Home | About | Activities | Feedback | Contact  

Other Ethnic people of Bangladesh

Article:

Ethnic Communities of Bangladesh

Kibriaul Khaleque, Ph.D

Introduction

The importance of local people's participation in the development programmes is now being

increasingly emphasized in the policy papers of both the government of the less developed

countries as well as the foreign donor agencies that support the development programmes.  

Accordingly, the policy planners at both levels have realized the need for including the ethnic

communities in the development projects designed for the areas where these people live. The

growing concern over an equitable distribution of the benefits of development programmes

among all the people of a country have also led the policy planners to think about the ethnic

groups. Indeed, these people deserve their share in the fruits of development programmes.

Like other less developed countries, the ,need for involvement of the ethnic communities in the

development programmes, particularly in the programmes designed for the areas where these

people live, has been recognized by the policy planners in Bangladesh. For the proper planning

and implementation of development programmes, it is important to know who belong to the ethnic

communities, where do they live, and under what social and economic condition do they live?

Unfortunately, there is dearth of information about these people of Bangladesh. Shortage of

anthropologists specially trained in ethnic studies, lack of government initiatives, lack of resources

for conducting research, and similar other reasons might have been responsible for an

inadequate number of studies on the ethnic groups of Bangladesh.  

In order to get even some basic information about the ethnic communities, one has to rely on the

scattered sources which are often difficult to get hold of. This paper is a modest attempt to put

together some basic information from the scattered and sporadic sources. The information I

gathered through my own field research on the Garo community of Madhupur Garh forest and

through my visits to some other ethnic areas of Bangladesh is also incorporated in this paper.

This paper is the revised version of an earlier article of mine (Khaleque 1987). Based on the

comments received from the critics of the earlier version, certain information has been revised,

modified, and amplified in the present version. In addition, the present version contains updated

demographic data on the tribal population (as they were referred to in the Census Report) of

Bangladesh based on the most recent Government Census Reports and also ethno graphic

information from the most recent sources.  

A few small ethnic groups those belong to the category "ex-tribal” were not mentioned in the

previous version. These groups have lost their distinct identity, language, culture, and traditions.

They are integrated into the mainstream Bengali society and culture. Nevertheless, being small

ethnic groups they deserve their share in the fruits of development projects.

So, the names of these groups have been mentioned in the present version. By “ethnic

communities” or “ethnic groups ” a reference has been made to those people whose linguistic and/

or cultural background is different from the linguistic and cultural background of the mainstream

population of Bangladesh. It may be noted that most anthropologists now use the term “ethnic

group” or “ethnic community” instead of using the term “tribe” or “tribal group”. The people

belonging to ethnic groups often do not like the use of the term “tribe” or “tribal group" to refer to

them, particularly in those situations where these terms are used in a derogatory sense. The term

“Adivasi" or "indigenous people" is sometimes used to mean the people who are otherwise

referred to as "tribals." But the use of this term is often confusing, particularly in those cases

where it is hard to establish whether the group in question is the indigenous people of the area

they inhabit or they migrated to that area from somewhere else. To avoid this kind of confusion

and also to avoid the term “tribe" or “tribal group," the different groups of people covered in this

paper has been referred to as “ethnic communities" or “ethnic groups."  

A Brief Review of Literature

The earliest sources on the ethnic communities of Bangladesh consist of a few books written by

some British Government officials during the period between the middle of 19th century and the

first quarter of 20th century. These classical sources include: Dalton (1872), Gait (1895), Gurdon

(1907), Hodson (1908), Hunter (1876), Hutchinson (1906), Lewin (1869; 1870; 1873), Playfair

(1909), Riebeck (1885), Risley (1891), and Smart (1866). It may be noted that after the

establishment of political and military control over the ethnic areas the British Government made

attempts to find the best possible ways to deal with the ethnic communities. Information on the

ethnic communities and their socio-cultural life were, therefore, collected and the findings were

documented in the above books as well as in other government publications. These books were

intended more for administrative purposes than for academic research. Nevertheless, these are

good ethno graphic accounts of that time and so far remained the main sources of the ethnic

communities of Bangladesh.  

