2. vested property act and aftermath

Vested Property Act & Aftermath
1
The Vested Properties Act owes its existence to the Enemy Property Order II
(custody and registration) of 1965, which was promulgated following the outbreak of
a short-lived war between India and Pakistan in September, 1965. History shows that
the state called Pakistan was born through a process of bloody riots and communal
conflicts based on fanatic ideology, and subsequently never showed respect or trust in
democracy or secular human values. Of course, the people of Bangladesh, known then
as East Pakistan, and beginning in 1948, almost from the very first day of new state
life, the middle class and particularly the student community and the progressive
intelligentsia, built resistance in order to create a secular and democratic society,
keeping the issue of state language in the forefront.
The Indo-Pak War and the Enemy Property Order II of 1965 thus came as further
blows to our secular culture, to the tradition of communal harmony, and to the human
values that were being built through our popular democratic movements. While
Bangladesh ultimately emerged as an independent and sovereign country the heroic
war of liberation in 1971, it is ironic that even after the final military defeat of the
occupation force, the force of a most draconian and discriminatory law, which in fact
had been enacted by a military dictator, was continued under a new nomenclature
called the Vested Property Act (VPA).
By the implementation of this draconian law, the woes of the affected people are
indescribable. Hundreds of thousands of people were homeless, jobless and their
stateless. They were compelled to leave their lands, their house and family members.
Many people were forced to be refugee. Particularly the Hindu communities were the
core affected people by this Act.
Keywords: Vested Property, Hindu, Law, Communalism, Enemy, Mass Migration.

2
Looking back in the History
If we look back in the history, we see that before the independence of
Bangladesh in 1971, this act was known as the Enemy Property Act and is still
referred to as such in common parlance. This law allowed the Government to
confiscate property from individuals it deems as an enemy of the state. The act is
criticized as a tool for appropriating the lands of the minority population. From the
history we are known of some prominent cases regarding the confiscation under the
law of Vested Property.
For example,
i) Mr. Dhirendra Nath Dutta, the veteran politician from Comilla, freedom
fighter against the British Raj, and a member of the then-Pakistan
Constituent Assembly, raised the first voice of protest in the Parliament
against imposition of Urdu as the only state language of Pakistan and
demanded Bangla be recognized as a state language.
After dedicating his whole life to the people and fighting to his last breath
for the cause of the country, Shaheed Dhirendra Nath Dutta was brutally
tortured and killed along with his son Dilip Dutta by Pakistani Armies in
1971 at Comilla Cantonment. The tiny, token village property left to his
family after he had donated the rest of his landed property for welfare and
educational purposes in his village Ramrail in Brahmanbaria district was
grabbed by a group of people under the pretext of „vested property.‟ In
response to the case filed by his family members in the Sub judge court of
Brahmanbaria, the court demanded that the family produce Shaheed
Dhirendra Nath Dutta‟s death certificate, an impossibility in the case of a
liberation war martyr.

3
ii) The family property of Nobel Prize winning economist Amartya Sen had
been confiscated by the Pakistan government. In 1999, the Bangladesh
government announced that it was investigating opportunities to return the
property to Sen's family.
iii) Other eminent personalities such as Masterda Surya Sen, who dedicated his
life to the freedom struggle against the British Raj, Mr. Amal Sen, a veteran
leader of peasant movement in British India who because of his
involvement in the political struggle for freedom and democracy spent
about twenty years in Pakistani prison, and Mr. Barin Mazumder, the
renowned classical artist who devoted his life to developing the music and
culture of this country, had their properties listed as enemy properties by the
Pakistani administration.
Prfessor Abul Barkat’s Seminal Work
A seminal work was published in 1997 by Professor Abul Barkat of Dhaka
University, “Inquiry into Causes and Consequences of Deprivation of Hindu
Minorities in Bangladesh through the Vested Property Act.” This demonstrated that
925,050 Hindu households (40% of Hindu families in Bangladesh) have been affected
by the Enemy Property Act. This included 748,850 families dispossessed of
agricultural land. The total amount of land lost by Hindu households as a result of this
discriminatory act was estimated at 1.64 million acres (6,640 km²), which is
equivalent to 53 per cent of the total land owned by the Hindu community and 5.3 per
cent of the total land area of Bangladesh.

