EWonosaputra_Insights from indigenous food sovereignty_dissertation

INSIGHTS FROM INDIGENOUS FOOD
SOVEREIGNTY:
UNDERSTANDING CHALLENGES FACED
BY ADIVASIS IN THE CHITTAGONG HILL
TRACTS, BANGLADESH
Evelyn Wonosaputra
BCom (Accounting and Finance), CA
A thesis submitted in partial fulfilment of the requirements of a
Master of Development Studies (International Development) degree
June 2016
School of Social Sciences
Faculty of Arts and Social Sciences
University of New South Wales, Sydney

Insights from Indigenous Food Sovereignty Evelyn Wonosaputra
2
Statement of originality and certificate of approval
I hereby declare that this submission is my own work and to the best of my
knowledge it contains no materials previously published or written by another
person, or substantial proportions of material which have been accepted for the
award of any other degree or diploma at UNSW or any other educational
institution, except where due acknowledgement is made in the thesis. Any
contribution made to the research by others, with whom I have worked at UNSW
or elsewhere, is explicitly acknowledged in the thesis. I also declare that the
intellectual content of this thesis is the product of my own work, except to the
extent that assistance from others in the project's design and conception or in
style, presentation and linguistic expression is acknowledged.
Signed ……………………………………………..........
Date 13 June 2016
Approved as suitable for submission by
________________________________________________
(supervisor)

3
Table of Contents
Abstract........................................................................................................................5
Abbreviations and acronyms........................................................................................6
Chapter 1. Introduction................................................................................................7
Food sovereignty ..........................................................................................................9
The Chittagong Hill Tracts, Bangladesh .......................................................................12
Research Question, Method and Design .....................................................................13
Thesis Outline .............................................................................................................15
Chapter 2. Food Sovereignty Literature Review.........................................................16
Rights-based approaches to food sovereignty.............................................................16
Multiple and Competing Sovereignties: Power Relations ............................................19
Indigenous movements and food sovereignty.............................................................22
Chapter 3. Ethnic Minorities and Food Insecurity in the CHT.....................................26
Food insecurity and land displacement .......................................................................26
Changing food system and ecology .............................................................................28
CHT Conflict and insurgency........................................................................................32
Indigenous movements in the CHT..............................................................................33
Chapter 4. Insights from a food sovereignty framework...........................................35
Shifting cultivation beyond food security ....................................................................36
Agroecology for a sustainable food system.................................................................39
Rights-based approaches to food sovereignty.............................................................41
Rethinking relationships across scales.........................................................................44
Rethinking belonging and territory..............................................................................48
Chapter 5. Conclusion ................................................................................................51
Implications for theory and practice ...........................................................................53
Suggestions for further research.................................................................................55
References..................................................................................................................57
Appendix A.................................................................................................................74

4
Appendix B.................................................................................................................75
Appendix C .................................................................................................................76
Appendix D.................................................................................................................77
Appendix E .................................................................................................................78
Appendix F .................................................................................................................80
Appendix G.................................................................................................................81

Abstract
The thesis examines the relevance of food sovereignty towards better
understanding the challenges faced by the ethnic minorities (Adivasis) in the
Chittagong Hill Tracts (CHT) region of Bangladesh. History demonstrates that
the incessant socio-economic exploitation and high prevalence of food
insecurity ultimately fostered indigenous movements in the CHT. The
research employs secondary analysis to critically examine the conceptual and
theoretical application of an indigenous food sovereignty framework, as a
bridge between food security and indigenous movements in the CHT. The
framework reveals the importance of restoring and developing the Adivasis’
traditional food system and indigenous knowledge as a prerequisite to
indigenous food sovereignty and wellbeing. A food sovereignty approach also
offers a means to repolitise rights as an active form of citizenship, whereby
the right to food is inseparable from the right to produce, such as right to
land and right to seeds. Significantly, this study brings a fresh perspective in
reshaping the politics of indigenous movements within the domain of food
sovereignty. An indigenous food sovereignty framework provides an
alternative view that shifts the indigenous discourse from one on state-
centric autonomy to one that characterises autonomy as control of the food
system. The latter allows for the Adivasis’ cultural integrity and relationships
with human and nonhuman environment to be maintained. These insights
provide the scope for policy makers and non-state actors in the CHT and
Bangladesh for rethinking their approach towards a more sustainable and
just food system.

6
Abbreviations and acronyms
BARCIK: Bangladesh Resource Center for Indigenous Knowledge
BBS: Bangladesh Bureau of Statistics
CHT: Chittagong Hill Tracts
CHTDF: Chittagong Hill Tracts Development Facility
EEP/Shiree: Economic Empowerment of the Poor
FAO: Food and Agriculture Organisation of the United Nations
FFS: Farmers Field Schools
ICESCR: International Covenant on Economics, Social and Cultural Rights
ICIMOD: International Centre for Integrated Mountain Development
ITPGRFA: International Treaty on Plant Genetic Resources for Food and
Agriculture
GED: General Economic Division (of the GOB)
GMO: Genetically Modified Organism
GOB: Government of Bangladesh
LVC: La Via Campesina
NGO: Non-Governmental Organisation
OHCHR: Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights
PCJSS: Parbatya Chattagram Jana Samhati Samiti
RtAF: Right to Adequate Food
UDHR: Universal Declaration of Human Rights
UN: United Nations
UNDRIP: United Nation Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples

7
Chapter 1. Introduction
This thesis aims to explore the relevance of a food sovereignty approach
within the context of the ethnic minorities in the Chittagong Hill Tracts (CHT)
in Bangladesh with respect to their concurrent indigenous movements.
Focusing on the concept of food sovereignty and in setting out the
parameters of this study, this research seeks to answer the question: What
insights does food sovereignty provide towards better understanding the
challenges faced by the ethnic minorities in the Chittagong Hill Tracts?
This study also seeks to understand whether a food sovereignty approach
may enhance or impede the indigenous discourse in the CHT. The
contributions of indigenous peoples to sustainable agricultural practices are
increasingly being recognised (FAO 2009, FAO 2015). This is particularly so
post the adoption of the UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples
(UNDRIP) by the UN General Assembly in 2007. Admittedly, one of the key
conclusions to the Forum on indigenous peoples in Bangkok 2013 was the
need to understand the in-depth challenges faced by the indigenous
communities in order to identify opportunities that are socially and culturally
acceptable (FAO 2015: vii). Thus the socioeconomic and political situations of
indigenous peoples have become one of the most researched topics among
sociologists and anthropologists in recent times (Hossain 2013).
In the last two decades, the concept of food sovereignty has become the most
promising yet highly debated alternative paradigm to the mainstream food
security agenda that dominates global, regional and national food systems.
The mainstream food regime was built on decades of food security policies
that favoured a global corporatised food system and free trade agreements
(Jarosz 2014: 172). Food sovereignty movements notably gained more
popularity after the global 2007-2008 price rise in agricultural commodities,
which was partly fuelled by speculation of commodities (Bernstein 2014:
1033). As a result, it added 105 million to the global poor, mostly in South
Asia and sub-Saharan Africa (Ivanic and Martin 2008: 415). This crisis

8
provided a clear indication that food security policies in the past have failed
to promote, respect, protect and fulfil the rights of farmers (La Via Campesina
2009). While food security discussions avoid the structural causes of hunger,
food sovereignty outrightly questions relations of power as the cornerstone
of good governance (Patel 2009: 665). Food sovereignty questions how food
is produced, where, by whom, and at what scale (Desmarais 2007, McMichael
2009). The discourse on food sovereignty has gained much interest from
food scholars and non-academics alike. The concept is slowly being
integrated in the terminology of many development agencies and is
beginning to find its way in United Nations’ (UN) policy debates as well as in
national constitutions (Desmarais 2008, Claey 2012).
Meanwhile, food insecurity1 is increasingly becoming a grave issue in the
CHT, a region located in the Southeast of Bangladesh and home to 11 ethnic
groups. The latest survey of the socio-economic status in the CHT found that
rural poverty is 1.6 times higher there than in the rest of the country (CHTDF
2009: viii). Moreover, 89% of its people are living under the higher poverty
line2 and most households were found to be food insecure throughout the
month of Jaistha (May-June), Ashar (June-July) and Sravan (July-August)
(CHTDF 2009: viii, 113-114, see Appendix A for a food security map of the
CHT). This case study has been selected as it is evident that the mainstream
food security approaches propagated by the government and development
agencies have not been able to reduce food insecurities in the region.
Additionally, the struggles of the ethnic minorities in the CHT have mirrored
the struggles of the peoples that have joined forces in La Via Campesina’s
(LVC) food sovereignty movements. For instance, the latter had been victims
of mainstream food security approaches with concrete struggles for land and
1 Food security is defined in the World Food Summit of 1996 as a situation ‘when all people,
at all times, have physical, social and economic access to sufficient, safe and nutritious food
which meets their dietary needs and food preferences for an active and healthy life’ (FAO
2002).
2 The survey measured food insecurity based on the cost of basic needs of Tk 1,025/per
person/month (approx. USD13) for higher poverty line.

9
territory (Martinez-Torres and Rosset 2014). This next section outlines a
brief history of food sovereignty movements, their origins, and how the
concept of food sovereignty is collectively defined. This chapter then
presents a more detailed background of the CHT case study and concludes
with the research scope and structure of this thesis.
Food sovereignty
The term food sovereignty originated from the Mexican government’s 1983
National Food Program (Programma Nacional de Alimentacion) and was
used by peasant movements in Central America in the early 1990s (Edelman
2014a: 183). Nonetheless, it was LVC that introduced this term globally in a
FAO-sponsored World Food Conference in 1996 in an uprising to stop the
dumping of large amounts of subsidised American corn into Mexico that
forced many small-scale farmers out of business (Edelman 2014a: 183). Over
600 representatives of peasants, fisherfolks, pastoralists, indigenous peoples,
youth, women, urban dwellers and farm workers gathered together (Jarosz
2014). LVC’s notion of food sovereignty that emerged in this international
public space consolidated peasants, indigenous peoples and farmers as a
‘transnational community of resistance’ united through the persistent,
diverse and interconnected struggles of the peasants3 (Desmarais & Wittman
2014: 1157). Thereafter, other food sovereignty movements also gained
traction in South Asia; from the protest march of small farmers in Karnataka
who have now formed the most visible food sovereignty movements in the
region (i.e. the Karnataka State Farmers’ Association), to the People’s
Coalition on Food Sovereignty forum held in Dhaka, who later published ‘The
People’s Convention on food sovereignty’ in 2004 as a declaration on the
right of peoples to have control of their food systems (PCFS 2004, de Schutter
2015).
3 While the connotation of the term ‘peasant’ in English is often negative, the term is used in
the movement with pride (Desmarais 2008).