Except for the ethnographic accounts on the ethnic communities of the Chittagong Hill Tracts

(CHT) area, all the other books relate mainly to the ethnic communities of the Indian part of the

northern and north-eastern borders of Bangladesh. People belonging to the same ethnic group

also live in the Bangladesh part of the border and have more or less the same basic social

organization and culture as their Indian counterpart. As such, the books written on those who live

in the Indian territories relate only to a certain extent to those who live in the present-day

Bangladesh territory. However, the ethnic communities living in the Bangladesh part have always

had some differences in certain aspects of their life. But these differences had not been

documented in the above-mentioned books. It is important to note that a good number of studies

were done on the ethnic communities living in the Indian part of the northern borders of

Bangladesh (for an example of only one ethnic group, see the Bibliography in Khaleque 1982),

but nearly nothing was done on those living in the Bangladesh part.

Census Reports and District Gazetteers compiled during the British rule contain valuable

information about the ethnic communities and hence these documents may be regarded as good

sources. Such official documents had been updated in the subsequent period. But except for a

continuation of the old tradition of preparing these documents, no significant research had been

done in the post-British period. The Government documents prepared during the Pakistani rule

(1947-1971) contain very few new information. These were basically a reproduction of the older

sources. The same is the case with the only book, “Pakistaner Upajati” (1963), published by the

Pakistan Government.  

Besides the above sources, we find a few books and articles published during the middle of 20th

century. These sources contain the findings of a few foreign anthropologists who did field

research or at least had visited the ethnic areas during this period. Thus mention may be made of

the works of Bernot(1957; 1958; 1964), Bessaignet (1958; 1960), Brauns (1973),Kauffman

(1962), Levi-Strauss (1952a; 1952b), Sopher (1963;1964). Most of these studies were concerned

with the ethnic communities of the CHT and a very few on the ethnic groups living in the northern

borders of Bangladesh.

Among the recent sources, there are a few books written by a Bangladeshi amateur writer (see

Sattar 1971; 1975; 1978). The facts presented in these books are based either on the classical

sources, or on the hearsay, and/ or the superficial knowledge gained by the author through his

occasional visits to the ethnic areas. The author has neither any background in anthropology or

sociology (d. Maloney 1984:9), nor does he have any training in research methodology. As a

result, the contents of these books suffer from many shortcomings.  

To show the nature of shortcomings, let us consider a few examples from one of the books

written by this author. He writes, "There are many other tribes in the Chittagong Hill Tracts which

lack this culture dynamism. Consequently, they are lost in the wilderness of pre-civilized cult,

belief and customs. They have not been able to evolve in any kind of cultures" (Sattar 1971:325).

To an anthropologist or to a sociologist, a society without culture is impossibility. Every society

has a culture if the concept of culture is taken as it is defined in anthropology and sociology.

Hence, the above expression made by this author is not acceptable in anthropology or sociology.

Maloney (1984:9) has criticized similar expressions in the same book of the above author. He

remarked that Sattar refers to ethnic languages as "dialects," and to their religions as

"superstitious beliefs" and "irrational practices" (1971:13,17,135, 225). Ethnic languages are not

"dialect" of the Bengali language as Sattar thought. These are distinct languages that belong to

different branches of the various language family (see below). Similarly, Mey (1984:333) has

criticized Sattar (1971) for describing the ethnic groups as "wild and crude" (Sattar1971:193). The

use of such value-laden words to describe the ethnic communities or their religion is not

acceptable in anthropology. Examples of similar views expressed by this author in the book

mentioned above as well as in other books can be multiplied. Nevertheless, the books written by

this author may be regarded as the pioneering efforts of a Bangladeshi writer to record certain

information about the ethnic communities.  

A recent book, “Tribal Cultures of Bangladesh” (Qureshi 1984) may be regarded as a good

source. Some of the articles in this book had been contributed by professional anthropologists,

some by students of anthropology or sociology who were engaged in research on ethnic

communities at the time of writing their article, while some articles by persons well informed in

ethnic affairs. However, this book also contains a few articles written by amateur writers. The

quality of information presented by those writers is the same as that of the information in the

writings of the amateur writer mentioned earlier. Recent data, and in some cases, an analysis of

the nature and trends of social change among the ethnic communities of Bangladesh may be

found in various articles published in different local and foreign journals. Among the most recent

journal articles written by professional anthropologists and social scientists, we may include:

Bertocci (1984), Islam (1981), Jahangir (1979), Khaleque(1983a,1983b,1984,1985,1988), Mey

(1978), Montu (1980), and Zaman (1982). There are also some mimeographs (see for example,

Chowdhury 1979), and theses and dissertations (Khaleque 1982, 1992; Rahman 1985) which

contain valuable recent data on some ethnic communities.  

