have been held by women, it is usually because they are the wives or daughters of the

late incumbent and no male heirs were found to succeed. Kumar Chakma (2010) revealed that

since the British period till today there was only one Chakma chief named Rani Kalindi, only

two women Nanu Ma and Nihar Bala became Mong circle chief and no woman from Bhomang

circle was chief until recently. Besides, a total of nine women were in the post of headman out of

369 headman posts and only four women out of a total of 870 karbari posts have been appointed

in the post of karbari in CHT.

Generally, the indigenous people hold the post of the headman and karbari and they are

hailed from the clan who are majority in a respective area. However, there is very rare instance

that the non-indigenous people also hold the post of headman and karbari. Roy (2004) suggested

that with growing demographic change resulted from the Bengali settlement; non-indigenous

people have very restrictively been allowed to hold the position of headman and karbaris in a few

areas where they have built up large settlements over the years. All the inhabitants, indigenous or

non-indigenous, excluding government officials, are subject to the indigenous justice court so far

the case is related to the indigenous personal, family or social law and that of the natural resource

management (Roy R. D., 2004). A family case between a non-indigenous and an indigenous

person can also be resolved at indigenous court.

Besides this formal structure most of the authors agreed on the role of elders, teachers,

religious leaders and members of Union Parishad, the lowest tier of local government in

Bangladesh, in the traditional justice system. “Their role is most like of a mediator or negotiator

before a case formally goes to the court of karbari, headman and the chief” (Roy R. D., 2004)

In short, most of the authors agreed that the formal leadership pattern of the indigenous

justice system includes the chief, headman, karbari. The main duty of the indigenous court in

CHT is to resolve civil justice matters, family law matters of the indigenous peoples, and minor

criminal offences.


8

The Process in Chakma Justice System:

The process of resolving a case in indigenous court is that of a bottom-up process. Most

of the authors and the Raja (king) agreed on the point that a case, prior to resolution at the

indigenous court, is preferred to be negotiated through the elders, teachers or the religious

leaders in an informal setting. “This is because the tribal people in CHT prefer to resolve their

conflicts out of court” (Roy R. D., 2005). If the conflicting parties are not satisfied, they may

formally or informally appeal to the karbari court. Roy (2004) termed this process as ‘mediation,

arbitration and then adjudication’.

The karbari meets with the conflicting parties and resolve the case through hearing.

Leaders from council of the elders and religious communities also participate in this meeting. If

the parties are not satisfied, they may appeal to the court of headman for justice. “The court of

headman in this process acts as an appellate division over the court of karbari” (Roy R. D.,

2004). The headman tries to resolve the case in the same manner. If the conflicting parties are

from separate village or mouza, the headman or karbaris of the respective village or mouzas

makes the judgment unanimously. If the case is not resolved in this court too, the parties

formally appeal to the court of chief (the King). The chief, as the head of the justice system, acts

as an appellate division over the court of headman and karbari. He resolves the case through

hearing in formal setting and his judgment is final. The King at first selects a panel of five to six

headmen to resolve the case. If not resolved, then the king himself resolves it. Kundu, Samadder,

Khan and Naomi (2011), and Kumar Chakma (2010) also supported this process but they did not

mentioned the role of elders, teachers and other religious parties’ involvement to resolve a case

prior the court of karbari. Rather, Kundu, Samadder, Khan and Naom (2011) mentioned that

karbari first prefer to mediate the case within family members. They also mentioned that the

applicants seeking justice have to deposit refundable Tk 5 (Bangladeshi currency) to Tk 500

along with petition to the karbari court and the accused have to submit double of the amount.

According to the Hill District Council Acts 1989, the chief’s decision can be reviewed by

the District Commissioner (DC). Roy further argued, “District Magistrates and the High Court

can review the judgments of the headman and chief, although fully fledged appeals against the

chiefs’ decisions are not allowed” (Roy R. D., 2005). However, as the King is the highest

authority of the indigenous justice system, the DC cannot overrule the decisions made by the

King. The DC can only review the procedure of delivering justice. If any anomaly is found in the

procedure, the chief will correct the procedure not the verdict. The Revision Case No 13 of 1947

between Laksmi Mohan Chakma and Sm Pramila Chakma is an excellent example of this type

where the DC only reviewed the case and agreed with the verdict of the king (Dewan, 2003, p.