4
The survey also showed that the beneficiaries of the land grab through the act cut
across all party lines. The political affiliation of direct beneficiaries of appropriated
property was:
Bangladesh Awami League = 44.2%
Bangladesh Nationalist Party (BNP) = 31.7%
Jatiya Party = 5.8%
Jamaat-e-Islami = 4.8%
Others = 13.5%
The greatest appropriation of Hindu property took place immediately after
independence during the first Awami League government (1972–75) and during the
first period of rule of the Bangladesh Nationalist Party (1976-1980). Dr Barkat's work
also showed that since 1948, 75% of the land of religious minorities in East Pakistan
and subsequent Bangladesh had been confiscated through provisions of the act.
Dr Barkat also emphasized that less than 0.4% of the population of Bangladesh has
benefited from the Enemy Property Act, demonstrating that this law has been abused
by those in power through corruption, with no demonstrated sanction by the
population at large.
Vested Property Act: Evaluation, Paradox
and Missing Numbers
In this section, we will try to expose the evaluation and paradox as well as the
missing numbers of Hindu population by the impact of this law. This draconian was
evaluated from the origin of partisan of this subcontinent into India and Pakistan in
1947 based on the controversial “Two Nation Theory”, which was promulgated by the
Pakistani Leader Muhammad Ali Jinnah.

5
Communalism and Communal Legacy
It is a great historical reality of Bangladesh that the people of this area lived in
a congenial and peaceful atmosphere for centuries. Both Muslims and Non-muslims
lived side by side in harmony and enjoyed their rights equally. Both Muslims and
Hindus dreamt together of their common bright future, fought against their common
enemies together. Neither Muslims nor Hindus ever thought of leaving their historic
motherland just because the state executive was of their religion (no matter Muslim
Sultan/Nawab or Hindu Raja ruling his motherland.
This peaceful atmosphere started waning with the inception of the Britishers‟ “divide
and rule” policy in Bengal. The division of Bengal in 1905 and acceptance of “Two
Nation Theory” as main political doctrine in the late 1930s, laid the final stone to
formulate Hindu-Muslim issue as a political criteria.
Communalism
Development of the
Act
Disturbed Persons
Rehabilitation
Ordinance
Enactment of
Enemy
Property Act
From Requisition of Property
Act to Administration of
Evacuees Property Act
Old Wine in a
New Bottle

6
The first event i.e., division of Bengal (1905) popularly known as
“Bangabhanga” was a shrewd political decision made by the Britishers to escalate the
division among the Bengalees and divert in growing expectation of freedom from the
colonial rule. The defeat of Russia against Japan, emergence of Germany as a United
and rapidly developing country, emergence of USA as a superpower on the one hand
and infiltration of European ideas on the other hand , played important role to
influence the newly educated strata of Bengal to intensify their movement for
freedom.
Though at that stage the spirit of freedom movement was mainly limited within the
educated people of large cities and social elites, the Britishers correctly understood
that if they could not divert the attention to anything else, it would soon lead to a
deep-rooted socio-political movement against their oppressive colonial rule. Bengal
protested vehemently against the division on religious criteria, and the division was
repealed. But by that time the devil of communalism was born and both the Muslims
and Hindus of Bengal were already possessed.
0
• Divide and Rule Policy
1
• Division of Bengal (Bangabhanga) 1905
2
• Two Nation Theory (India & Pakistan) 1947

7
On the other hand, in late 30s, the “two nation theory” was accepted by Muslim
League as its main doctrine of independence. The majority of the people of East
Bengal, the Muslim community, more or less accepted the idea (but they were
conceptually, misled by the active propaganda of Muslim League). Meanwhile, being
instigated by the British, a severe communal riot was staged in Bengal in mid-forties
by the miscreants of both Hindu and Muslim origin which caused enormous sufferings
to the common men. This riot was instrumental, after the creation of India and
Pakistan in 1947, in causing migration of religious groups from one part to other part
on the basis of their religious affinity.
Development of the Act
Requisition of
Property Act, 1948
Evacuees Act,
1949-1957
Enemy Property Order
(custody &
Registration), 1965
Requisition of Property
1965
The E.P. Enemy
Property Order,
1966
The Enemy Property
Ordinance, 1969
(emergency provision)
Defense of Pakistan
Rules, 1965
Disturbed Persons
Rehabilitation Ordinance
1964
Defense of Pakistan
Ordinance, 1965
PO 29, OF 1972
The Vested & Non-
resident Property
(Administration) Act
1974
The Vested & Non-
resident Property
(Administration)
(Repeal) Act, 1974
Enemy Property
Ordinance (Repeal)
(Amendment) Act,
1974
Circular No. 1. Dt. 4-11-
1993, Ministry of Law
Enemy Property
Ordinance (Repeal)
Act, 1974
Circular No. 1. A -
1/77/156. R.L. Dt. 23-5-
1977, Land Administration
& Land Reforms Division
Memo No. 667
(18) VP- 115/76.
Dt. 17-4-1976,
Ministry of Land
Administration
and Land Reforms

