High-Stakes Testing for Adibashi Students: Colonial Approaches to Education for

Indigenous Communities of Bangladesh

by

Tanzina Tahereen

A thesis submitted to the Cultural Studies Program

In conformity with the requirements for

the degree of Doctor of Philosophy

Queen’s University

Kingston, Ontario, Canada

(January 2022)

Copyright © Tanzina Tahereen, 2022

ii

Abstract

This dissertation investigates how the standardized, high-stakes testing system operates as a

political tool used by Bengali elites to advance a nationalist agenda in education that in effect

marginalizes Adibashi/Indigenous groups in Bangladesh. To develop an in-depth understanding, this

study relies on a qualitative field research methodology to examine the case of Bangladesh and its

Adibashi peoples with a focus on the Chakma and Manipuri communities. In addition to employing

personal observation, this research collects relevant information and data from both primary and

secondary sources, comprising semi-structured and in-depth interviews with 50 Adibashi participants

from the two communities and ten Adibashi and non-Adibashi scholars.

This study finds that the language policy, national curriculum, and testing mechanisms manifest

Bengali elites’ nationalist ideologies that function against the educational necessities of Adibashi

communities and disadvantage them more than Bengali students, thus reproducing a colonial structure of

domination and exploitation for Adibashis.

This research reveals that the medium of instruction and the standardized tests have been used as

a major political tool of Bengali elites to promote monoculturalism that reproduces linguistic subjugation

for Adibashi communities. It finds that the use of Bangla in all educational practices not only creates

learning barriers for Adibashi students, it also stigmatizes their linguistic practices, negatively impacts

their linguistic choices, and gradually distances them from their ethno-linguistic identities.

This research also illustrates that the national curriculum propagates the nationalist ideologies of

Bengali elites and promotes a homogenization process by coercing Adibashis to accept the Bengalicized

knowledge system. The curriculum advances homogenization by valorizing Bengali identity, culture, and

knowledge while questioning Adibashi identities and knowledge systems. By controlling Adibashi

students’ learning experiences, identities, and social relationships, the testing practices and principles

reproduce the colonial consciousness of the Adibashis.

iii

This dissertation research contributes to the study of nationalism, critical education research, and

Adibashi studies and enhances our understanding of how Bangladesh’s education system is structured

around a nationalist agenda of creating a Bengali nationhood that deliberately treats the Adibashis as “the

other.”

iv

Acknowledgements

This research started in Fall 2015 when I was teaching a mandatory English language course

(speaking skills) to undergraduate students at East West University, Bangladesh. Among them, there was

Liu, a Rakhine student from Adibashi/Indigenous community in Bangladesh, who was struggling in my

course despite he was very enthusiastic and intelligent. When he came to me, asking for some help in his

language learning, I got to know his linguistic barriers. While knowing his Adibashi and linguistic

identity, academic journey, and stories of adaptation to Bengali culture, I realized, Adibashi students were

ignored and unaddressed in the Bangladeshi education system. I started investigating their socio-cultural

and political marginalized conditions and educational experiences, and found that very little research has

been done in this area. However, in this personal quest, I realized the asymmetrical power relationship

between Bengali elites and Adibashis and the ongoing identity politics. With the help of Liu, I reached

out to other Adibashi students and advanced this personal investigation. Based on their spontaneous and

positive responses, I developed a proposal for this research and applied for my Ph.D. in Canada. Liu and

many other Adibashi students and their stories can be seen throughout my dissertation. For the purpose of

maintaining privacy and confidentiality of my students’ identities, I have used pseudo names and, in

many cases, did not mention any names; their stories are original and are taken from their lives, which

informed the analyses of this dissertation. However, this system of confidentiality does not restrict me

from expressing how significant their presence, stories, and supports in this research are. Without them,

this study would have never started.

My proposal for this research received its first acceptance in December 2016 when I heard a

positive and inspiring note from my first academic supervisor, Professor Jill Scott, Queen’s University.

When I was desperately looking for a supervisor for this dissertation, Professor Jill Scott sent me a note

expressing how much eager she was to supervise me. This research found its mentor and path. After I

came to Queen’s in 2017, I realized that the academic struggles of Adibashi peoples that I wanted to

investigate have been the struggles of many minority peoples across the world. I started living my

v

research and Professor Jill Scott was the person who helped me to survive my initial difficult days in

Canada. While being empathetic and creating support for me, she taught me that learners’ struggles and

other conditions should be addressed first to make their academic journey smooth and successful. She

knew what exactly I was going through that time. Despite her extreme and crazy schedule, she was

always there for me to ask, “How are you, Tanzina?” Moreover, her scholarship and research expertise

have helped me to shape my research directions and complete my comprehensive exam smoothly in time.