10
The Declaration of Nyeleni in 2007 is now regarded as the most
representative definition of food sovereignty (NGO/CSO Forum for Food
Sovereignty 2007). It states:
Food sovereignty is the right of peoples to healthy and culturally
appropriate food produced through ecologically sound and sustainable
methods, and their right to define their own food and agricultural
systems…It ensures that the rights to use and manage our lands, territories,
waters, seeds, livestock and biodiversity are in the hands of those who
produce food. Food sovereignty implies new social relations free of
oppression and inequality between men and women, peoples, racial groups,
social classes and generations. (see NGO/CSO Forum for Food Sovereignty
2007 for the full definition).
One major change in this definition from its previous version was the term
‘right to nation’, which was attributable to the original intent against trade
liberation, to the ‘right of peoples’ (Claeys 2015). Nevertheless, this definition
continues to be debated today due to the diverse politics behind the
movement4 (Grey and Patel 2015). Food sovereignty also requires the
implementation of all its components (Beauregard 2009, Pimbert 2008), as
follows. It:
(1) focuses on local people (2) values and respects the rights of women and
men, peasants and small scale family farmers and indigenous people who
cultivate, grow, harvest and process food (3) localises food system (4) puts
control of resources locally (5) builds local knowledge and skills of food
providers, and (6) works with nature (NGO/CSO Forum for Food
Sovereignty 2007).
The Declaration advocates for the use of agroecology as an alternative to
monoculture production and urges the ban on Genetically Modified Organism
4 It is outside the scope of this thesis to outline these debates; however, see Anderson and
Bellows 2012 Bernstein 2014, Agarwal 2014, Clapp 2014, Edelman et al. 2014 and Alonso-
Fradejas et al. 2015 for ongoing debates on the definition and interpretation of food
sovereignty.

11
(GMO) food and seeds while preserving traditional production system and
indigenous knowledge (Putnam et al. 2014, Jarosz 2014, Edelman 2014a,
Anderson and Bellows 2012). In brief, food sovereignty seeks a
transformational social change to recuperate rights and policies of those who
have previously been excluded.
As food sovereignty movements first originated in Latin America, there has
been proportionately more research conducted in the region, particularly
where food sovereignty has been adopted in national constitutions (see
McKay et al. 2014, Schiavoni 2014). In contrast, there is a dearth of food
sovereignty research in South Asia region, particularly in Bangladesh. This is
despite the fact that food sovereignty has been recognised in Bangladesh as
one of the most important practices to mitigate and adapt to climate change
(Bangladesh Krishok Federation 2011). It is surprising that there is such
scant research in the area of food sovereignty in South Asia given that this
region alone hosted 35.4% of the world’s hunger in 2014-2016 (FAO 2016).
Recent food sovereignty literature highlights the need to understand the local
context – the political, social, economic, institutional and cultural dimensions,
including: (i) the social organisations and social actors involved and (2) how
power operates within the society, in order to better understand the
potential, challenges and limitations of food sovereignty as a framework for
an alternative food system (see Wald and Hill 2016, Agarwal 2014,
Desmarais and Wittman 2014). Thus, opportunity exists to investigate the
relevance of food sovereignty in the CHT region of Bangladesh, which
remains underexplored by scholars within and beyond the region. The
following section outlines the traditional food system of the ethnic minorities
in the CHT and the struggle for recognition of their distinct identities.

12
The Chittagong Hill Tracts, Bangladesh
The CHT is located in the Southeast of Bangladesh in a land area of 13,295
km2, which is approximately 10 percent of the total land area in the country.
It has the highest percentage of forests area in the country, with 1.4 million
hectares classified as the hill forests. This unique feature of the hilly and
forested terrain is suitable for jum5 (shifting) or swidden cultivation, which
distinguishes the CHT from the rest of the country. Historically, jum has been
the main agricultural system and source of livelihood in the CHT. Along with
hunting, fishing, trapping, weaving, herding and gathering, it encompasses
the economy, society and culture of the CHT (Chowdhury 2008: 63, Adnan
2004: 10). In recent decades, however, land pressure and dispossessions
forced the people to reduce the land fallow cycle, making jum cultivation an
economically and environmentally unsustainable agricultural system
(Borggaard et al. 2003, Nath et al. 2005, Karim and Mansor 2011). The CHT is
also home to the largest number of ethnic groups in Bangladesh. The term
ethnic minorities6 refer to eleven ethnic groups residing in the CHT, these
are: Chakma, Marma, Tripura, Tanchangya, Mro, Khiyang, Lushai, Khumi,
Chak, Pangkua and Bawm (UNPO 2008). The ethnic minorities differ from
their Bengali counterparts in their culture, religion, tradition, race, political
history, social organisation, language, heritage and economy. Nevertheless,
the constitution of Bangladesh adopted in 1972 had no provision recognising
the distinct identities of the ethnic groups (Roy 1996, Mohsin 1998, quoted in
Adnan 2004: 27).
5 Jum cultivation involves cutting and burning of the slashed and dried vegetation in
February to March, sowing seeds in April and harvesting between July to December (Karin
and Mansor 2011: 109, see Appendix F for a jum cultivation calendar in the CHT). Cultivation
in the same plot of land is done for one or two years before leaving the land fallow to
regenerate.
6 In the CHT literature, ethnic minorities are referred to as ‘Pahari’, which translates to Hill
people or ‘Upajati’, which translates to tribal. Meanwhile, the term ‘Adivasi’, which translates
to indigenous peoples, and ‘Jumma’ for their occupation as jum cultivators, have social and
political connotations attached to them (Chowdhury 2008: 68). In this thesis, the term Pahari
will be used in discussions around jum cultivation. This is because Paharis are generally
Adivasis but not all Adivasis are Paharis.

13
Research Question, Method and Design
In responding to the research question: What insights does food
sovereignty provide towards better understanding the challenges faced
by the ethnic minorities in the Chittagong Hill Tracts?, this study attempts
to make an important contribution to the academic literature on the small
but growing discourse on indigenous food sovereignty and the CHT (see
Morisson 2011, Rudolph and McLachlan 2013, Kamal et al. 2014, Kamal et al.
2015, Grey and Patel 2015). To date, there is limited literature on the CHT
and none of the studies have attempted to look into the role of food
sovereignty in the CHT. Research interest around the CHT generally lies in
the analysis of different land use systems and separately, the current state of
play on the fight for indigeneity (see Rasul and Thapa 2006, Karim and
Mansor 2011, Nath et al. 2011, Chowdhury 2008, Dowlah 2013). There are
few CHT studies that have integrated food security issues with indigenous
movements. The findings of the thesis may provide insights for non-state
actors such as local institutions, civil society organisations and the ethnic
minorities in the CHT themselves in re-thinking their approach and strategies
for a more equitable and just food system.
This research undertakes a qualitative methodology within a case study
design, where the case of the CHT is a ‘focus of interest in its own right’
(Bryman 2012: 50). The purpose of the research is not to generalise the
findings (external validity) but to generate quality analysis within an
inductive approach (Bryman 2012: 52).
Due to the restricted time and scope available for this study, the research is
primarily based on desk-based reviews of secondary data and publicly
available information such as peer-reviewed journal articles, government
reports, Non-Government Organisations’ (NGOs) documents, and published
papers from research centres and media articles. Moreover, only English-
written documents have been included in this study. The primary limitation

14
of this research is that no fieldwork has been conducted in the CHT. As a
result, this limits the depth of the research and the scope of this thesis, which
is more theoretical by nature. Nonetheless, it is expected that the findings of
this thesis will be valuable towards enhancing the debate on the relevance of
food sovereignty in the case of the struggles of ethnic minorities in the CHT,
and initiate discussions for further research in the future. There are also a
number of important issues within the discourse of food sovereignty,
indigenous movements and the CHT that are outside the scope of the thesis;
some warranting research on their own. These include (but are not limited
to) issues such as: the dynamic relationships amongst the ethnic groups in
the CHT and the important role that women farmers have in agricultural
production and food.
The thesis in particular examines the relevance of an indigenous food
sovereignty framework towards better understanding the challenges faced
by the ethnic minorities in the CHT. The framework is used in exploring what
a sustainable food system means to the Adivasis in the CHT. The process
reveals: (1) the importance of restoring and preserving the traditional food
system and indigenous knowledge of the Adivasis in a way that is socially and
culturally appropriate but also economically and environmentally
sustainable (2) the inseparability between the right to food and the right to
produce food, such as right to land and right to seeds, and (3) how an
indigenous food sovereignty framework helps open the space (of discourse)
to imagine social relations differently including in human and nonhuman7
environment. The application of an indigenous food sovereignty framework
in the CHT therefore reveals strategies towards a sustainable food system
that simultaneously restore the Adivasis’ cultural practices, relationships,
knowledge, power relations, and a sense of wellbeing.
7 Nonhuman environment refers to the relationship with land, soil, water, air, plants and
animals (Morrison 2011, Kamal et al. 2014).