8
From Requisition to Administration
In 1947, the then eastern part of Bengal emerged as the eastern province of the
newly created independent state of Pakistan. Dhaka, a district town of the British
Colonial India, became the capital of the newly constituted province of the newly
independent state of Pakistan. An abrupt and emergent demand for accommodation
for the numerous government offices and public servants appeared to be one of the
key problems faced by the then provincial administration. Moreover, to ease the
public life under the changed circumstances of late forties the new province also
required rapid development in the field of communication, commerce, industries,
other supplies and services.
In order to meet all these needs to run the administration and ensure quickening of
development the then government of East Bengal enacted a law titled The E.B.
(emergency) Requisition of Property Act (Act XIII of 1948) as a temporary measure
for a period of three years. The Act created scope of temporary and/or permanent
taking over of any property that had been considered by the administration to be
“needful for the purpose of the state.” Various decisions of the High Court and
Supreme Court provide evidences that the said Act had created opportunities for
malpractices.
Disturbed Persons Rehabilitation Ordinance
In January 1964 the holy hairs of the prophet Hazrat Muhammad (pbuh)
preserved in the holy shrine of Hazrat Bal in Shreenagar, the capital of Indian state of
Kashmir, was stolen by some miscreants. A communal disturbance was provoked in
the East Pakistan accordingly. The undesired situation was brought under control
within the shortest possible time. However, six months after the incidence was over,
the Government of East Pakistan hurriedly promulgated an Ordinance titled “The East
Pakistan Disturbed Persons Rehabilitation Ordinance 1964, Ordinance 1 of 1964”
with apparently of speedy rehabilitation of affected persons by disturbance.

9
Thus, the Disturbed Persons Rehabilitation Ordinance was a prelude to Enemy
Property Act. In the name of speedy rehabilitation of persons (minority) affected by
the civil disturbance and for the protection of property of the minority community in
the then East Pakistan, the Ordinance introduced restriction on transferring of any
immovable property of minority community without permission of the competent
authority. The relief and rehabilitation commissioner of the province had the
competence to allow higher amount. The ordinance also defined the legal meaning of
transfer as sale, exchange, gift, will, mortgage, lease, sublease or any other manner of
transfer or change of management through a power of attorney.
Thus, all the minority community property owners in East Pakistan had been deprived
of their ownership of property right during 1964-1968 as two basic components of
ownership right (a) right to ensure the title of his or her property, (b) right to transfer
(including sell, gift, will, entrust with power of attorney etc.) became void during that
time.
Indo-Pak war of 1965, Enactment of Enemy Property
Act and its Genesis
On September 6, 1965, a war broke out between Pakistan and India. An
Ordinance called the Defense of Pakistan Ordinance (Ord. XXIII of 1965) was
promulgated to provide special measures to ensure the security, the public safety,
interest and the defense of the state. Since the country was threatened by war,
emergency was also proclaimed throughout the country. Under the provisions of
emergency powers and the defense of Pakistan Ordinance, the Government framed
Defense of Pakistan Rules (DPR) and under the rules the DPR the Government of
Pakistan made an executive order on September 9, 1965 named Enemy Property
(custody and registration) Order II of 1965. There was a cease fire on September 22,
1965 and Indo-Pak War came to an end after the Tashkhent Declaration.