She had been extremely supportive, understanding, easygoing, and friendly. When she had to leave

Queen’s for a better career opportunity of her life in 2019, she made it sure that my research was not

affected by this change. I did not even have to think who my next supervisor would be. Being an

important member of my supervisory committee, she kept providing her support, scholarly feedback, and

advice throughout my dissertation writing. Thanking Professor Jill is not my objective here as I do not

want to restrict my profound respect and gratefulness to this “simple” word. Rather, I would like to say,

this research happened because of Professor Jill Scott.

After Professor Jill Scott, Professor Fahim Quadir, became my supervisor, whose scholarly

insight, writing instructions, and knowledge on political science and research methodologies have mostly

benefitted my dissertation writing. When I was in my second year, Professor Fahim Quadir came to

Queen’s accepting the position of a Dean and Vice-Provost of School of Graduate Studies at Queen’s.

With the help of Professor Jill, Professor Fahim became one of my supervisors in my Ph.D. committee in

2018 and then became my supervisor in Fall, 2019. His knowledge about South Asian politics and

societies have shaped the theoretical framework of this study during my comprehensive exam. He did

more than a committee member by shaping my reading lists and clarifying my conceptual confusion.

With his guidance, I delved into the politics of nationalism in South Asia and Bangladesh and developed

a deep understanding about the identity politics there. As Professor Fahim Quadir was highly engaged

with my research, the change of a supervisor during the end of the second year of my Ph.D. did not cause

any delay or change of direction to my research. His relentless support, encouragement, and generous

vi

assistance helped me a lot to go through this transition smoothly. Through his critical comments,

questions, advice, and knowledge on political science, research methodologies, and most importantly,

academic writing, I have become able to produce a writing piece of my passion. He always motivated me

to produce something about which I would be proud of. Today I realize what he meant by his words. He

has showed enormous patience to go through my chapters several times and explain the comments to me.

Every comment and meeting has enabled me to clarify and sharpen my ideas and arguments in terms of

developing a theoretical/analytical approach, methodological structure, and the lay of the analysis. Most

importantly, his understanding about my personal life and my relationship with my son and my family

back home have been a great point of connection with Professor Fahim Quadir. I am deeply indebted to

Professor Fahim Quadir for his valuable guidance, intellectual inspiration, and motivating words.

I am also deeply beholden to Associate Professor Jennifer Davis, an Indigenous Scholar in the

Faculty of Education at Queen’s, whom I knew while doing an independent reading course with her.

Later, she agreed to work as one of the members of my supervisory committee at my request. My

relationship with her was more than a teacher-student relationship. The friendliness, warmth, and advice

she provided me with during my Ph.D. helped me find another comforting space in the university. She

enhanced my knowledge on Indigenous studies or Indigenous education. We spent hours in having

discussions on the role of colonial education and its impact on Indigenous communities across the world.

She introduced me to Indigenous research methodologies that I found enlightening. I realized that how

damaging a Eurocentric approach to research can be to Indigenous communities. Through her Indigenous

scholarship and direction, I learned how to reflect on my positionality as a researcher and how to establish

a relationship with my research and its participants.

While this research is informed by the knowledges, scholarships, and insights of these three

Canadian Scholars, this dissertation received its shape and contents through the participation of

Indigenous or Adibashi participants in Bangladesh, specifically from Chakma and Manipuri communities.

With my friend’s and students’ support, I met many Chakma and Manipuri community members, and got

vii

to know their lifestyles, struggles, and lives. I want to thank them. I also want to extend my gratitude to

the students who accompanied me during my stay in Rangamati, Bandarban, and Sylhet. My stay at

different places during my fieldwork received enormous supports and unconditional care from the

community members. My journeys through the narrow, hilly roads of Khagrachari and Rangamati, my

chitchat with the local peoples in the buses and auto-rickshaws, and in different tea stalls, and the dinner

and lunch invitations to many Chakma and Manipuri families have enriched this research with poised and

precious contents and insights. Due to the participants’ enthusiasm, trust, and support, I was carefree and

relaxed, and obtained the opportunities to enter many private places and collect valuable stories. This

dissertation is endowed with their stories, experiences, and moments that they shared with me. In

addition, I have developed some precious relationship with some of the community members, which I

consider one of the invaluable achievements of my life. Again, due to privacy and confidentiality

promises, I cannot mention their names, but I am deeply grateful to all of them for their contributions to

this research.