15
Thesis Outline
This paper is divided into five chapters. Chapter Two reviews the key
components of the food sovereignty literature that are most relevant to
answering the research question, such as: rights-based approaches to food
sovereignty, the concept of multiple and competing sovereignties, as well as
the literature on indigenous food sovereignty. Chapter Three examines the
extent of the challenges facing the ethnic minorities in the CHT. It provides a
historical background on the discriminatory market-based policies that have
led to food insecurities and land displacements in the CHT. It also examines
the causes that initiated indigenous movements in the CHT. Chapter Four
analyses the application of an indigenous food sovereignty framework in the
CHT and is organised into two parts: Part I discusses how jum cultivations
not only sustain food security but also form an important part of the Paharis’
way of life, culture and identity, the concept of agroecology, and concludes
with the application of rights-based approaches to food sovereignty. Part II
investigates how an indigenous food sovereignty framework may offer a
bridge between food security and indigenous movements in the CHT. In
particular, it examines how an indigenous food sovereignty framework
challenges the mainstream thinking on the relationships of scale, and the
concepts of belonging and territory. The final chapter (Conclusion) brings
together discussions from previous chapters and summarises the
implications of the findings for theory and practice.

16
Chapter 2. Food Sovereignty Literature Review
There is a ‘quantum sheer of literature’ generated in the context of food
sovereignty, which reflects the growing, collective food sovereignty
movements practiced at different scales across the world (Bernstein 2014:
1032). It is beyond the scope of this thesis to address all the voluminous
aspects and debates on food sovereignty; instead, it focuses on a few selected
emerging themes and key components of food sovereignty that are most
relevant in answering the research question. These are, firstly, the debates on
the rights-based approaches to food sovereignty; secondly, the analysis of the
political challenge in answering ‘who is the sovereign in food sovereignty’
(Edelman 2014b: 967), and finally a review of the existing literature that
directly connects indigenous movements with food sovereignty movements.
The literature reviewed in this chapter provides the analytical foundation for
the analysis in Chapter Four.
Rights-based approaches to food sovereignty
Food sovereignty movements have always been contextualised within the
rights-based language, from the ‘right of nation states’ in 1996 definition to
the ‘right of peoples’ in 2007 definition (LVC 2009). However, there are
debates between food scholars on the use of rights-based language8 within
food sovereignty movements (see Beuchelt and Virchow 2012, Patel et al.
2007, Anderson and Bellows 2012, Claeys 2012 and Dunford 2015). The
proponents of right to adequate food (RtAF) argued that the appearance of
“rights” in the definition of food sovereignty risks undermining ‘decades of
hard work in international negotiations’ to recognise human rights under
international law (Haugen 2009: 291). Therefore, it was proposed that a
8 The rights-based approach to development came to be recognised after the Universal
Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR) was passed in 1948, and the right to adequate food
(RtAF) was recognised and enshrined in Article 11 of the International Covenant on
Economic, Social and Cultural Rights (ICESCR) in 1966. Albeit that the recognition of duty-
bearers goes beyond the state, the primary obligation to respect, protect and fulfil the rights
remains with the state (OHCHR n.d.).

17
clear distinction to be made between the RtAF, which is a legal concept, and
food sovereignty, which is a political concept (Beuchelt and Virchow 2012,
see Appendix B for comparison between RtAF and food sovereignty). Given
the meaning of food sovereignty is still in ‘flux’, Anderson and Bellows (2012:
181) further warned that this can reduce its power in national food policy
implementation. In brief, these scholars believe that a food sovereignty
framework adds little value to the struggles of the people, particularly in
countries where the nation state has ratified the ICESCR. These views are
essentially valid but limited for the reasons discussed below.
Food sovereignty movements gained most of its strength from the
participation of the people in building a sustainable democracy, in order to
influence political direction and decision-making processes at different
levels, or what Patel (2007: 91) describes as making ‘transgressive use of the
discourse of rights’. According to Dunford (2014), the practice of LVC
combines the concept of Critical Security Studies that reject state-centricism
as particular agents of emancipatory change with Blakeley’s collective
politics9. The food sovereignty concept is intentionally vague about the
bodies responsible in guaranteeing these rights (Patel et al. 2007). It puts the
onus on the people to find out what the right to food10 means in their
communities, taking into account their diverse climate, geography, food
preferences, social mix and history (Patel et al. 2007: 91). The intention is to
shift the attention away from state “obligation” to the practice of active
citizenship. This process of building democracy is used in food sovereignty as
a vehicle for political mobilisation. The accumulation of knowledge and
resources in the process also empowers peasants to raise demand for human
rights over their struggles as active economic and political actors. In other
words, while RtAF within the discourse of food security emphasises the role
of state and international or other unspecified agencies in the provision of
9 This is on the assumption that an individual who suffers human rights oppression is often
not in a position to demand their rights (Blakeley 2013: 604).
10 The Right to food and the RtAF is used interchangeably in this thesis. However, RtAF is
defined by the ICESCR, while the right to food can be self-defined.

18
food, food sovereignty is a social movement by, not on behalf of, the peasants
(Dunford 2014). The discourse of food sovereignty moves away from policing
compliance of rights violations, which Patel describes as a hegemonic view of
democracy and citizenship ‘towards the people who are meant to hold them’
(Patel et al. 2007, Patel 2009: 92).
The rights-based approaches to food sovereignty thus offer a means to
repolitise rights as an active form of citizenship within its social and political
context, at local, national and international levels. This is clearly
demonstrated in the emergence of a new proposed right, framed within food
sovereignty that is both collective and decentralised (Claeys 2012: 849).
Following the end of President Suharto’s regime in 1998, a number of rural
democracy movements emerged in the countryside of Indonesia (LVC 2009).
The movements adopted the ‘Declaration of the Rights of Peasants’ as they
believe there are limitations in using the ICESCR as an instrument to protect
peasants’ rights (LVC 2009). Notably, the RtAF within food security discourse
fails to recognise the right to produce food, such as the right to land and
territory, the right to seeds, and the right to set the prices of agricultural
products (Edelman and James 2011). Differing from the RtAF, rights-based
approaches to food sovereignty imagine a new social relation whereby ‘the
human right to food is the human right to farm for the benefit of the people’
(Jarosz 2014: 174). As Patel et al. (2007) explain:
Food security is agnostic about the production regime, about the social and
economic conditions under which food ends up on the table. Its definition is
compatible, for example, with a full employment economy in which everyone
eats at McDonald’s… The right to [adequate] food is compatible with a range
of policies that militate against human rights enshrined in the UDHR (Patel
et al. 2007: 90)
To further illustrate this difference, patents on seeds, plants and animals and
GMOs are acceptable within the RtAF but are outrightly rejected in food
sovereignty and in the Declaration of the Rights of Peasants (Haugen 2009).

19
The Declaration calls for peasants as a separate vulnerable and marginalised
group, similar to the specific recognition of indigenous peoples in the
UNDRIP (LVC 2009). In summary, what started as essentially an Indonesian
process has emerged at the international level, in which the struggles of the
peasants are now being contextualised within the rights-based framework
(Claeys 2015)11. This multi-scale level in which food sovereignty is practiced
is further discussed in the following section.
Multiple and Competing Sovereignties: Power Relations
As there is no single governing authority to regain food sovereignty
(McMichael 2015), the effort to obtain control of the communities’ food
system cannot solely rely on the effort of the local communities. It involves
some degree of redistribution of power by the state in order for its people to
achieve local autonomy (McKay et al. 2014). In this regards, Edelman
(2014b) raised some salient questions, which have been largely evaded by
scholars of food sovereignty. These questions include ‘who is the sovereign in
“food sovereignty”’ and ‘what political institutions will administer “food
sovereignty”’ (Edelman 2014b: 967-968). Paradoxically, the term
‘sovereignty’ historically refers to ‘state-centered sovereignty’ and its
autonomous control over its territory, in which ‘social, cultural, economic
and security structures are defined’ (Ilgen 2003, quoted in Iles and
Montenegro de Wit 2015: 484). This is a paradox because food sovereignty
movements are generally oriented towards dismantling many of these states’
policies (Edelman 2013, McMichael 2014). Therefore, as Bernstein (2014:
1054) accurately summarised, ‘the state is “the elephant in the room”’ in the
food sovereignty literature. Nevertheless, this trend is changing as
11 The latest progress was made in October 2015, whereby the United Nations (UN) Human
Rights Council adopted (by majority) a resolution that allows the intergovernmental
working group to submit a draft UN Declaration on the Rights of Peasants and Other People
Working in Rural Areas within the next two years (LVCa 2015). However, Claeys (2012: 854)
warns that this may reduce food sovereignty movements to an ‘inoffensive UN human rights
system that acknowledge the existence of a new group right’.

20
increasingly more researchers are critically tackling difficult questions in
food sovereignty movements (see Edelman et al. 2014, Schiavoni 2014,
Shattuck et al. 2015, Iles and Montenegro de Wit 2015). This is illustrated
below.
Building upon the work of McMichael (2009) and Patel (2009), Schiavoni
(2014: 9) proposed the concept of food sovereignty in terms of ‘multiple’ or
‘competing sovereignties’, which need not be mutually exclusive and vary by
geography, scale and institutions12 (Shattuck et al. 2015: 426). These
multiple sovereignties include: external sovereignty, which calls for the state-
centric view and control of its territories and food productions, and internal
sovereignty, which centers on the right of peoples to self-determination and
to freely choose how to manage their food system (Claeys 2012, Shattuck et
al. 2015). This notion of multiple and competing sovereignties moves away
from the single-point approach with the state (McMichael 2009: 39). There is
strong evidence to suggest that the current discourse on food sovereignty,
however, mostly fails to recognise these multiple and competing
sovereignties dimensions despite it being closely interlinked with the
struggles towards food sovereignty and control over resources (Jarosz 2014,
Robbins 2015, Wald and Hill 2016). One of the insights arising from the
recognition of multiple and competing sovereignties is the ability to ‘jump
scales to disband spatial boundaries’ (Wald and Hill 2016: 206). This refers
to the ability to engage networks, including at regional and international
level, as per what LVC has done successfully across space and scale. In other
words, the multiple and competing sovereignties dimension within food
sovereignty implies that there are different levels of decision-making, which
suggests that political change can be enacted at multiple scales to contest
‘territory, economy and power’ (Trauger 2014: 1145).
12 See Schiavoni (2014) who examines the difference between scale (size, level and relation),
geography and institutions within the context of food sovereignty.