10
The East Pakistan Government also made an Order in 1966 under Rule 161
titled the East Pakistan Enemy Property (Lands and Buildings) Administration and
Disposal Order of 1966. Though the war between Pakistan and India came to an end
after Tashkhent Declaration, there existed a controversy regarding the question
whether there had been an „end of the war time situation‟ between Pakistan and India
in the absence of a formal Peace Treaty. Using that controversy, both the central and
provincial Governments continued to keep the aforesaid Orders operative by
amending them from time to time.
The Enemy Property (custody and registration) Order of 1965 consisted of the
following major parts:
India is declared as enemy country (sinse Pakistan and India
were at the state of war with each other).
All interests of enemy, i.e., that is the nationals/citizens of
India, those residing in the territory
occupied/captured/controlled by India- in the
firms, companies as well as in the lands and buildings situated
in Pakistan to be take over by the custodian of Enemy Property
for control or management.
The benefits arising out of trade or business or lands and
buildings should not go to the enemy, so that it may not affect
the security of the state of Pakistan or impair its defense in
any manner.

11
In March 1966, two months after the proclamation of the East Pakistan Enemy
Property (Land and Building) Order 1966 by the then Governor, the Deputy Custodian
of Enemy Property issued a circular [Memo No. 55(17)-IX-22/65-EP, dated
14.3.1966] explaining the procedure of taking over possession of the enemy property
and their management. Articles 8 and 9 of the circular clarified the position of the
government of East Pakistan (as well as Pakistan) regarding Muslim citizens of
Pakistan who were residing in India due to some reasons and/or Muslim citizens of
India. The official instruction was that the categories of person mentioned above
should not be treated as the enemies. Though according to the legal definition of
enemies proclaimed by DPR, the persons belonging to the above mentioned category
automatically fall in the category of enemies of Pakistan along with the non-Muslim
enemies.
Transformation of Enemy Property into Vested Property:
Old Wine in a New Bottle
The proclamation of Independence and formation of the Provisional
Government of Bangladesh took place at Mujibnagar on April 10, 1971 and the Order
named Laws of Continuance Enforcement Order, 1971 was promulgated on the same
day purporting to keep in force all the Pakistani laws which were in force in the then
East Pakistan on or before March 25, 1971. In other words, Ordinance No. 1 of 1969,
which does not fit with the spirit of proclamation of independence of Bangladesh,
automatically remained ineffective in the new state. Bangladesh was no a successor
state of Pakistan. On the contrary, Bangladesh established itself by waging a war of
Independence against Pakistan.
Immediately after liberation, the Bangladesh Government enforced, on 26th
March
1972, the Bangladesh Vesting of Property and Assets Order, 1972 (Order 29 of 1972).

12
By this order, the properties left behind by the Pakistanis and the erstwhile
„enemy properties‟ were combined to a single category. However, in 1974, the
Government passed the Enemy Property (continuance of) Emergency Provisions
(Repeal) Act, Act XLV of 1974, repealing Ordinance I of 1969. But despite the fact of
repealing Ordinance I of 1969 under Act XLV of 1974, all enemy properties and firms
which were vested with custodian of enemy property in the then East Pakistan
remained vested in the Government of Bangladesh under the banner of Vested
Property. At the same time, Government also enacted another law, namely the Vested
and Non-resident Property (Administration) Act (Act XLV) of 1974.
This Act was enacted to provide the management of certain properties and assets of
the persons who are non-residents of Bangladesh or have acquired a foreign
nationality. Though the principal aim of the Act XLVI of 1974 was to identify and
take over the properties of those residents who left Bangladesh during/immediately
after liberation war and/or took foreign citizenship, in practice this Act XLVI of 1974
was also widely used against Hindu minorities who had no connection with Pakistan
for quite valid and obvious reasons. All the Acts prior to Ordinance XCIII of 1976
empowered the Government only to become the custodian and to preserve enemy
property in contemplation of arrangements to be made in the conclusion of peace with
India. But the Ordinance XCIII of 1976 made the Government owner of Vested
properties instead of protector of the same.
Thus, the Government encroached the right of ownership, which is a gross violation of
the existing laws pertaining to the right to private ownership. These steps undertaken
by the military dictator had several dimensions, all related to the strengthening of the
political-based of the vested groups.