I was greatly benefitted by the intellectual stimulation that I received from the advice and

discussion of the professors, staff members, and my cohorts in the Cultural Studies Program, Queen’s. In

particular, I would like to express my deepest gratitude to Professor Dorit Naman, whose classroom

discussion on cultural studies theories have enhanced my understanding about critical theories. I would

like to thank Professor Susan Lord who extended a lot of supports during my first year at Cultural

Studies, especially when I was struggling with the day care problems for my one and half a year-old son. I

want to thank Carrie Miles, a graduate and administrative assistant of Cultural Studies, who always

managed to offer answers to thousands of my queries with great enthusiasm and positivity. I would like to

thank my friends from cultural studies and other departments at Queen’s, especially Rena Karanouh, Yiyi

He, Rohit Revi, and Canan Sahin. Because of their presence, I really enjoyed my time at Queen’s and had

some breathing space. I cherish the moments with them, which offered me some pleasure breaks from my

stressful life.

viii

My thesis writing phase was also supported by my Bangladeshi friends in Canada who played the

role of my Canadian family members. I want to thank my friends who live around me in An Clachan, the

Queen’s Community Housing. Almost every weekend, we used to have a small gathering with food, tea,

and movies. These friends had been the ones who actually gave me a sense of home and belongingness in

Canada, which kept me mentally sane. Having all these intellectual and non-intellectual, and serious and

less-serious conversation and sharing some laughter gave me the enthusiasm and positivity that I needed

to wake up next morning and start writing with a new spirit. I want to name some, especially Sabrina

Masud, Sumia Bushra, Shahriar Zaman, Anika Anwar, Tanzila Afrin, Masum Billah, Tahseen Zulfiqar,

Zunayed Raktim, Prithila Angkon, and so on. They were really life savers. I am lucky to say that the list

is not limited to these names only. Also, I am extremely lucky that I have Sadia Afrin in Canada, a sister

from another mother and a friend sent by the Almighty, who always knew how exactly I felt in my time

of distresses and rescued me from every pain and frustration that I suffered from during this stressful

Ph.D. life.

I am thankful to a couple of my friends who read parts of my thesis and provided their scholarly

readers’ perspectives that helped me a lot to improve my writing. I specially want to thank Sabrina Masud

and Sadia Afrin for their valuable time and efforts for going through a couple of sections and chapters of

my dissertation and providing their feedbacks. I would also like to thank my copy editor, Cheryl Oshea,

for editing my thesis with a great patience and pace. Her feedback has taught me many things about

academic writing. I also want to thank Valerie Hamilton, a writing consultant from SASS at Queen’s,

who read many parts of my dissertation passionately and made some constructive comments. She taught

me many aspects of stylistic writing and made my writing phase enjoyable. She was a great source of

motivation.

I have been gifted with some precious relationships. Among them, my relationship with my

husband, Golam Rabbani, has been the greatest inspiration to this difficult journey of Ph.D. He has been

an equal partner of my dream. As both of us were doing our Ph.D. at the same time, the journey had not

ix

been easy for us. We had to go through numerous struggles, difficulties, pains, and conflicts, but at the

same time, we grew and learned together in this journey. I never felt that he prioritized his Ph.D. over

mine. Apart from being my life partner, he has been my intellectual partner, friend, teacher, guide,

counsellor, and strength. The most important thing was, I could discuss my writing or ideas with him

whenever I wanted. Many of my confusions were clarified after discussing with him. Whenever I needed

immediate feedback on my writing, he was the best reader for me. He became the equal share holder of

all my emotional, academic, and familial struggles and difficulties. He evenly shared the family

responsibilities and household chores and never led me feel overburdened. He was always there when I

was mentally down and needed the emotional support. I could have never endured this journey if he was

not the person that he had been. I just want to say to him, “We have done it!”

My parents, Md. Elahi Baksh and Shamim Ara Begum, were the greatest blessings of my life.

They were the real dreamer of my higher education. They taught me how to believe in my dreams. My

late father, who is not there today to see my achievement, believed in me more than anything in this

world. He told me, “I know I might not be there when you would finish your Ph.D. but I know you will

one day.” I inherited all my confidence and strength from my parents, especially from my father. My

father taught me how to be a strong, independent, optimistic, and confident person, at the same time, a

good human being. I learned from him how one can gather positivity out of everything. And, my mother,

who is the most hardworking person I have ever seen, gave me her skills of hardworking, multitasking,

and problem solving. She always encouraged me to pursue my dream and never to compromise with my

happiness the way women in her time did. She inspired me to live the life that I wanted. She is always

there for me, extending her support and prayers for me. I am greatly indebted to my parents who put

relentless efforts to build the life that I am living today. Whatever I am today it is because of my parents’

blessings and upbringings.