21
This emphasis on the importance of power relations within local, national and
regional scales is what differentiates food sovereignty from food security
(Jarosz 2014). Understanding the power relationships and processes between
actors of multiple sovereignties holds the potential to socially construct
sovereignty as a ‘malleable and “negotiable” power by which particular
movements, peoples, or communities can seize, create, oppose, or reshape as
against the state, cities, corporations, and other sovereign actors’ (Iles and
Montenegro de Wit 2015: 483, Shattuck et al. 2015). This notion of relational
scale suggested by Iles and Montenegro de Wit (2015) is not static and leaves
room for different sovereign actors to coexist, whereby sovereignty can be
‘built up, recognised, and maintained over time and space’ (Iles and
Montenegro de Wit 2015: 489). This is well illustrated with the comunas or
citizen-led self-governing bodies (Communal Councils) in Venezuela,
whereby the participatory democracy process happens through the
interaction between the state and society (Schiavoni 2014). Through these
interactions, Venezuela is undergoing a process of structural changes with
the ultimate goal of moving control of its food system to their people
(Schiavoni 2014, McKay et al. 2014). In other words, understood in terms of
relational scale, food sovereignty is about building relationships, creating
open spaces for dialogues across scales, and ‘becomes as much a practice of
creating connectivity as of creating autonomy’ (Iles and Montenegro de Wit
2015: 494).
Unlike food security, which is described as the ‘state of being or having that is
situated in a given time’ (Wald and Hill 2016: 204), there are many different
scales, contexts, multiple and competing sovereignties, as described above, in
which food sovereignty process is evolving. Food sovereignty is not a ‘one
size fits all solution’ that can easily be scaled up (Schiavoni 2014: 8).
Consequently, it is important to understand the unique local history,
institutions, governance, cultural identities, politics and economic changes in
order to discern social relations and the way in which power is structured,
which is at the core of progressing efforts of food sovereignty (Shattuck et al.

22
2015, Jarosz 2014). According to Shattuck et al. (2015: 427), understanding
these contextual differences and lived experiences is the foundation in which
strategies can be built, and negotiated, including ‘whether, how, and in what
way to engage the state’. Thus, the following section looks into the discourse
of food sovereignty in conjunction with indigenous movements, in order to
better understand the unique challenges faced by indigenous people13.
Indigenous movements and food sovereignty
This section begins by discussing some of the similarities and divergences
between indigenous movements and food sovereignty movements. The
overlap between indigenous and food sovereignty movements can be seen in
the utilisation of the rights-based approach. The basis of indigenous
movement has historically been centred on the rights to self-determination,
which is a ‘right to freely determine their political status and freely pursue
their economic, social and cultural development’ 14 (Article 3) and in doing
so, have the ‘right to autonomy or self-government’ (Article 4) and
sovereignty over their territories (UNDRIP 2007). The limitations of a human
rights framework, as discussed earlier, likewise pertain to indigenous
movements. For instance, the rights-based approach runs the risk of reducing
indigenous resurgence that is deeply embedded in the everyday practice of
reclaiming, restoring and regenerating their relationship with homelands,
plants, and animals15 to a mere state-centric legal and political recognition
(Corntassel and Byrce 2012: 153). This diverts the discourse away from
redressing cultural loss, which is at the core of the indigenous people’s
identity and dignity (Henders 2005, Corntassel 2008).
13 This background literature is relevant in the context of the ethnic minorities in the CHT, as
will be demonstrated in Chapter Three.
14 The right to self-determination is the right of the people not individual (Australian Human
Rights Commission n.d.).
15 also known as ‘decolonisation’ (Corntassel and Byrce 2012: 153).

23
Albeit both movements agree on the limitations of the current human rights
framework, there are also clear divergences between indigenous and food
sovereignty movements. For example, this is shown in the interpretation of
autonomy. The right to autonomy within indigenous movements ranges from
self-administration to self-government (Grey and Patel 2015), which is
contradictory to the interpretation of sovereignty within the food
sovereignty discourse, as discussed above. This drive for autonomy has
shaped and constrained today’s indigenous politics (Shaw 2008: 182).
Drawing on the insight of eco-feminist theory, Buddhism, and indigenous
North American philosophies, Henders (2005: 25) points out how this
individualistic conception of self-government in itself undermines the ability
of indigenous people to self-govern as their culture is based on a deep
interconnectedness with other communities and the natural environment,
which requires ‘relations of nondomination’. The discussions above indicate
that despite the fact that indigenous rights groups and scholars have long
explored the meaning of autonomy and self-determination, it occupies a
contentious space for continuing discussions.
In an attempt to better understand whether a food sovereignty approach may
enhance or impede the indigenous discourse, this thesis has endeavoured to
review all relevant studies. These studies have clearly demonstrated the
importance of food sovereignty in the realisation of self-determination (see
Morisson 2011, Grey and Patel 2015, Kamal et al. 2014, Desmarais and
Wittman 2014). As Grey and Patel (2015: 436-437) put it, ‘Food can be seen
as the most direct manifestation of the relationships between Indigenous
People and homelands, and it consequently occupies a central place in
traditional thought’. Indigenous people are therefore deeply embedded in the
cultural ecology of food generating activities (Grey and Patel 2015). Notably,
a critical factor that differentiates food sovereignty between indigenous and
non-indigenous people is the need of indigenous people to restore and

24
develop their cultural practices16, values and thoughts as a prerequisite to
indigenous food sovereignty and wellbeing (Morisson 2011, Rudolph and
McLachlan 2013, Kamal et al. 2015). Consequently, in order to restore their
cultural practices, indigenous movements have historically prioritised the
protection of their territory not only to gain control of their traditional food
system but also to maintain the sharing of knowledge with one another and
for future generations (Morrison 2011, Kamal et al. 2014). Rocha and
Liberato (2015: 599) further demonstrate the social importance of food for
indigenous people as a means to gain a sense of “belonging”. Rocha and
Liberato (2015) provided an example of two displaced indigenous groups in
Brazil who were able to use food as a means for cultural integration and
ethnic reconstruction in the process of land settlement. Thus it is evident that
food sovereignty has an important role in enhancing the indigenous
discourse. The studies have also highlighted the need for decolonisation to
start at a personal and collective level, where people are empowered to take
responsibility in maintaining indigenous knowledge, values and cultures in
relation to their traditional food system (Corntassel 2008, Rudolph and
McLachlan 2013).
In order to better understand the complex factors that are driving food
insecurities, several scholars within the indigenous food sovereignty
discourse have developed a variety of analytical framework (Morisson 2011,
Putnam et al. 2014, Kamal et al. 2015). Admittedly, there is no one-size-fits-
all framework in which indigenous food sovereignty can be achieved due to
the distinct challenges and struggles faced by each community. As Kamal et
al. 2015 accurately describe:
Any community hoping to establish Indigenous food sovereignty must find
an approach that is right in their particular situation, though this case study
can be used to help guide initial planning and decision-making. Communities
must find their own spirit ‘to cause a mental awakening’ (Alfred, 2009a, 282,
16 These include their traditional food system, language, ceremonies, and relationship (Grey
and Patel 2015).

25
quoted in Kamal et al. 2015: 571)
This thesis utilises existing frameworks, case studies and literature reviews
as a starting point to better understand the factors that are hindering the
ethnic minorities in the CHT towards a sustainable food system. To illustrate,
Putnam et al. (2014) combined food security indicators such as availability
and accessibility, with food sovereignty’s elements such as agroecological
practices at the local level, preservation of indigenous knowledge and local
access to productive resources (see Appendix C) in their analysis of the
Mayan communities in the Yucatan State, Mexico. Similarly, Kamal et al.
(2015) found that for the indigenous people of northern Manitoba, Canada,
the ability to practice their decolonising activities17 in their reclaimed land,
through a community-based food program, leads to a restoration of their
cultural practices as well as their relationships with nonhuman environment.
This will be discussed and analysed further in Chapter Four.
17 These include hunting, fishing, trapping, berry picking, community gardens and wild food
programs (Kamal et al. 2015: 565).

26
Chapter 3. Ethnic Minorities and Food Insecurity in the CHT
This chapter provides an overview of the multidimensional challenges faced
by the ethnic minorities in the CHT, and in doing so demonstrates the extent
of their food insecurities. A good understanding of the socio-economical,
political, ecological and cultural histories of the ethnic minorities in the CHT
is an important step and a critical foundation that enables the analysis of
food sovereignty and its relevance in the CHT. Thus, this chapter provides the
cornerstone for the building blocks and analysis discussed in Chapter Four.
Food insecurity and land displacement
The CHT today has been recognised as the most vulnerable and
disadvantaged region in Bangladesh in all human development indicators
such as health, education, income, water, sanitation, livelihood,
intercommunity confidence and institutional governance (GED 2015: 680). It
has the highest extreme poverty rate in the country (GED 2015: 680) and it is
a region with the lowest food diversity where rice is the dominant food
consumed (Shiree 2014: 43).
As it is beyond the scope of this thesis to enagage with all the causes of food
insecurity in the CHT, this chapter focuses on one major driver: the
discriminatory market-based policies that have been adopted since the
colonialisation period. These policies were focused on commercial extraction
of resources, which consequently led to deforestation, land displacement,
food insecurity and a changing food system and ecology in the CHT. Earlier
on in 1867, the British had introduced policies that aimed to replace shifting
cultivation with sedentary agriculture as they viewed jum cultivation as
‘primitive’ and a destructive land use system (Rasul and Thapa 2006: 445).
However, it only started gaining acceptance in early 1880s when one-fourth
of the forestlands were classified as reserved forests, and the right of the
people to access the forests was denied and jum cultivation was strictly

27
prohibited (Rasul 2007). Additionally, the first national forestry policy
introduced in 1894 allowed the conversion of forests for cash crops
cultivation such as cotton, oilseeds and cereals as well as for commercial teak
and timber plantations, in order to maximise tax revenue (Mitchell 2011, Ali
et al. 2006). This colonial policy that favoured commercial extraction
continued during the Pakistan period (1947 – 1970)18. Paper, rayon, timber,
pulp, plywood, and match manufacturing industries were opened (Rahman
1998). After Bangladesh’s independence in 1971, the government declared
an additional 50,000ha as reserved forests, further reducing land availability
for jum cultivations. The government also adopted a policy that granted
leaseholds on large tracts of CHT lands for private rubber plantations as well
as public sector rubber plantations, managed by the Chittagong Hill Tracts
Development Board19 (Adnan 2004: 127). Likewise, tobacco cultivation is
now increasing at an alarming rate in the CHT, posing health problems, water
contamination and environmental issues as more and more farmers convert
their croplands into tobaccos (Huq 2015). Ultimately, this gradual
commercialisation of the economy has only led to poorer socio-economic
status of the people. Their environment is deteriorating rapidly as these
discriminatory policies have allowed the resources in the CHT to be extracted
by the state and private sectors without due care for its people (Rasul and
Thapa 2006).
One of the major consequences of these discriminatory market-based policies
is the loss of entitlement and rights of the ethnic minorities to their land
(Adnan 2004: 36). The introduction of the Land Acts in 1865 allowed the
British to claim ownership of all lands in the CHT and neglected the
customary land rights and rules that have historically governed the allocation
of land for jum cultivations (Adnan 2004: 37). In fact, a significant portion of
18 During the partition of British India that signaled India’s independence in 1947,
Bangladesh became a part of Pakistan (East Pakistan). The CHT was given as a windfall to
Pakistan due to its geographical proximity (Islam 2015). This is despite the CHT’s petition to
join India during partition time (Islam 2015).
19 The Board is primarily funded by foreign donor agencies (Adnan 2004: 127).