13
Paradoxes related to the Vested Property Act
Paradox One:
It may be recalled from our previous analyses that the term “enemy”, as here
related, has its root in the Defense of Pakistan Rule of 1965 and in the East Pakistan
Enemy Property (lands and buildings) Administration and Disposal Order of 1966. On
March 23rd
, 1974, the Government of Bangladesh passed two Acts in this connection.
The first of these two repealed the relevant Enemy Property Ordinance of Pakistan,
and vested the properties already enlisted an „enemy properties‟ in the Government,
i.e., the management and administration of previous „enemy properties‟ were
entrusted with the government of Bangladesh.
The second Act, on the other hand, brought the properties of Non-residents under the
vested category. This second Act created scope for fresh enlistment of some properties
including the properties of religious minorities residing in India, though this Act was
not intended exclusively for the religious minorities.
Paradox One:
Vesting of Properties continue
even in the absence of legal basis.
Paradox Two:
Bangladesh is at war with India
since 1965.

14
Paradox Two:
People‟s Republic of Bangladesh is neither a part nor a successor of Pakistan. It
served its ties with Pakistan through its heroic liberation struggle and achieved
independence on 26th
March, 1971. After the achievement of our independence,
neither Bangladesh nor India waged/declared war against each other. So, logically, the
enemy of Pakistan (i.e., India) cannot be an enemy of Bangladesh. But by virtue of the
continuance enforcement order promulgated on 10th
April 1971, the entire laws
operative in the then Pakistan on or before 25th
March 1971, remained valid in the
People‟s Republic of Bangladesh.
Though the Enemy Property Act of Pakistan was repealed/amended/renamed through
various Acts/Ordinances enacted/promulgated after the Independence of Bangladesh,
no Government of Bangladesh so far repealed the effectiveness of the Defense of
Pakistan Ordinance (XX III of 1965). As a result, Bangladesh still remains at a state of
war with India.
VPA and Constitution of Bangladesh
The Vested Property Act is anti-constitutional, because there are some laws
which are against the constitution. The constitution of Bangladesh are pledged to
establish- “a society in which the rule of law, fundamental human rights, equality and
justice to all citizens.
 Article 7 states that, “this constitution is, as the solemn expression of the will of
the people, the supreme law of the Republic and if other law is inconsistent
with the constitution that other law to the extent of inconsistency be void.”

15
 Article 27 provides that, “all citizens are equal before the law and are entitled
to equal protection of law.
 Article 28 states that, “the state shall not discriminate against any citizen on the
grounds only of religion, race, caste, sex or place of birth.
So, we can see that, the Vested Property Act has violated the constitution in
multifaceted terms:
Firstly, the Act coined the term that India would be considered as enemy and
the property will be as enemy property. Though Pakistan and India both were
engaged in war.
Secondly, the Act has enlisted and taken over the properties to the custody by
the government in the name of „vested property.‟
Thirdly, though Bangladesh has changed the name from „enemy‟ to „vested‟,
but the internal factors were not changed. Thus, Bangladesh becomes the
„dejure‟ owner of the lands.
Aftermath: Missing Numbers & Socio-Economic Loss
Mass out-migration of Hindu population (mostly to India) during mid 1960s
and onward is a reality beyond doubt. Among the various factors responsible for such
mass out-migration of Hindu population, the effects of Enemy Property Act and
Vested Property Act were important ones.

16
The exact effect of all these factors (e.g. communal riots, Indo-Pak war of
1965, Enemy and Vested Property Acts) is difficult to quantify due to lack of relevant
reliable information. Thus, an attempt has been made to estimate the missing Hindu
population using appropriate assumptions. The “missing Hindu population” has been
defined as the difference between the size of Hindu population assuming “no out-
migration.” Attempt has been made to estimate the missing Hindu population for three
periods: 1964-1971, 1971-1981, and 1981-1991.
According to the information in the population census, the average annual growth
rates of the Muslim population was 3.13 percent for 1961-1974, 3.08 percent for
1974-1981, and 2.20 percent for 1981-1991 periods. On the other hand, the average
annual growth rates in the Hindu population under “no-out migration” situation would
have been 2.72 percent during 1964-1971, 2.68 percent during 1971-1981 and 1.92
percent during 1981-1991. Prior to this situation, Hindu population size was
drastically decreased to 9.2 million in 1951 compared to 11.7 million in 1941.
The sufferings of the then Hindus in East Bengal had multiple dimensions:
Cultural Legal
Constitutional Social
Economic Political

