'Go back where you came from?': Urdu-Speaking Bangladeshis shocked as Pakistan repatriation talks come out of blue
In 2018, the Supreme Court finally recognised Urdu-speaking Bangladeshis, then known as Biharis, as citizens of Bangladesh, ending most discussions centring repatriation
The interim government's demand for an apology from Pakistan for the 1971 genocide and repatriation of a staggering $4.5 billion – lauded in many quarters – has caused quite a stir in so-called stranded Pakistan community.
Amid the talking points in the first Foreign Office Consultations (FOC) between the two countries in 15 years was slipped in a controversial topic – the repatriation of 3 lakh members of the community, popularly known as Biharis.
But how could this be?
Keep updated, follow The Business Standard's Google news channel
Twenty-years ago on this day, the High Court had delivered a landmark judgement, stating, "It has been found that the petitioners [then known as Stranded Pakistanis] are citizens of Bangladesh and their residence in the Geneva Camp, Mohammadpur, is not a bar to be enrolled in the electoral roll and be registered as voters."
Now, things are much different.
"Every government talks about the formal apology, reclamation of assets and of course, the issue of stranded Pakistanis for political reasons. We expected something different from this interim government," Mohammad Hasan, a human rights activist and former resident of the Geneva Camp in Mohammadpur, told The Business Standard.
For Hasan – who was critical in securing citizenship rights for his community, the monetary compensation is a fair demand; but he contests the decision to repatriate so-called "Stranded Pakistanis".
"The Tripartite Agreement of 1974 in Delhi was clear on who Pakistan would take back. There were four areas: Employees of the then central government and their families; those born in West Pakistan but proven to be stranded in the East; divided families; 25,000 hardship cases, such as orphans, widows or those with intellectual disabilities," he said.
The first batch of 1,20,000 stranded Pakistanis was airlifted to Pakistan in 1974. By 1982, the number of officially repatriated Pakistanis had reached 1,69,000. In November-December 1982, some 4,600 were repatriated again to Pakistan after a year of no publicised plans.
Although efforts were made to continue repatriation, all plans stalled.
Till 2008, Biharis who were minors in 1971, when Bangladesh gained independence, or those born afterwards, remained stateless.
That year, the High Court ruled that they had the right to Bangladeshi citizenship, ending most discussions regarding their repatriation as this move wasn't restricted to the Geneva Camp only.
The judgement, however, did not extend to refugees who had been adults during the Bangladesh Liberation War.
Following the FOC, Foreign Secretary Jasim Uddin told the press: "Those who opted to stay in Bangladesh have been granted citizenship. Some chose to return to Pakistan. Until now, 26,941 stranded Pakistanis have been repatriated. According to our data, about 324,147 individuals remain in 79 camps across 14 districts."
Ahead of the visit by Pakistan's Deputy Prime Minister and Foreign Minister Ishaq Dar, Hasan thinks the debate over the data matters.
"Where are these 3 lakh people? What about the court declaration? How are they then called stranded? There are 116 camps; maybe a portion haven't taken national ID cards, but it can't be three lakh. We have passports, we took part in Bangladesh's political movements: how are we still stranded Pakistanis?"
The answer to the contention lies, perhaps, with the lawyer who led the fight for Urdu-speaking Bangladeshis' citizenship: Khalid Hussain
Stranded again?
Khalid Hussain sits in his office in the capital's Aziz Mohollah, furnished with desks and a computer – a stone's throw away from Geneva Camp.
The issue is close to his heart: Khalid himself was born in an 8' by 10' hut in Geneva Camp in 1981, where he lived with his five brothers, three sisters and parents.
After an arduous journey, in 2009, he became the first lawyer from 116 camps to be enrolled in the Dhaka Bar Council. And so his journey began for his people, resulting in the landmark citizenship victory.
For Khalid, the issue of nationality was never in doubt.
"The Urdu-speaking people never lost their Bangladeshi citizenship. It is unfortunately true that their right to vote had to be achieved through a legal battle," he says.
Explaining that the Urdu-speaking community had been coming to Bangladesh from different states of India for more than 200 years, he said the destination proved popular following the Hindu-Muslim riots and then Partition in 1947.