The most recently published ethnographic accounts on specific ethnic communities of

Bangladesh that I came across are: The Paharias by Gomes (1988) and Bangladesher Garo

Sampradai (in Bengali) by Jengcham (1994). The former is based on the author's research

among the Paharia people, while the latter is based on the author's observation of his own

society and culture.  

Number of Ethnic Communities

The beginning sentence of the earlier version of this paper was: "People belonging to more than

two dozens ethnic communities live in Bangladesh." An American anthropologist (Burling 1988), a

critic of that version, remarked: "why not you tell us exactly how many ethnic groups are there in

Bangladesh." Let me begin this section with my response to the above remark.

The number of ethnic communities has been variously mentioned in the written sources. In the

different articles published in Tribal Cultures a/Bangladesh (Qureshi 1984), for example, the

number of ethnic communities has been mentioned as 12 (Bertocci 1984:346 and 358 Footnote

4; based on 1951 Census data as summarized by Bessaignet 1958:1), 15 (Samad 1984:54;

basedon 1974 Census Report), 28 and 31 (Urao 1984:129 and Qureshi 1984:XV, respectively; no

source has been mentioned - both are perhaps based on personal estimates), and 46 (Maloney

1984:8-22, based on his own distribution of the ethnic communities by language category).

Being puzzled by such a wide variation in the number of ethnic groups, i.e. from 12 to 46 groups,

I decided to keep the number vague in the earlier version of this paper by saying "more than two

dozens." I left the responsibility of finding the exact number with the readers who would pursue

their interest further.  

According to the most recent government official statistics (Census Report 1991) the number of

ethnic communities is 29. But if the two cases where the same tribe has been listed as two

separate ethnic communities are taken into consideration, the number of ethnic communities

would be 27. The information found in the available literature and the spatial distribution given in

the 1991 Census Report suggests that such mistakes were committed in the following cases:

The Tipra and Tripura have been listed as two separate groups, but they are, in fact, the same

people. These groups are most commonly mentioned in the literature under the name Tipra but

they are variously regarded as Tipra and Tripura by their Bengali neighbours in different areas.

Similarly, the Bongshi and Rajbongshi, who are really the same people, have been listed in the

Census Report as two separate ethnic communities. In this case, the people prefer to identify

themselves as Rajbongshi but their Bengali neighbors call them Bongshi. In the literature, the

name of this ethnic group is most commonly spelt as Rajbansi.  

Listing the different names of the same tribe in different areas as separate ethnic communities, as

found in the Census Report has contributed to the already-existing confusion about the number of

ethnic communities. Clearly, the census enumerators were not aware of the facts that the same

ethnic group is known by different names. The reasons for such variations in name are different in

different situations. Two examples are already given above. Let us consider other cases to show

the nature of distortion in the names of ethnic groups in different situations.  

The people who call themselves Marma are called Mog or Mogh by the Bengali. The name Mogh

is often used by the Bengali people in a derogatory sense, so the people who are called Mogh

prefer to identify themselves as Marma. Again, the same people are known as Rakhaine in

Patuakhali area. In this case, the people who live in that area also prefers not to identify

themselves by the name Mogh for the same reason described above. But they use a different

name perhaps to distinguish themselves from those in Chittagong area (cf. Khan 1984).