15). But this is a rare instance in CHT. Almost all authors agree that none of the indigenous

people express dissatisfaction over the judgment made by any court of the indigenous justice

system. Roy took it further saying that “Thus, it is hardly surprising that no appeals of the chiefs’

decisions are known to have been filed before the District Commissioner in spite of the 1989

amendment allowing such appeals” (Roy R. D., 2004). When victims and offenders appeal to the

DC to review the procedures of the trial, the DC will form a panel consisting of some headmen.

The DC will only attend the trial to supervise but the panel or the king will make the decision

again if anomalies were found in the procedure of the first trial. Roy (2005) noted that


9

complaints to indigenous court can be made through written petition or orally and testimony of

the justice may also be written or oral. A record of proceedings is kept if the case is complicated.

Though CHT Manual underscored the need for keeping some record like information on

the plaintiff and defendant, the nature of the claim, the basis of the claim along with supporting

evidence, the decision and the grounds for the decision, mentioned that “there is no record of

judgment and decree and no format for record” (Roy R. D., 2005). Roy also mentioned that a

written record is preferred today particularly in the court of the chief. Any court fees are strictly

illegal according to the CHT Manual. Only customary court fees like pig or wine are allowed in

the indigenous court.

Rituals and Restitutions in Chakma Justice System:

The punishment imposed for specific crimes under Chakma laws are usually monetary

fines and obtaining purity with some rituals. “Raja (king) has the right to pardon or to impose

highest punishment” (Chakma, 2009). The purpose of punishment in the Indigenous Justice

System is to rehabilitate the criminals in the society. As a result “there are no instances of

physical punishment or imprisonment” (Roy R. D., 2005).

Roy (2004) mentioned that if the offender is male, he has to slaughter a pig and distribute

the meat among the community members, pay for a bottle of wine and Tk 25. If the offender is

female, she has to slaughter a big hen and distribute its meat among the community members,

give a bottle of wine and pay Tk 12.5. If the offender is anyone other than indigenous people, the

offender has to slaughter animal according to his or her religious tradition. For instance, a

Muslim offender in the CHT has to slaughter a goat and distribute its meat among the

community members. Haunch of deer and pigs are also used as restitution (Dewan, 2003).

Sometimes, offenders are asked to water a Banyan tree and listen to Bhuddah Mangal Shruti

(religious scripture) to achieve purity and sometimes they are ordered to do community service

of some kind as part of their punishment. Sometimes, a basket in which hens lay eggs us hung

around the neck of the offender and he moves around the village with it. The offenders, both

male and female, have to distribute the meat of the pig and the hen to the villagers and need to

explain that they are getting this punishment because they committed crime. Sometimes the

offenders are asked to compensate the victims for their losses.

Shaming is also a part of tribal justice system. If a person commits a crime for the first

time, a written commitment from the offender is kept mentioning that s/he will not commit this

crime in future. If someone commits a crime repeatedly, social boycotting, and public shaming

are also common in Chakma society. Dewan (2009) mentioned that the king can charge

maximum Tk 50 and the headmen can charge maximum Tk 25 as a part of restitution.


10

Findings of the Research-based Listening Project

There were ten semi structured quantitative interviews in this research project. After

interviewing 4 headmen, 3 Karbaris and 3 NGO officials and one participant observation the data

was compiled and transcribed.Once it was examined, using both inductive and deductive

processes to determine the patterns existing within the data, these were the findings.

The three deductive (pre-existing) data categories were as follows: 1) leadership 2)

process 3) rituals. Some inductive categories emerged through the data coding process that

supplemented these three main categories.

Deductive findings: There are three categories for deductive findings. Most of the interviewees

shared these three categories, which can be summarized as follows:

Leadership:

Almost all the ten interviewees mentioned the roles of Raja (king), headmen, karbari,

elders, religious leaders, members of the ward, chairman and district commissioner. This

leadership can be shown in a pyramid model:

Figure 1: Leadership model of the Chakma justice system

The selection process of the Raja, headman and karbari are very patriarchal. As a rule the

titles of the Raja or the headmen are passed down along family lines. Almost all the headmen I

interviewed inherited the leadership position from their ancestors. Most of the interviewees

mentioned that besides Raja, headmen and karbari, Chakma elders play a very important role.