28
what is presently known as Unclassed State Forests 20 was settled or leased
out to private individuals and corporate entities (Adnan 2004: 39). Land
displacements accelerated in 1962 when the constitution of Pakistan
eliminated ‘excluded area’ under the CHT Regulation 1900; As a result, it
encouraged voluntary migration of Bengalis to the region (Mohsin 1995,
Kamal 1995). Moreover the Kaptai Dam constructed in 1957–1962 had
resulted in the displacement of around 100,000 people and submerged over
40% of the area’s agricultural land (Islam 1978, Zaman 1984, quoted in Islam
2015). Post Bangladesh’s independence in 1971, the migration of Bengalis
accelerated significantly as the government provided khasland (reserved
land) incentives on cultivable lands (Islam 2015). As a result, the proportion
of Bengalis in the CHT increased from 2% in 1948 to an estimated 51% of the
population in 2003 (Islam 2015, Jamil and Panday 2008). Notably, the CHT
population tripled from 508,199 in 1974 to 1,663,274 in 2011
(Establishment Division 1971, BBS 2007, 2012, quoted from ICIMOD 2015:
7). Overall, this political move has ensued in the loss of traditional land
rights21 and the further marginalisation of ethnic minorities economically,
socially, ecologically and politically.
Changing food system and ecology
As a result of these discriminatory market-based policies and land
displacements, recent studies have found that jum cultivation is no longer
economically sustainable as it is unable to meet food security needs of the
people (Rasul and Thapa 2006, Rasul and Thapa 2007, Nath et al. 2011). One
of the critical factors that contributed to the decline in jum productivity is the
reduction in the land fallow period that left little time for soil regeneration.
20 Under The CHT Regulation 1900, the ethnic minorities have a (usufruct) right over
common land, which allows the use of the land without legal documents and the land can be
used for jum, village forests, homestead or grazing (Adnan 2004: 39).
21 Rule 39 of the CHT Regulation 1990 required a consultation with the Chiefs (equivalent to
tribal raja) or Mouza headmen (the representative of several villages) prior to making any
decisions regarding land distribution and ownership (Islam 2015).

29
To illustrate, a study by Borggaard et al. (2003) on six upazilas (sub-districts)
in Bandarban district found that jum cultivation has on average an estimated
output value of USD 380 ha-1yr-1 against an USD 360 input value. This decline
in productivity along with the reduction of land allotment from 25 acres to 5-
10 acres had forced the majority of farmers to supplement their income with
non-traditional occupations, including working as day labourers, to meet
their household expenditures (Nath et al. 2011, ICIMOD 2015: 11). Despite
these efforts, most ethnic minorities remained food insecure from two to six
months in a year (CHTDF 2009: 113). Additionally, the ethnic minorities in
the CHT have limited access to food from the market due to either
remoteness or inability to afford the price, poor diversity of diet as they are
unable to afford meat or fish (utilisation) and their jum crops are subject to
climate variability (stability) such as irregular rainfall, flooding and attacks
by wild animals (FAO 2015: 62-63). Consequently, the World Food
Programme has categorised the CHT as a ‘highly food insecure area’ (FAO
2015: 62).
In addition to the decline in productivity, there is strong evidence to suggest
that jum cultivation has had a negative environmental impact in the last few
decades due to the intensity of jum practiced in the CHT (Rasul and Thapa
2006). Studies found that jum soils have a low percentage of organic carbon
and material and other valuable plant nutrients (Biswas et al. 2010, Osman et
al. 2013, Miah et al. 2010). Karim and Mansor (2011) predicted that the
burning process removed much of the nutrients in the top 10 cm of the soil.
This soil deterioration has led to an increasing number of landslides in the
region, particularly during the monsoon period. Moreover, as soil lost ended
up as sediments in the river, the number of flooding occurrences has been
increasing in recent times. What is interesting, however, is that not all
researchers agree that jum cultivation is primarily responsible for
deforestation, soil erosion, biodiversity loss, and productivity decline in the
CHT (Nath et al. 2011, Seidenberg et al. 2003). For instance, Seidenberg et al.
(2003) pointed that forest conversion to agriculture land is actually more

30
damaging as it wipes out the secondary forests. Moreover, the cultivation of
high-value crops such as turmeric, ginger and aroids without proper soil and
water conservation measures has also increased soil erosion and damage
(Nath et al. 2005: 444).
Notwithstanding these debates, most of the CHT literature to date strongly
proposes a move away from shifting cultivation towards more sedentary
agriculture and market-oriented commercial agricultural products as a
means to increase food security (see Nath et al. 2005, Bala et al. 2012,
ICIMOD 2015). A recent report on the strategic framework for sustainable
development in the CHT issued by the International Centre for Integrated
Mountain Development (ICIMOD)22 in conjunction with the Ministry of
Chittagong Hill Tracts Affairs has recommended the following strategies:
(a) strengthen agriculture through integrated watershed management that
supports increased productivity while maintaining ecosystem services; (b)
transform jum practice, where appropriate, to agroforestry, horticulture,
animal husbandry, and other more productive systems through the
provision of support packages to facilitate market access by investing in
farm roads, and increasing productivity by modernising agriculture; (c)
strengthen post-harvest management, value chain development, processing,
packaging, certification, and branding (ICIMOD 2015: iv, emphasis added).
This sentiment towards market-based land use system is similarly reflected
in Bangladesh’s 7th Five Year Plan where the government intends to establish
Agricultural Research and Development Centres and introduce advance
varieties of seeds that will be commercially profitable (GED 2015: 690). The
government will also arrange micro-finance for farmers to move towards
horticulture and to develop marketing facilities to ‘strengthen post-harvest
management, value chain development, processing, packaging, and market
22 ICIMOD is a regional intergovernmental learning centre that focuses on improving
livelihoods of mountain peoples in eight countries of the Hindu Kush Himalayan region
(ICIMOD n.d.).

31
access, and to engage private sector market linkages’ (GED 2015: 690). Agri-
business is considered an untapped potential to address food security issues
in the CHT if a conducive environment can be created for private investment
including benefit-sharing from genetic resources (ICIMOD 2015: 10).
Nonetheless, it is important to note that many researchers have also
simultaneously identified to the paramount institutional and policy
constraints within these market-based approaches to achieving food security
in the CHT (Rasul and Thapa 2005, Bala et al. 2012, Nath et al. 2005). For
example, Rasul and Thapa (2005) and Bala et al. (2012) list these
constraining factors as: lack of institutional supports (such as training,
extension services and credit facilities), lack of infrastructure
development/distance to market and services, and land scarcity. In other
words, market-based approaches to food security risk imposing further
marginalisation and inequality for the Adivasis in the CHT. Institutional and
infrastructure support alone is not likely to address the structural causes of
hunger and impoverishment in the CHT. By comparison, a sustainable food
system requires an approach that is culturally and socially acceptable for the
Adivasis.
The next section reviews the historical background of the CHT conflict and
indigenous movements in the CHT. It is important to understand how
sovereignty is built and contested in the CHT in order to identify potential
indigenous food sovereignty strategies based on these social relations.
Although the state’s disregard of the ethnic minorities’ identity, culture and
rights has in fact triggered the CHT conflict, the distinctiveness and separate
identities of the ethnic groups in the CHT has only become politically
significant because of the incessant socio-economic exploitation and food
insecurity discussed above (Islam 2015).