For Khalid, repatriation is out of the question – his main issue is rehabilitation.
"For 53 years, they have been living in crowded camps and are constantly suffering from housing problems. They suffer from lack of clean water, lack of education and social insecurity. Most don't have access to education."
For three generations, this linguistic minority community in the urban areas of Bangladesh has been living in small rooms of 8-10 feet. "This housing situation hinders the mental development and does not create their human dignity."
"It is a social problem that exacerbates poverty, increases social unrest and ultimately acts as an obstacle to social development," he notes.
Khalid believes rehabilitation is the way through which the Urdu-speaking population can stop being discriminated against.
Urging for an integrated rehabilitation – 60% Urdu-speaking population and 40% Bangla-speaking population – he says this would ensure harmony.
"If Urdu-speaking Bangladeshis and Bengali communities live together, our young generation can mix well with each other, learn about each other, exchange each other's culture and traditions and build a new generation without discrimination."
So, where does the issue of repatriation arise from if not from the community itself?
Many point fingers at the Stranded Pakistanis General Repatriation Committee (SPGRC), which they claim was led in a Mafioso style by its former leader Nasim Khan.
History revised
Nasim Khan, a former employee of the Eastern Pakistan Railways, founded the SPGRC in the 70s.
Since then, it has become the de facto mouthpiece of the community.
Its protests in 2019 ensured electricity and water supply for many camp residents, while it was also firm in its stance of ensuring a dignified life.
But somewhere along the line, many believe the SPGRC lost its way.
It was alleged to have cosied up with the Awami League government, going so far as to gift two gold bangles to then Prime Minister Sheikh Hasina.
Its call for repatriation, however, was also always present.
Now, however, things are different.
The organisation has rebranded itself as the Stranded People's General Rehabilitation Committee.
Its current president, Shaukat Ali, has different ideas for where the organisation is heading.
"We have not asked for repatriation. I don't know where it's coming from," he said.
He said the new SPGRC was now focused on rehabilitation – better, dignified homes for the community.
"We are not pushing the issue of rehabilitation. We don't know where it comes from," he said.
In Pakistan, the cry for such a rehabilitation is also muted, at best.
'Both countries have a lot to apologise for'
Pakistan's crime was not taking the people it had used in 1971, and the Bangladesh government's demand for repatriation is appreciated, but both countries have a lot to apologise for, Ehtesham Ershad Nezami, a Pakistani journalist and chairman of US-based rights organisation Voice for Humanity International, told TBS.
He, however, expressed appreciation of the Bangladesh government's demand for repatriation.
On the issue of repatriation, he said Pakistan should not be held solely accountable, pointing to an agreement signed with the Muslim World League in 1988 and a 1992 agreement inked with Bangladesh in this regard.
"Pakistan has the funds for such a rehabilitation – the Rabita Trust. If Bangladesh is willing to conduct rehabilitation, then it should utilise that fund," he said, adding Pakistan had signed treaties to ensure rehabilitation, and if they couldn't do so, then the fund should be disbursed to Bangladesh.
"As far as the $4.5 billion is concerned, as assets and liabilities, this happens when countries separate. It can be negotiated but not one-sided"
It is noted that the Rabita Trust, which describes itself as a as "a popular, international, Islamic and non-governmental organisation, at which Muslims from all over the world are represented," was made a designated terrorist organisation by the US in 2001, and since then, its monetary transactions have been limited.
On the relationship between the two countries and the need for an apology, Ehtesham said, "If Pakistan could avoid army operations, thousands of Bengalis could be saved. Bangladesh should also apologise for their genocide of the Biharis, which started on 1 March [1971] and continued well after 16 December."
Ehtesham also mentioned the issue of reparations on both sides.
"As far as the $4.5 billion is concerned, as assets and liabilities, this happens when countries separate. It can be negotiated but not one-sided," he said, pointing out, "many Pakistanis who fled Bangladesh had left their assets behind as well."
He said the 1973 Tripartite Agreement, officially known as the Delhi Agreement, a trilateral accord signed by India, Pakistan, and Bangladesh on 28 August 1973, which withdrew any possibility of war crime charges against Pakistani generals.
"After that agreement, there should not be any question of apology."