My sister, Sadia Sadeqeen, and my brother, Saad Bin Elahi, are my two hands, without whom I

would not be able to serve my duties to my family and achieve my goals in life. Whenever I needed them,

x

they just extended their support and love for me so that I could pursue my goal. They are taking care of

my mother when I am doing my Ph.D. When I was in my fieldwork in Bangladesh, they took care of my

son. I cannot list their contributions in words; I just can say they are the source of my strength and love in

this world. I know wherever I go and whatever I do, my siblings will be right there for me.

At the end, the person whom I am most grateful to is my five years old son, Iziyan Ashan

Rabbani. I think if anybody has made thousands of sacrifices for my Ph.D., that person is my son. I

started writing the proposal for this Ph.D. when he was seven months old. Stealing time from his early

childhood, I managed to write a proposal for a Ph.D. application. That was the time when my husband

started his Ph.D. in Canada and I, with our son, was in Bangladesh, continuing my teaching at East West

University. I used to stay an hour extra in the university after my classes while he stayed with my mother.

I owe my son for his compromises. This was just the beginning. I came to Canada to start my Ph.D. when

he was only eighteen months old. He was all alone here and had to start a full-time day care as we had to

go the university. He was deprived of the love of his grandmother, aunts, uncles, and other relatives and

his parents were also busy. There were a thousand of moments when he wanted to play with me or read a

book with me, but I could not say “yes” to him. There were many times when he cried for being with me,

but I could not give him time as I had to write closing the door. Growing up, he is learning to understand

that “Maa has to work.” He often just sat beside me and played. I do not know how he did this, but I am

grateful to this little, tiny soul who had to endure this difficult journey for his mom’s Ph.D. I know one

day he will be proud of his mom and himself, knowing what he did for me. This is also true that whenever

I was stressed and felt depressed, this little person became the greatest resort of my comfort, peace,

happiness, inspiration, and energy. I know one day my son would know what this journey meant to me

and what an important chapter he had been in my Ph.D. life.

Also, I want to express my gratitude to Almighty Allah for showering all these blessings and

offering all the opportunities, strength, energy, support, and positivity that I needed to finish my Ph.D.

xi

At the end, I want to honour the languages⸺ Chakma, Bishnupriya Manipuri, Meitei Manipuri,

& Bangla⸺that I have mentioned in this dissertation by projecting their writing scripts below.

Chakma English Translation

These are our words, shaped

By our hands, our tools,

Our history. Lose them,

And we lose ourselves (Retrieved from

https://omniglot.com/writing/chakma.htm)

Bishnupriya Manipuri English Translation

ত োর আহোনির ত ৌর ন রোসে

হোসরৌসে জুেোর তেহ কোসে

তেখুনর ত োর রূ ত ো সি

ইিনিক হৃনের ওেোইশোঙ হোস ।

I am eagerly waiting after I received the news

of your (referring to mother tongue) arrival (It

seems I have already found you)

My mind and body are filled with

overwhelming joy

I am enjoying and feeling your beauty silently

in the midst of my heart, which is like an open

sky. (Translated by Bishnupriya Manipuri

participant 7)

Meitei Manipuri English Translation

All human beings are born free and equal in

dignity and rights. They are endowed with

reason and conscience and should act towards

one another in a spirit of brotherhood. (Article

1 of the Universal Declaration of Human

Rights) (Retrieved from:

https://omniglot.com/writing/manipuri.htm)

Bangla English Translation

ত োসের রব, ত োসের আশো, আ- নর বোাংলো ভোষো।

( োস ো) ত ো োর তকোসল, ত ো োর তবোসল, ক ই শোনি ভোসলোবোেো।।

(Lyricist and Composer: Atul Prasad Sen)

Our pride, our hope, o my Bangla language,

(Oh mother) what a peace and love in your lap,

in your words!

xii

Table of Contents

Abstract......................................................................................................................................... ii

Acknowledgements ........................................................................................................................iv

Table of Contents ..........................................................................................................................xii

List of Figures ............................................................................................................................. xvi

List of Tables.............................................................................................................................. xvii

List of Abbreviation ................................................................................................................... xviii

Chapter 1 Introduction .......................................................................................................................1

1.1 Introduction ..............................................................................................................................1

1.2 Research Objectives and Questions.............................................................................................6

1.3 Research Contributions ..............................................................................................................7

1.4 Contextual Background..............................................................................................................9