17
Movie Review: Earth
Deepa Mehta's 1947: Earth is another partition saga. This is the second in her
trilogy of films, Fire, Earth, and Water. It's based on Bapsi Sidhwa's Ice Candy Man.
The film begins with the British finally preparing to quit their empire in India and the
searing process of splitting British India into Independent India and Pakistan is about
to begin. Lenny (Maia Sethna) is an eight-year-old Parsee girl who is growing up rich
in pre-partition Lahore in 1947, enjoying the warm, enveloping life that loving parents
and a filial household staff of four brings. Lenny travels daily to the nearby Queens
Gardens with her beautiful Ayah (nanny), Shanta (Nandita Das), and a young Hindu
woman with the kind of curves and smile that ensures a constant supply of eager male
suitors. These men are a mixed bunch: Hindus, Muslims and Sikhs, and similarly the
staff-members serving Lenny and her well-heeled family are a happy collection of the
religious groups represented in India.
It is an entirely pleasing world. This world is inhabited by her beloved Ayah, Shanta,
by Imam Din, the genial cook (Kulbhushan Kharbanda), by Dil Navaz, (Aamir Khan),
the Ice Candy Man, a rogue, who is Lenny's hero. Also by Hasan (Rahul Khanna), the
masseur, who invents oils made from pearl dust and fish eggs and by her precocious
cousin, Adi. For Lenny, the trouble first appears in her Lahore home when a quarrel
erupts between Mr. Singh (Gulshan Grover), a Sikh neighbor and Mr. Rogers, a
British Inspector General of Police, who have come to dine with her parents.
Bitter words metamorphose into slogan shouting mobs and arson. Angry Hindus storm
through Lahore one day and angry Muslims the next. The once charming Ice Candy
Man turns into a near madman, one of the many roaming the streets of Lahore with
vengeance and murder on their minds. The Muslim Masseur, Hasan, the only voice of
reason amongst Ayah's admirers, implores the group of friends to stand by each other.
A love affair between him and Shanta, the Ayah, blossoms amidst the carnage and
Lenny is privy to this fragile relationship between a Muslim and a Hindu.

18
Movie Review: Train to Pakistan
Based on the novel by Khushwant Singh, this is a thought-provoking drama set in the
period immediately after the partition of India. Like Deepa Mehta's controversial
Earth, the emphasis is on the tensions that arose between the subcontinent's various
ethnic groups following independence in 1947. In this case, director Pamela Rooks
concentrates on the events that spark gang warfare between the dominant Sikhs and
the Muslim minority in the small Punjabi town of Mano Majra. The political themes
aren't always easy to follow, but the cast members, led by Mohan Agashe, turn in
committed performances and Rooks handles her own script with care.
Plot Summary
Drama set during the early years of India's independence. The peaceful co-existence
of Sikhs and Muslims in a small Punjab community is threatened by the news of
political unrest in other parts of the country.
Cast and crew
Cast
Hukum Chand: Mohan Agashe
Jagga: Nirmal Pandey
Jailor: Rajit Kapur
Nimmo: Smriti Mishra
TBC: Divya Dutta
TBC: Mangal Dhillon
Crew
Director: Pamela Rooks

19
Annexation
[Mass migration during the Partisan of India and Pakistan in 1947]
At the end, we can conclude that, the law in its implementation has been seen
as a major driver behind the reduction of the Bangladeshi Hindu population, which
has declined from an estimated 30% in 1947, to 17% in 1965 to 16% today,
representing a loss of around 11 million people. Most of this population left for India,
while the more affluent Bangladeshi Hindus leaving due to the act have moved to
USA, Canada, Europe and Australia. It also portrayed the international concern;
Congressman Crowley of the Bangladesh-American caucus has called for the repeal
of the act, as have several Bangladeshi politicians and human rights activists.

2. vested property act and aftermath

Recommended

Recommended

More Related Content

What's hot

What's hot (20)

Similar to 2. vested property act and aftermath

Similar to 2. vested property act and aftermath (20)

Recently uploaded

Recently uploaded (20)

2. vested property act and aftermath