32
CHT Conflict and insurgency
Political movements in the CHT began shortly after Bangladesh’s
independence in 1971. The origin of the Parbattya Chattagram Jana Sanghati
Samiti (PCJSS) political party was prompted when the new Bangladesh
government dismissed the ethnic minorities’ distinctive identity, culture and
rights (Adnan 2004: 26). The then Prime Minister Sheikh Mujibur Rahman
advised the ethnic minorities to assimilate within the Bengalis identity
(Adnan 2004: 26). The ethnic minorities were alienated from the mainstream
society and a sense of ‘otherness’ was intentionally created (Chakraborty
2004). The 1972 constitution of Bangladesh did not recognise their distinct
identity and instead use ‘backward sections of citizens’ as a term that
includes the ethnic minorities (GOB 1972). The government was not
sensitive to the underlying causes that had driven PCJSS into armed
resistance, and instead, reacted to the insurgency by deploying full-scale
militarisation (Adnan 2004: 29). Human rights violations were prevalent,
with mass killings of more than 10,000 people, burning of villages, torture,
and rape (UNPO 2015). It was only in the mid 1990s, when the CHT conflict
started to attract international attention and pressure, Prime Minister Sheikh
Hasina finally came to an agreement with the PCJSS political party by signing
the Peace Accord in 1997 (See UCDP 1997 for the content of the Peace
Accord). Albeit it is now almost 19 years after signing of the Peace Accord,
there is strong evidence to suggest that it has not made any meaningful
progress (PCJSS 2014, Panday and Jamil 2015, Islam 2015). This is
particularly in terms of withdrawal of the military camps, reinstitution of
lands, and delegation of power to the CHT’s Regional and District Councils
(see Appendix D for CHT Institutions structure) (UNPO 2015). These CHT
institutions are yet to have clear political and administrative roles, including
the Land Commissioner, which left the people ‘disillusioned about the
prospects of reinstituting their lost lands’ (Adnan 2004: 35, Panday and Jamil
2015). Despite two-thirds of the core issues in the Peace Accord have not

33
been implemented, the government has chosen to be oblivious, which posts a
question as to the government’s political will for full implementation of the
Peace Accord. This is clearly demonstrated in the 7th Five Year Plan:
Regarding Ethnic population, the Government has been successfully
implementing the 1997 Chittagong Hill Tracts (CHT) accord… Progress is
generally satisfactory, although continued efforts are needed (GED 2015:
13).
This dual approach 23 (i.e. the projection of sincere attitude by the
government that leaves the people in despair on the one hand and resented
on the other) will only increase the mistrust between the Adivasis and the
government (PCJSS 2016).
Indigenous movements in the CHT
Prior to the establishment of the indigenous movements, the Paharis (who
were mainly jum cultivators) have been historically united under the
umbrella of Jumma nationalism, as their political and social identity
(Chowdhury 2008:68). According to Van Schendel (1992), this was the first
attempt to develop an indigenous model based on their culture and identity
and to protect their homeland24 against non-Jummas. Although these
resistance movements, which were based on ethnic pride and self-
determination, have worked relatively well in the past, Van Schendel (1992:
125) is ambivalent about the future, stating that future success will depend
on how closely the people continue to perceive themselves as jum cultivators.
Chowdhury (2008: 75) also warns that an identity based on jum cultivation
risks the invention of an ‘“authentic” traditional culture and practice it as
23 Peschard found a similar dual approach by the Indian government in relation to Farmers’
Rights, or what Randeria termed as ‘cunning state’ whereby the state is able to ‘capitalise on
their perceived weakness in order to render themselves unaccountable both to their citizens
and to international institutions’ (Randeria 2003:3, quoted in Peschard 2014: 1087).
24 Land is traditionally considered ‘a free gift of nature and not possession of the mortals’ by
jum cultivators (Van Schendel 1992: 122).

34
natural’ as a means to create ethnonationalism. Thus when the international
discourse on indigenous and sustainable movements came about in the
1980s and 1990s, PCJSS subsequently reframed their arguments around
indigeneity under the auspices of the United Nations as a means to assert
rights of resources and self-determination (Chowdhury 2008: 71).
An important dimension of the indigenous movements in the CHT is the
demand for recognition of indigenous people in Bangladesh’s legal
framework (Gerharz 2014, Adnan 2008). The movements demand a removal
of the term “backward sections of the citizens” (Gerharz 2014: 557) and they
are lobbying for the government to ratify International Labour Organization
(ILO) Convention 169, which forms part of the UNDRIP in 2007, to safeguard
the rights to self-determination of indigenous people. Bangladesh has
abstained from the UNDRIP stating that all of their citizens had been living in
the land for millennia, and thus everyone is indigenous to the land (Ahmed
2010: 50). The ILO Convention 169 (1989) provides clarity on the definition
of indigenous to be: those that have historical continuity, territorial
connection and distinct social, economy, cultural and political institutions
(Henriksen 2008: 7). Nonetheless, the government has yet to recognise the
ethnic minorities as indigenous to the country. This denial is clearly reflected
in Bangladesh’s policy documents and in the Peace Accord. The Peace Accord
signed in 1997 recognised the CHT as ‘tribal inhabited’ and the term Upajati
(tribal) was used, a notion that connotes backwardness and primitivism (Van
Schendel 1992).
This chapter has signified the multidimensional challenges facing the ethnic
minorities in the CHT. Based on this understanding of the CHT context, the
following chapter examines what insights a food sovereignty framework can
provide in this case and whether it presents a valuable alternative paradigm
for the Adivasis to regain control of their food system, which is closely
interlinked to their culture and identity.

35
Chapter 4. Insights from a food sovereignty framework
This chapter discusses the potential application of a food sovereignty
framework towards better understanding the struggles faced by the ethnic
minorities in the CHT in relation to their experiences of food insecurity.
Building on recent conceptual and theoretical developments on indigenous
food sovereignty discussed in Chapter Two, this chapter first examines the
potential of a food sovereignty framework in shifting the discourse away
from market-based food security approaches towards restoration of the
traditional food system (Part I). I demonstrate that the practice of jum
cultivation goes beyond food security; the practice is at the core of the
Paharis’ cultural identity and indigenous knowledge. Thus, the value of jum
cultivation cannot be divorced from the people’s struggles to survive (Cuevas
et al. 2015). By taking steps to restore and improve their traditional food
system to a level that is sustainable, it allows the Pahari communities to
maintain control of their food system, which is at the core of food
sovereignty. Moreover, integral to food sovereignty is the inseparability
between the right to food and the right to produce food, such as right to land
and territory and right to seeds. The chapter then explores how a food
sovereignty approach may enhance the indigenous discourse in the CHT
(Part II). Applying Iles and Montenegro de Wit’s (2015) notion of relational
scale discussed in Chapter Two, I discuss how an indigenous food sovereignty
framework has the potential to shift the indigenous discourse away from
ethnic indigeneity and autonomy towards sovereignty as a process of social
transformation and building of relationships (McMichael 2015). This
‘strategy’, I argue, has a better chance for a longer-term structural change.
The history and future direction of the food system in the CHT clearly
demonstrate the prioritisation of food security over food sovereignty. This is
because actions undertaken by the government-in-charge have generally
stressed aspects of production, supply and demand, and accessibility based
on purchasing power. As a result, this allows the dominant power-holders to
overshadow the voice of the vulnerable groups (Jarosz 2014, Pottier 1999). It

36
also undermines the role of food producers and their local food knowledge,
where they are often seen as ‘backwards, residual obstacle to the universal
leap from underdevelopment in industrial modernity’ (Ehlert and Voßemer 
2015: 13). However, as Rudolph and McLachlan (2013: 1094) pointed out in
their case study on the food crisis in northern Manitoba, Canada, it is not food
availability that is the primary issue, the primary issue is the ‘colonising
forces that continue to undermine the local food culture and food related
knowledge’. In this aspect, food sovereignty acts as a political campaign that
demands more than guaranteed access to food, but also control of the food
system from production to consumption (Holt-Giménez 2009, Patel 2009).
While food security provides an understanding of the extent to which the
ethnic communities are food insecure, food sovereignty provides a
framework to achieve food security goals (Putnam et al. 2014, Windfuhr and
Jonsen 2005). Food sovereignty upholds the model of environmentally
sustainable agriculture and is small-farmers oriented, which differs from the
industrialised agriculture promoted by food security policies (Beuchelt and
Virchow 2012).
Part I. Restoring traditional food system and exploring rights-based
approaches to food sovereignty
Shifting cultivation beyond food security
Shifting cultivation has generally been misunderstood in the past, with FAO
declaring it the ‘most serious land-use problem in the tropical world’ (FAO
1957). Yet, previous policies, in the name of forest conservation and
development, have not been able to eradicate shifting cultivation (FAO 2015).
In the CHT, Paharis continue to practice shifting cultivation despite its
declining productivity in recent decades (Nath et al. 2011, Rasul and Thapa
2003, Rahman et al. 2011). Jum cultivation still provides a safety net for the
households, particularly those that live remotely from the market. In
contrast, market-oriented production is considered more risky due to price

37
volatility, longer rate of return and discriminatory regulations (FAO 2015).
Similarly, Nath et al. (2005) found that the Paharis do not want to leave jum
cultivation, as it provides them with rice, which is central to their culture and
identity. For the Paharis, jum cultivation is a way of life; it has a cultural
significance because of the ceremonies and rituals and it forms part of the
communities’ social capital and bonding (Adnan 2004, FAO 2015, ICIMOD
2015). The Paharis’ traditional belief systems respect the spirits that are
considered to dwell in jum fields, which in turn transforms their relationship
with land and nature beyond more than the extraction of resources for
economic benefits (FAO 2015, Borggaard et al. 2003). The Pahari
communities have historically shared labours to overcome labour shortages,
locally known as lakcha among Marmas or bala suza-suzi among Chakmas
(FAO 2015: 57). They invite their neighbours for a party before slashing and
a similar tradition repeated during harvesting (Borggaard et al. 2003: 120).
Thus, aside from the economic benefits derived from jum cultivation, this
traditional food system forms part of the Pahari indigenous’ cultural identity
that considers land as both resourceful and sacred (Alfred 2009, quoted in
Kamal et al. 2014). These social and cultural aspects of food are considered
one of the key principles to indigenous food sovereignty (Morrison 2011).
Another important element of an indigenous food sovereignty framework, as
discussed in Chapter Two, is the importance of maintaining indigenous
knowledge, values and cultures in relation to their traditional food system
(Grey and Patel 2015, Kamal et al. 2015). Indigenous food sovereignty
appreciates the importance of knowledge sharing as the cornerstone of a
sustainable food system. As Grey and Patel fittingly summarised:
Engaging with the land—or rather, with the enspirited and sensate gestalt of
plants, animals, weather, and geography that is “the land”—yields a
formidable pool of knowledge. This initial pool is augmented by inspiration,
enriched via communication with outsiders, refined through continual trial-
and- error, and passed down by cultural transmission (Grey and Patel 2015:
437).