The variation in the English spelling of the name of certain ethnic groups is another source of

confusion. It is sometimes hard to decide whether the different spellings of the name of any ethnic

community constitute the same people or they are different ethnic communities. For example, the

name of the ethnic community most commonly spelt "Oraon" has been spelt "Urang" in the 1991

Census Report. Looking at the geographical areas given in the Census Report against the name

"Urang," I figured out that "Urang" must be "Oraon," but one may easily think that these two are

different groups. The same is perhaps true in the case of the "Khyang" and "khyen." These two

groups were mentioned by Maloney (1984:12) as two separate ethnic communities, but as one

ethnic group in other sources, including the Government Census Reports. It is interesting to note

that the name of the ethnic community most commonly spelt as "Koch" has been spelt as such on

one page of Table 11.17in the 1991 Census Report, and "Coach" on the following page, which is

a continuation of the same Table. Although two different forms of spelling have been used, they

were not treated as two separate ethnic communities. They were mentioned on the same column,

although on two different pages, and one population figure has been given for this ethnic group. It

might have been a typing error, but the spelling of the name of this ethnic community with two

different letters "C" and "K" and an extra letter "a" in the case of spelling "Coach" indicates

something else. During my field research among the Garo of Tangail and Mymensingh Districts, I

learnt that "Koch" (who lives in the same area) is variously pronounced by the local people as

Koch, Koach, and Kuch. In other areas, the pronunciation may be a little different. I think the

variation in the spelling is a reflection of variations in the pronunciation of the name of this ethnic

community. The divisions or branches of certain ethnic communities have been listed as separate

ethnic groups by Maloney (1984) in his list of ethnic communities by their language category. He

also mentioned the ex-tribal groups as tribes. Which groups constitute the branches of other

larger ethnic communities and which groups are the ex-tribal people have been mentioned by

Maloney (1984). But there are no such notes in the Census Report.  

Treating the branches of a major ethnic group as separate ethnic groups is perhaps the result of

an exact report of what people said. When the people belonging to any ethnic communities are

asked about their group affiliation, they perhaps gave the main ethnic group's branch name which

they belong to. Such divisions or sub-divisions of large ethnic communities often result from

population increase and other social, economic, and political changes.

There is no point to give a separate name of a group based on the name of the division of a main

ethnic group when the people in both the branch and main ethnic group speak the same

language and share the same culture and traditions. Even if the branch group live in a different

geographical area, they might be still identified with the main group and could be listed under the

same name. Nevertheless, if the people in branch groups wish to identify themselves by the

name they chose for their branch, then they should perhaps be recorded accordingly. None of the

available sources says anything about how these branches came to be known as separate ethnic

communities: was it the people's wishes to have them recorded under the branch names or was it

the decision of the census enumerators or ethnographers to use the branch names as separate

ethnic groups?  

The inclusion of the ex-tribal groups in the list of tribes also creates confusion. If these groups are

included in the discussion of a paper, then there should be a clear note stating that they are "extribal,"

as it has been done here.. Otherwise, the confusion about the number of ethnic

communities will remain as it is. To keep consistency with the most recent population data, I have

listed the different ethnic communities in Table 1 according to the list given in the 1991 Census

Report. However, I have altered the English spelling of the names of certain ethnic communities

given in the 1991 Census Report to maintain uniformity with the English spelling most commonly

found in the existing literature. The different forms of the English spelling found in the Census

Report and in some of the other sources have been mentioned in parentheses against the name

of the ethnic communities.  

In a few cases, the names of certain ethnic groups were found only in the 1991 Census Report.

No such name, nor even a similar sounding name with a different spelling, was found in any other

literature. These cases have been indicated by a note-"found only in the 1991 Census Report" -in

parenthesis at the end of names of those ethnic communities.  

Table : Distribution of the Ethnic Communities of Bangladesh by Population Size and

Geographical Areas

Ethnic Community Population

Bawrn (also spelt as Bum, Baurn, Barn) 13471

Buna (found only in the 1991 Census Report) 7421

Chakma 252858

Garo (people prefer the name Mandi) 64280

Hajong 11540

Harizon (found only in the 1991 Census Report) 1132

Kharni (also spelt as Khurni, Kami) 1241

Khasi (generally known as Khasia) 12280

Khyang (also spelt as Khyen) 2343

Koch (also spelt as Kots, Kuch, Coach) 16567

Lushai (also known as Kuki, Mizo) 662

Mahat (also known as Mahatu) 3534

Manipuri (also known as Meithei) 24882

Marma (also known as Mag, Mogh, Mug) 157301

Mro (also spelt as Mroo) 126

Mrong (also spelt as Murang, Mrung) 22178

Munda (also known as Mundari) 2132

Oraon (also spelt as Urang, Urao) 8216

Paharia (also known as Pahary) 1853

Pankho (also spelt as Pangkhu, Pangkhua) 3227

Rajbansi (also spelt as Rajbongshi) 7556

Rakhaine (a branch of Marma) 16932

Sak (also spelt as Chak, Tsak, Thak) 2127

Santal (also spelt as Saontal) 202162

Tanchangya (abranchofChakrna) 21639

Tipra (also known as Tripuri, Tripura) 81014

Urea (found only in the 1991 Census Report) 5561

Other (see text, for comments) 261743

Total - 1205978  

The ethnic groups that constitute the branch or division of other major ethnic communities have