Though elders are not formally recognized in the leadership structure of the Chakma justice

system, they nevertheless play a crucial role in it.

Regarding the roles and responsibilities, most of the opinions of the interviewees can be

summarized thus:


11

Raja (King): Raja is the head of the Chakma community. The decision of the King is always

final. He can pardon anyone at his discretion. His decision cannot be overruled by anyone. Only

the District Commissioner can appeal to review his decision. Besides the responsibility of a king,

he is also responsible to take care of some mauzas (i.e. groups of villages). Kingship is

hereditary.

Headmen: Headmen are the chiefs of mauzas. In terms of decision-making, headmen’s role

closely succeeds the King in the Chakma justice system. They resolve most of the cases.

Generally their position is also a hereditary title and approved by the King. Only the King has the

privilege to select headmen outside of heredity.

Karbari: Karbaris are the local or grassroots level leadership in the Chakma justice system.

Karbaris assist the headmen in the judicial process. The Karbaris position is not inherited. The

headmen, with the approval of the King, select most of the Karbaris.

Besides this three-tiered leadership, there are also members and chairmen who sometimes

play important roles in the justice system. Though their roles are not defined, most of them

participate in the process. One headman mentioned the role of ‘elected women members’ in the

Chakma justice system noting that they also participate in the judicial process.

Process:

Most headmen as well as the Raja prefer to resolve conflicts by the intervention of elders in

the community first. If the elders are unable to resolve the problem, victims and offenders select

Karbari to solve their problem. If the victims and offenders are not satisfied with the Karbari’s

decision, they can go to Headmen to resolve this issue. If subsequently they are not satisfied with

the verdict of the headmen, then the headmen can refer this case to the King. Finally, the King

gives a decision and his decision is final;no one can overrule the king. Only the District

Commissioner can ask to review the King’s decision forming a panel comprising three or four

headmen. Therefore, according to most interviewees, there are essentially five steps of the

Chakma justice system:

1) Informal or formal complaint to the elder

2) If elders fail, the Karbari is in charge of resolving the conflict

3) If Karbari fails, the headmen will decide

4) If headmen fail, the King will decide

5) The King’s decision can only be reviewed by a panel of headmen

Rituals and Restitutions:

There was a uniformity of opinion on rituals among interviewees. There are three basic

categories about the offender. Offenders can be: 1) male 2) female 3) Muslim.

1) If the offender is male, the interviewees agreed the offender has to slaughter a pig and

distribute the meat among the community members


12

2) If the offender is female, three headmen and two Karbaris mentioned that offender

has to slaughter a big hen and distribute its meat among the community members

3) If the offender is Muslim, only two headmen mentioned that offender has to slaughter

a goat and distribute its meat among the community members.

Inductive Findings: Besides these deductive findings, there were some inductive findings from

this listening project:

1) Concept of forgiveness:

Forgiveness is seen as a great blessing in the Chakma justice system. Most of the

interviewees mentioned that they encourage victims to forgive the offenders if s/he wants. They

insisted forgiveness cannot be forced; it should be spontaneous from the victims. If the offenders

are unable to pay restitution, even in that case, Chakma justice system encourages the victims to

forgive the offenders.

2) All laws are oral:

All laws in the Chakma justice system are oral –there are no written laws anywhere. Since

the laws are oral, the verdicts vary from headman to headman, place to place, and context to

context. There was a sharp division among the interviewees about whether the laws should be

written or not. Five interviewees, including two NGO officials, brought up the possibility of

misuse or abuse of Chakma laws because it is not in writtenform – they are strongly in favor of

writing down the laws. The five other interviewees, including the King, are not in favor of

writing the laws. They think that written laws will destroy flexibility, creativity, and dynamism

of the Chakma laws. They also pointed out that if the laws are written, the community leaders

like headmen and karbari may lose their influence and powerto the professional legal personnel.

3) No physical punishment:

All the interviewees except one agreed that there is no physical punishment in the Chakma

justice system. There is strong emphasis on repentance and acknowledgement of the crime by the

offenders. One headman hesitantly mentioned that there is a practice of balding head, humble

pie, and living with pigs in some areas.