38
There are numerous debates on the differences between indigenous and
scientific knowledge but these are outside the scope of this thesis (see
Agarwal 1995, Luthfa 2006). For the purpose of this thesis, indigenous
knowledge is described as traditional knowledge that is held, maintained and
distributed collectively and individually (FAO 2009: 3). There is, however, a
dearth of research on indigenous knowledge in Bangladesh and it is notably
under-utilised (Zaman 2000). For generations, the Pahari communities have
practiced jum cultivation in a way that helps conserve water and prevent soil
erosion (see Appendix E for more examples of these indigenous knowledge).
The indigenous fire management system also involves coordination among
adjoining communities to control fire, which reflects the existence of a ‘social
organisation of production on a multi-village scale’ and is an example where
indigenous knowledge is locally appropriate and is fully integrated into the
social institutions (Adnan 2004: 98, Millat-e-Mustafa 2000, ICIMOD 2015).
The establishment of an umbrella organisation, Bangladesh Resource Center
for Indigenous Knowledge (BARCIK) in 1997, to promote indigenous
knowledge is a hopeful start; however, little research to date has been done
on jum cultivation. Moreover, the use of Farmers Field Schools (FFS)25 found
in the CHT has proved to be a good way of disseminating indigenous
knowledge to other farmers. Putnam et al. (2014) further recommend
building a space for youth leadership in the dissemination of local
knowledge, in order to slow down the erosion of indigenous food knowledge.
This is particularly important as more and more young educated people are
leaving shifting cultivations for off-farm alternatives, a trend highly visible in
the CHT.
In summary, an indigenous food sovereignty framework accentuates the
importance of maintaining indigenous knowledge that forms part of the
25 It is a group-based learning that brings together concept of agroecology and community
development, generally used to reduce the use of pesticides and improve sustainability of
crop yields. In the CHT, it has been used to introduce new and innovative farming practices
(FAO 2014, CHTDF 2015). This is similar to the campesino-a-campesino methodology
practiced in Guatemala and spread through Mesoamerica in the 1970s (Martinez-Torres and
Rosset 2014: 992).

39
Paharis’ traditional food system. As discussed in Chapter Two, food
sovereignty focuses on active citizenships, which puts the onus on the Pahari
communities to take the responsibility in restoring, maintaining and
preserving indigenous knowledge of their traditional food system for a
sustainable self-determination (Charlton 2016, Quddus 2000). Admittedly,
such efforts will need to be supported and integrated within the
government’s policies and research agendas and development mainstream
activities, which will be discussed further in Part II of this chapter.
Agroecology for a sustainable food system
As mentioned earlier, the primary reason behind the unsustainability of
shifting cultivation as a land use system in the CHT is soil degradation in jum
fields due to the short fallow period. Consequently, this has led to
deterioration in economic productivity. In this case, agroecology, which is a
critical part of food sovereignty, can provide insights in improving the quality
of soils in jum fields. Agroecology incorporates not only ecological and
productive principles, but also cultural, social and political goals (Machin
Sosa et al. 2013, quoted in Martinez-Torres and Rosset 2014). At the core of
agroecology is the use of minimum external inputs for maximum outputs,
integrating natural and regenerative processes such as nutrient cycling,
nitrogen fixation, soil regeneration and making better use of indigenous
knowledge and local food system experiences (Holt-Giménez and Patel
2009). However, due to the current (unsustainable) phase of shifting
cultivation in the CHT, further technological development will be required
(LVC 2013). These improved cultural management practices will be key to
improving growth and development of plants in agricultural productions
(ICIMOD 2015).

40
Based on a recent ICIMOD (2015) research26, however, it was found that
majority of the Paharis have not yet adopted any improved cultural
management practices, except for weeding. Less than 10% of respondents
had any knowledge about pruning, mulching, water management, or soil
moisture or nutrient conservation practices for hill slope agricultures
(ICIMOD 2015: 21). According to Raintree and Warner (1986: 46), shifting
cultivators will only be interested in ‘biological fallow enrichment’27 practices
once they struggle to maintain soil fertility, which is the current phase for
most jum fields in the CHT, or what Raintree and Warner (1986) classified as
stage three (see Appendix G for the main stages of intensification in shifting
cultivation). They suggested the use of alley cropping28 along with the use of
green manures, mulch materials and zero-tillage/mulch-tillage method as a
means to improve soil fertility (see Raintree and Warner 1986). In other
words, despite the poor quality of soils in the CHT, a well-managed land can
still be economically productive. Moreover, through the practice of
agroecology, dependence on outside inputs such as subsidised agrochemicals
is reduced (Putnam et al. 2014). However, it is important to note that
introduction of any technological development in the CHT must take into
account the Paharis’ existing knowledge, social capital and motivation, with
full participation of the Paharis (Nath et al. 2005).
In addition to agroecology, farmers in Nath et al. (2005) study stated a
preference for collective management of jum cultivation, which is how it has
been historically managed. For instance, a jum field of 8 to 10ha can be
distributed for a community in one seasonal year, managed collectively and
products distributed equally (Nath et al. 2011: 138). The land can be divided
into several plots to rotate the fallow period. Farmers interviewed believe
that this will increase yield, reduce labour inputs including child labours, and
26 The research had 195 participants belonging to six indigenous communities (ICIMOD
2015: 3).
27 as opposed to ‘economically enriched fallows’, where the land is used to produce good cash
income during the fallow period (Raintree and Warner 1986: 46).
28 Field crops are planted between ‘hedgerows of nutrient-cycling trees or shrubs’ (Raintree
and Warner 1986: 47).

41
increase human capacity and social cohesion. The latter is particularly
important for those residing in remote areas (Nath et al. 2011: 139). The
importance of this collective work is similarly reflected in the indigenous
view of agroecology within the LVC discourse, who collectively defined
agroecology as:
A highly diversified traditional farming systems on small plots of land, with
practices, like planting dates, informed by traditional calendars based on the
cosmos, passed down from the ancestors over millennia… the community is
the basic unit, and that rather than farmer-to-farmer methods that abstract a
single family from their community … agroecology needs to be discussed in
the community assembly (Martinez-Torres and Rosset 2014: 988).
The power in community is clearly demonstrated in Cuba, where FFSs were
converted from farmer-to-farmer agroecology to farmer organisation-to-
farmer organisation process (Martinez-Torres and Rosset 2014).
Nonetheless, Martinez-Torres and Rosset (2014) warn that this might not
work in all contexts. On the whole, collective management of jum combined
with agroecology principles described above provides one of the means to a
sustainable food system that is socially and culturally appropriate in the CHT.
It allows indigenous identity and knowledge to remain localised, while
simultaneously reconstructing social cohesion that is being eroded in the
CHT due to decades of market-based food security policies and land tenure
individualisation policies introduced since the British colonial period.
Rights-based approaches to food sovereignty
At the core of the struggles faced by the ethnic minorities in the CHT is the
struggle for land and territory. Land-user rights are the foundation of food
sovereignty movements because as discussed above, the Paharis’ livelihoods
depend on a regenerative and resilient agroecosystems (McMichael 2015).
The issue of land rights and land sovereignty is nevertheless a very

42
contentious one. As demonstrated in a case study of shrimp agriculture in
Khulna, Bangladesh, although food sovereignty has fulfilled the RtAF for
many people, Paprocki and Cons (2014: 1126, emphasis added) concluded
that food sovereignty on its own is not sufficient for ‘a sustainable and
equitable agrarian reform in rural Bangladesh’. Landlessness was essentially
a critical factor that accentuates class inequality. In the case of the landless
people in Khulna, the experience of food sovereignty is overshadowed by
inequitable sharecropping agreements and instability to secure their
livelihoods (Paprocki and Cons 2014). For the Paharis in the CHT, their
relationship to land further defines their identity, culture, and dignity; it is
indeed the cornerstone in building a sense of belonging within the
communities (Rocha and Liberato 2015). As explained below:
The biggest challenge faced by indigenous peoples and communities in
relation to sustainable development is to ensure territorial security, legal
recognition of ownership and control over customary land and resources,
and the sustainable utilisation of lands and other renewable resources for
cultural, economic, and physical health and well-being of indigenous peoples
(DESA-UN 2009: 42).
The importance of land rights for the Paharis is reflected in the fact that they
remained reluctant to adopt other land use systems such as agroforestry,
horticulture, and other tree-crop based intensive agricultural systems
without land ownership or title (Rasul and Thapa 2003, Nath et al. 2005,
Nath et al. 2011, Rahman et al. 2011). Moving from shifting cultivation
requires a substantial amount of financial and labour resources, which they
are not willing or able to afford to invest without first securing land rights.
According to Rasul and Thapa (2003), this is the primary reason why shifting
cultivators in Bangladesh and neighbouring countries, such as Laos, Vietnam
and northeastern India have not switched from shifting cultivation. The issue
of land rights will be further discussed in Part II of this chapter.
A discernible difference between the RtAF and the right to food sovereignty
is the latter’s inclusion of peasants’ rights to seeds and biological diversity

43
and the protection against GMOs, which is outside the human rights system.
This is worth pointing out because seeds are at the core of food production
and biodiversity of plants. This is particularly important for Bangladesh as a
nation that relies heavily on agriculture (Akhter 2015a). The most important
treaty that protects these rights is the International Treaty on Plant Genetic
Resources for Food and Agriculture (ITPGRFA), which compliments the UN
Convention on Biological Diversity – both of which have been ratified by
Bangladesh in 2002 and 1994 respectively (ITPGRFA 2016, Convention on
Biological Diversity n.d). However, despite the government’s ratification of
the ITPGRFA and the UN Convention on Biological Diversity, ‘modernisation’
of agriculture and distribution of modern agricultural equipment, chemical
fertilisers and improved seeds through highly subsidised prices by the
Bangladesh Agricultural Development Cooperation have indeed became the
norm (Akhter 2015a). According to Akhter (2015a: 237), Bangladesh once
had over 7,000 varieties of rice, which has now been reduced to 57 High
Yielding Varieties (HYV) monoculture. The implementation of HYV was top-
down without due regard to the local ecosystem, resulting in more incidences
of pests and diseases (FAO 2015). However, some farmers, via the Nayakrishi
movements29, have started to propagate for agroecological farming and
conservation of local seeds and genetic resources. For instance, the
Nayakrishi Seed Network (NSN) is especially focused on women farmers to
regain control over seeds. Jum cultivation itself is a production system that is
based on inter-cropping of about 50-60 crops, including rice, vegetables,
medicinal herbs, and spices (FAO 2015). Thus, it is important for farmers to
be able to preserve their seeds in order to maintain their indigenous
knowledge and continue their practices. Additionally, the social and cultural
aspects of seeds’ preservation are significant, with farmers naming their
paddy seeds after their children (Akhter 2015b). Overall, the rights to local
seeds and biological diversity are a crucial part of a sustainable food system.
29 Nayakrishi is a ‘peasant-led biodiversity-based ecological agricultural movement’ that
focuses on organic farming, conservation of biodiversity, indigenous knowledge, soil
management and mixed cropping for a more sustainable agriculture system (see Mazhar
2011).