been indicated in Table by providing the name of the major ethnic group in parentheses at the

end of the names of those ethnic communities. Information about the possible splitting of major

ethnic communities into branches and divisions was found in some of the available literature (see

for example, Maloney 1984; Khan 1984).  

For reasons given earlier, the population data given in the 1991 Census Report for the ethnic

groups Tipra and Tripura were added together and the sum was given as the population size of

the Tipra in Table. Likewise, the data for the Bongshi and Rajbongshi were added together and

their sum was given as the population size of Rajbansi. The population data given in the 1991

Census Report under "other" perhaps include the smaller sections or sub-divisions of some of the

ethnic communities listed in Table, as well as the ex-tribal groups mentioned in other sources.

The names of ethnic groups found in other sources in addition to those listed in Table are

perhaps lumped together under "other" in the Census Report. These additional groups (cf.

Maloney 1984) are: Banjogi (similar to Pankho and Kuki,), Dalu or Dulai or Dalui (a section of

Garo), Hadi (a Hinduized group), Ho (a section of Munda), Kachari or Kacari (a Hinduized group),

Mahili (a sub-division of Santal), Mikir (a Hinduized group), Paliya (a branch of Rajbansi), Pathor

(a Hinduized group), Pnar (a sub-division of Khasi), Riang{ a section ofTipra), and Shendu (a

branch of Khami).  

The list of ethnic communities given by Maloney (1984) includes another 10 groups: Bede,

Bhuimali, Bhuiya, Ganghu, Jaliya (Kaibartta), Kukamar, Kurmi, Mahto, MalIa (Mallo), Namasudra.

These groups are, in fact, ex-tribal groups. Maloney is aware of this fact, but he has included

them in the list of tribes to identify the Indo-Aryan speaking small ethnic groups.  

Ethnic Population and Spatial Distribution

According to the Census of 1991, the ethnic population of Bangladesh is 1.2 million, which

constitutes 1.13% of the country's total population. In fact, the ethnic population might be more

than the figure given in the Census Report. There are reasons for supposing so. It has been

observed that the ethnic people who were converted to Christianity are often listed in the

Government official documents under the category "Christian," while those who use Bengali

names similar to the typical Hindu names are often grouped under the category "Hindu." ill both

cases, ethnic people are excluded from the groups where they belong to. One can easily make

such mistakes if one does not have adequate knowledge about the ethnic people and their ethnic,

religious, and linguistic background. Even if some of the census enumerators possess such

knowledge, all of them cannot be expected to have it.  

Examples of a wide gap between Government official statistics and unofficial private censuses

are not hard to find in literature. Maloney (1984:8) has mentioned that according to the Monthly

Statistical Bulletin o/Bangladesh (March 1981), the ethnic population of the five Districts in

Rajshahi Division was 62,000. But the number of ethnic people found by the various Christian

missions in private censuses was double as much as the population given in official statistics. A

similar example has been given by Anwar.(1984:370), who has stated that the ethnic population

in Dinajpur was 11,000 in the official documents, while it was 55,000 according to the unofficial

statistics (no period was mentioned).  

To compare the data given in the 1991 Census Report with a research-based estimate, an

example may be cited from a recent study on the Garo community of Madhupur Garh forest.

According to Khaleque (1992), who did his Ph.D. Dissertation research on the Garo of Madhupur

Garh of Tangail District, the Garo population of this area is 25,000, whereas the Garo population

of the whole Tangail District is 2112 according to the 1991 Census Report. Khaleque's (1992)

estimate is based on a sample survey of 10 villages out of 30 Garo villages within and around

Madhupur National Park area.