4) Concept of Shaming:

Shaming plays a very crucial role in Chakma justice system. They have a word for

shaming which is always positive. It is “lojja”. They believe that this “lojja” or shame will lead

towards repentance. Some of the headmen, as well as the King, noted that “lojja” or shame can

inspire the victims to forgive the offender. Regarding shaming, some of the interviewees

mentioned written commitment from the offender that s/he will not commit this crime in future.

If someone commits a crime repeatedly, social boycotting and public shaming are also common

in Chakma society. Most of the interviewees mentioned that the king can charge maximum Tk

50 and headmen can charge maximum Tk 25 as a part of restitution.


13

5) Eyewitness and the terms ‘rape’ and ‘lie’

Four of the interviewees mentioned that in the past the Chakma justice system did not require

‘eyewitnesses’ for crimes. They mentioned that there was no perception of lying in the Chakma

community in the past and they did not have any word for ‘lie’ in the Chakma language. The

King mentioned that the word ‘rape’ was not in the Chakma language either. According to him

the phenomenon of ‘rape’ was so small in number that they did not need any word to describe it.

6) Impact of Bengali infiltration:

All the interviewees are in agreement that infiltration by Bengali settlers has contributed very

negatively to Chakma society. They say different types of crimes and social diseases came with

the Bengali settlers. One headman blamed the media and globalization for the moral degradation

of Chakma youth.

7) Role of women in the justice system:

The overwhelmingly patriarchal outlook of the Chakma family and justice systems is

noteworthy. Sri Bankim Krishna Dewan mentioned that most of Chakma society is conservative

and patriarchal in nature (Dewan, 2003). Most of the headmen agreed with and supported the

patriarchal system. Some of the Chakma leaders mentioned they are planning to take a few

initiatives to encourage women’s participation in social issues, though no clear vision or plan

was evident in their words on how to implement these initiatives.

8) Most indigenous laws center around marital issues:

It is to protect the morality and character of the Chakma community that tribal leaders start to

formulate laws. Most laws emerge to solve marital problems such as elopement, extramarital

relations, rape, adultery and illegal relations between married people. There are three kinds of

Chakma laws related to marriage: a) Laws related to legal marriage b) Laws related to illegal

marriage c) Laws related to elopement and others.

9) Tension whether to write the ‘laws’ or not:

There is a clear tension in the Chakma leadership on whether to write down the Chakma laws

or keep it oral and informal. Many fear losing flexibility, creativity and genuineness if it is

written down. On the contrary, a few expressed their concerns about the possibility of abuse of

indigenous laws if they are not written down.

10) Criminal justice system is complementary:

In CHT, the criminal justice system of the Bangladesh government plays a

complementary rather than a competing role with the traditional Chakma justice system. This

dual justice system, in which one is the formal system operating within the laws of the country

and the other comprises the customs and rituals of indigenous people, is working smoothly in

CHT. The duties of dealing with customary personal, social and family issues, dispute over


14

natural resource management, collecting tax and revenue have been vested on the personnel of

the Chakma justice system and can be resolved in the traditional court. They can also conduct

court cases dealing with minor criminal offences, but not major ones like murder, rape etc. On

the other hand, the District Commissioner is vested with executive and civil, criminal authority

and has the authority to review any decisions taken by the traditional Chakma court.

11) Verdict varies from person to person:

Verdicts vary from person to person, as befits the context of a case, across the Chakma

courts. Most of the verdicts in indigenous court are restorative in nature but there are some

verdicts that are punitive, such as “balding the head”, “garland of shoes” and living with pigs. As

there are no formal or written laws of the Chakma justice, karbari, headmen and Raja can

interpret the general principles differently across cases and across the regions.

Implications:

The entire listening project was an enlightening experience. This is because

unfortunately, stemming from ignorance, the overwhelming number of narratives in Bengali

culture about indigenous people is negative. In reality though, the Chakma justice system has

been operating effectively in the Chakma society for centuries. It has played an instrumental role

in keeping crime and recidivism rates noticeably law. The reason can be that the whole

community, including victims, offenders and elders, are involved in the system. Despite this,

since only customary fees like pig and wine are allowed in indigenous court, it is the least

expensive justice process in entire Bangladesh.