44
These important aspects have historically been excluded within the food
security discourse, which consequently led to the loss of control by farmers
as custodians of seeds for the benefit of national and international seed
companies.
Part II. Enhancing indigenous discourse
This section focuses on answering the question posed in Chapter One on
whether a food sovereignty approach may enhance or impede the indigenous
discourse in the CHT. I propose that firstly, indigenous movements can
leverage food sovereignty networks and relationships across scales. Secondly,
building on the lessons learned from food sovereignty movements, I argue
that the demand by indigenous movements in the CHT for constitutional
recognition without a strong political will of the state, may actually lead to a
weakening of the Adivasis’ identity and movements. Lastly, I demonstrate
how an indigenous food sovereignty framework has the potential to reshape
the indigenous discourse from a state-centric autonomy to autonomy of the
food system, which opens the space to imagine social relations differently, in
human and nonhuman environment.
Rethinking relationships across scales
Building on McMichael (2009) and Patel (2009)’s idea of multiple
sovereignties discussed in Chapter Two, firstly I propose that food
sovereignty movements widen the outreach to other non-state social actors
and organisations beyond those involved in indigenous movements. It is not
the number of non-state actors that matters, what matters is the ‘multiple
acts that cumulatively take place at multiple level’ that creates ‘much greater
legitimacy in a nonlinear way’ (Iles and Montenegro de Wit 2015: 494). This
notion of relational scale means that each sovereign finds its strength and

45
power from the support of their networks30 (Iles and Montenegro de Wit
2015, Gerharz 2014). These networks stretch out over local, national and
international space and together, the broader network creates a new
sovereignty. For example, at the national level, there are community-based
organisations such as (1) Nayakrishi Andolon, which based their movements
on food sovereignty, (2) Nijera Kori, whose strategy focuses on mobilising
the poor so they are aware of their rights, emphasising the values of
solidarities and collective actions (Kabeer 2003), and (3) Bangladesh Krishok
Federation, Friends of Bangladesh and Bangladesh Agricultural Farm Labour
Federation movements who support the struggles of the peasants
(Bangladesh Krishok Federation n.d., LVC 2015b). Although these
organisations do not directly engage with indigenous movements in their
activities, their objectives and visions are aimed at empowering the
communities so the communities are able to, among others, have control of
their food system. This is particularly important for the Adivasis in the CHT.
Moreover, there are international and regional supports from LVC, LVC South
Asia and other food sovereignty movements in the region. For this reason, by
combining the strengths of food sovereignty movements with indigenous
activists’ movements in Bangladesh, it is likely that more attention, publicity
and recognition can be gained. Likewise, this will increase the momentum
and recognition of food sovereignty movements in Bangladesh. As McMichael
(2015: 442) demonstrates,
The task before the food sovereignty movement is to use pressure from
above (in the UN) and below (grassroots mobilisation) on states to recognise
and secure the rights and capacities of their rural populations to produce
food, and to regulate trade in the interests of human rights.
In other words, by leveraging food sovereignty’s networks at multiple scales
and strengthening these community-based organisations and their
30 Iles and Montenegro de Wit (2015: 490) defined a network as ‘a set of peoples,
institutions, technologies, geographical locations, or ecological functions being
interconnected through nodes and ties of varying strength’.

46
interdependence and solidarity with one another across ‘translocal space’
(Gerharz 2014: 552), it may propel the way towards achieving a sustainable
self-determination and indigenous food sovereignty.
In further understanding whether a food sovereignty approach may enhance
or impede the indigenous discourse in the CHT, I secondly demonstrate that
food sovereignty movements help to uncover how inequality may be
inadvertently perpetuated within indigenous movements. I present an
example below based on one of the main demands of PCJSS31, the main
political party in the CHT. The demand, as discussed in Chapter Three, is for
an indigenous recognition in the Constitution. On one hand, recognition has
the potential to strengthen the Adivasi’s sense of identity that can be very
empowering; it is a strong tool to resist marginalisation (Gerharz 2014). On
the other hand, lessons learned from food sovereignty movements indicate
that despite the adoption of food sovereignty in constitutions, little structural
and process changes have been seen (see Giunta 2014, McKay et al. 2014, and
Peschard 2014). Inequality for the people arises when states appear to have
supported the movements through adopting them in constitutions without
any meaningful approach to implementing farmers’ rights (see Silva 2014
and Peschard 2014). According to Claeys (2012), legalisation of rights runs
the risk of loss of autonomy and demobilisation of the movements. Iles and
Montenegro de Wit (2015) supported the argument that constitutional
recognition does not need to be the ultimate goal, as they believe that
recognition can also come from other mechanisms and processes.
The most socially robust forms of recognition are relational: recognition of a
movement does not simply occur at a particular level but emerges through
how multiple acts cumulatively take place at multiple levels (Iles and
Montenegro de Wit 2015: 494).
31 The main opposition of PCJSS is the United People’s Democratic Front, a political party that
emerged because of the view that the Peace Accord ‘fell short of meeting the needs and
grievances of the Hill peoples’ (Adnan 2004: 34). Their main demand is for full autonomy
(UPDF n.d.).

47
In other words, drawing on lessons learned from food sovereignty
movements elsewhere, the recognition of Advasis in Bangladesh’s
constitution without a strong political will of the state to implement
structural changes may in fact lead to a weakening of the people’s identity
and their status in a society (Gerharz 2014). Thus, indigenous recognition in
Bangladesh’s constitution should be seen as part of the process in gaining
rights to self-determination rather than an end result.
Thirdly, I discuss below how an indigenous food sovereignty framework can
potentially highlight the struggles of the Adivasis not merely for the extent of
their food insecurities as discussed in Chapter Three, but also for ‘a space to
imagine social relations differently’ (Grey and Patel 2015: 441). As discussed
in Part I of this chapter, jum cultivations practiced by the Paharis provide not
only food security, but this traditional food system also forms part of the
indigenous’ cultural identity and defines their relationships with territory
and nonhuman environment. It is also a food system that is strongly rooted in
their traditional kinship systems. As Grey and Patel 2015 pointed out:
Cultural ecology means that Indigenous food sovereignty is…. (when) a ‘right
to define agricultural policy’ is indistinguishable from a right to be
Indigenous, in any substantive sense of the term… This makes ‘being alive
well’ about food sovereignty, and food sovereignty about land, identity, and
dissent (Grey and Patel 2015: 438).
Notwithstanding that both movements to some extent have overlapping
objectives, a food sovereignty framework notably extends the understanding
of autonomy from its traditional state-centric definition as asserted by
indigenous movements32 to ‘interconnected autonomy nurtured by the
relationship with land’ where the Adivasis’ cultural integrity is preserved
(Kamal et al. 2015: 565). Ultimately, an indigenous food sovereignty
32 In the CHT, autonomy is asserted via the Peace Accord through establishment of the
Regional Council (see Appendix D), which will bring the highest level of autonomy close to
self-government or independence (Kroc Institute 2015). However, to date, all members of
the Regional Council have been appointed, rather than elected, by the government, with only
12 out of 33 of the functions transferred (Kroc Institute 2015). The Regional Council has very
little power on the governing institutions in the CHT (Kroc Institute 2015).

48
framework characterised autonomy in terms of control by the people of their
traditional food system, food knowledge, credit market, and cultural values.
Ulloa (2011: 104) demonstrated how this principle is applied by the
indigenous people of the Sierra Nevada de Santa Marta, where they are able
to enjoy rights over their territories through environmental management33
but without control over these resources as the state has a national
sovereignty over them – or what she calls a ‘relative autonomy’. In this
aspect, autonomy is also seen as a continuous process of negotiations,
relationships and participations with the state, and other local, national and
international actors (Ulloa 2011: 104).
Rethinking belonging and territory
Indigenous movements in the CHT were instigated because the Adivasis were
under threat of losing their culture and ancestral lands (Dowlah 2013).
Accordingly, this pressured the ethnic minorities in the CHT to unite based
on their ethnicity and indigeneity. However, a movement that is primarily
based around ethnicity, indigeneity and cultural-based identity politics may
run the risks of excluding others who do not belong to the ethnicity.
According to Gerharz (2014: 562), the concept of belonging should extent
beyond indigeneity to include ‘sympathisers who do not identify with
ethnically conceived characteristics’, such as Bengali researchers and
members of local and national NGOs, but also Bengali settlers who are now
residing in the CHT. The exclusion of Bengali settlers was reflected in the
Peace Accord, whereby the indigenous movements demanded that the Land
Commission ‘cancels the ownership of those lands and hills which have so far
been illegally settled and occupied’ (UCDP 1997: Section D(4)). PCJSS’s
demand for a full implementation of the Peace Accord implicitly referred to
the restoration of lands that have been forcibly obtained, including lands that
33 Where management is in accordance to their vision of the future, traditional laws and
governance, standard and procedures, and cultural practices, which implies self-
determination (Ulloa 2011: 102).

EWonosaputra_Insights from indigenous food sovereignty_dissertation

EWonosaputra_Insights from indigenous food sovereignty_dissertation

Recommended

Recommended

More Related Content

What's hot

What's hot (11)

Viewers also liked

Viewers also liked (11)

Similar to EWonosaputra_Insights from indigenous food sovereignty_dissertation

Similar to EWonosaputra_Insights from indigenous food sovereignty_dissertation (20)

EWonosaputra_Insights from indigenous food sovereignty_dissertation