Historically, the Mughal, British, Pakistani and Bengali infiltration and interference have

distorted the Chakma justice system. It was seen that most headmen and karbari do not have

formal education. Aggravating that scenario is that since most of the laws are oral, verdicts vary

from person to person and case to case. Another pressing issue is that a more democratic process

in headmen and karbari selection seems to be the demand of the times.

Despite these setbacks, mainstream criminal justice practitioners in Bangladesh can take

many lessons from the Chakma justice system. Involving the entire community can help

mainstream criminal justice practitioners resolve conflicts at an early stage. The entire juvenile

justice system of Bangladesh can be modeled on Chakma justice system where reintegration and

correction processes are really working optimally.

In conclusion, taking note of the positive sides of Bangladesh’s indigenous justice system

and integrating it with the mainstream criminal justice system can be a tool to form an alternative

narrative in the majority Bengali society that harbors hostile and inferior ideas of the minority

indigenous communities. This study has attempted to provide a beginning to that by outlining the

inner workings of the Chakma justice system.


15

Bibliography:

Ahsan, S., & Chakma. (1989). Problem of national integration in Bangladesh:The Chittagong Hill Tracts.

Asian Survey, 959-970.

Chakma, M. K. (2010). The status of Adivashi hill women in light of the Chittagong Hill Tracts Accord .

Dhaka: Bangladesh Nari Progati Sangha (BNPS).

Chowdhury, K. (2008). Politics of identities and resources in Chittagong Hill Tracts, Bangladesh:

Ethnonationalism and/or Indigenous identity. Asian Journal of Social Science , 57–78.

CHT Commission, T. C. (1991). 'LIFE IS NOT OURS':LAND AND HUMAN RIGHTS IN THE

CHITTAGONG HILL TRACTS BANGLADESH. The Chittagong Hill Tracts Commission.

Dewan, S. B. (2003). Chakma jatir bichar padhdhati o Chakma uttaradhikar pratha. Rangamati: Jum

Aesthetic Council (JAC).

Faiz, S., & Mohaiemen, N. (2010). Peace in Our Time? (1715-1997). In N. Mohaiemen, Between ashes

and hope:Chittagong Hill Tracts in the blind spot of Bangladesh nationalism (p. 26). Dhaka:

Drishtipat Writers’ Collective, Bangladesh.

Kundu, D. K., Samadder, M., Khan, A., & Naomi, S. S. (2011). State of Justice in Chittagong Hill Tracts:

Exploring the Formal and Informal Justice Institutions of Indigenous Communities. Dhaka:

Research and Evaluation Division, BRAC.

Mohsin, A. (1997). The politics of nationalism:The case of the Chittagong Hill Tracts Bangladesh.

Dhaka: The University Press Limited.

Rahman, M. M. (2011). Struggling against exclusion: Adibasi in Chittagong Hill Tracts, Bangladesh.

Lund, Sweden: Media-Tryck,Lund University.

Roy, D. (2010). Resisting onslaught on forest commons in Post-Accord CHT. In N. Mohaiemen, Between

Ashes and Hope (p. 135). Dhaka: Arka.

Roy, R. D. (2004). Challenges for juridical pluralism and customary laws of Indigenous peoples: The case

of the Chittagong Hill Tracts, Bangladesh;. Arizona Journal of International & Comparative

Law, Vol 21, No. 1.

Roy, R. D. (2005). Traditional customary laws and Indigenous peoples . Asia, Minority Rights Group

International.

Roy, R. D. (2011). Land disputes concerning Indigenous peoples in Bangladesh: Problems & solutions.

National Conference on Land, Forest and Culture of Indigenous Peoples. Dhaka.

Schendel, W. (1992). Francis Buchanan in Southeast Bengal (1798): His journey to Chittagong, the

Chittagong Hill Tracts, Noakhali and Comilla. Dhaka: The University Press Limited.

Zehr, H. (2005). Changing lenses: A new focus for crime and Justice. Ontario: Herald Press.

indigenous chakma justice system in the chittagong … of muhammad asadullah from simon fraser...

Documents