1.4.1 Bangladesh and Its Adibashis ..............................................................................................9

1.4.1.1 Socio-economic Backgrounds of the Chakma and Manipuri Communities...................... 15

1.4.2 The Education System in Bangladesh ................................................................................. 22

1.4.2.1 The Standardized, High-Stakes Testing System in Bangladesh ...................................... 23

1.4.3 Historical Background....................................................................................................... 26

1.4.3.1 First phase (1900–1947) .............................................................................................. 27

1.4.3.2 Second phase (1947–1971) .......................................................................................... 30

1.4.3.3 Third phase (1971–Present) ......................................................................................... 32

1.5 Structure of the Dissertation ..................................................................................................... 35

Chapter 2 Methodology..................................................................................................................... 38

2.1 Introduction ............................................................................................................................ 38

2.2 Fieldwork Qualitative Research ................................................................................................ 39

2.2.1 Why This Combination of Methods and Tools?................................................................... 43

2.3 Data Collection ....................................................................................................................... 44

2.3.1 Conversational Method: Semi-Structured, In-Depth Interviews or Storytelling ...................... 44

2.3.2 Gathering Data from Secondary Sources and Observation ................................................... 48

2.3.3 Participants and Location .................................................................................................. 49

2.3.4 Recruitment ...................................................................................................................... 50

xiii

2.4 Data Analysis .......................................................................................................................... 51

2.4.1 Translation and Transcription ............................................................................................ 51

2.4.2 Analyzing the Narrative..................................................................................................... 52

2.4.3 Ethics ............................................................................................................................... 53

2.5 A Reflexive Method: Identity, Positionality, and Power ............................................................. 54

2.5.1 Positionality, Identity, and Power ....................................................................................... 56

2.5.2 Power Acknowledgement, Trust, and Relationality ............................................................. 59

2.5.3 Acknowledging and Addressing Other Possible Limitations................................................. 62

2.6 Dissemination of Research Results ........................................................................................... 63

2.7 Conclusion .............................................................................................................................. 63

Chapter 3 Understanding the Politics of Exclusion: Nationalism and Standardized, High-Stakes Testing in

Bangladesh ...................................................................................................................................... 65

3.1 Introduction ............................................................................................................................ 65

3.2 The Macro Level Analysis: Nationalism and Internal Colonialism .............................................. 65

3.2.1 Understanding Key Concepts ............................................................................................. 65

3.2.1.1 Ethnicity and Ethnic Group ......................................................................................... 66

3.2.1.2 Nation and State ......................................................................................................... 67

3.2.1.3 Nation-building vs State-building ................................................................................ 68

3.2.1.4 Nationalism and National Identity ……….……………………………………..………...70

3.2.1.5 Understanding Colonialism and Internal Colonialism .................................................... 74

3.2.2 Nationalism in Bangladesh: A Colonial Legacy .................................................................. 76

3.2.2.1 Hegemonic, Elitist, and Homogenous........................................................................... 76

3.2.2.2 Secularism and Islamization ........................................................................................ 80

3.2.2.3 The Politics of Exclusion and Oppression..................................................................... 83

3.2.2.4 Nationalism and National Economic Development........................................................ 88

3.3 Standardized, High-Stakes Testing and Its Colonial Roots .......................................................... 91

3.3.1 What is a Standardized, High-Stakes Testing System? ......................................................... 91

3.3.2 The Politics of the Standardized, High-Stakes Testing System ............................................. 94

3.3.3 Does the Standardized, High-Stakes Testing System Promote Equity in Education? .............. 98

3.3.4 The Standardized, High-Stakes Testing System and Its National Political Agenda ............... 101

Chapter 4 Linguistic Subjugation: Language Policy in Education and Its Exploitative Essence ............ 105

4.1 Introduction .......................................................................................................................... 105

4.2 Education Language Policies in Bangladesh ............................................................................ 107

4.3 Understanding Linguistic Subjugation: Subordination of Minority Language Speakers .............. 109

xiv

4.4 Influence of the Education Language Policy on the Adibashis .................................................. 113

4.4.1 Colonial Cultural Myth: Tribe and Dialect in the Form of Jati and Upajati in Bangladesh ... 113

4.4.2 Linguistic Discrimination against Adibashi Students ......................................................... 117

4.4.3 Hegemony of Bangla: Establishing its Superiority and High Prestige.................................. 123

4.4.4 Generating a Sense of Shame and Embarrassment about Adibashi Languages ..................... 127

4.4.5 A Shift in Adibashi Identity ............................................................................................. 130

4.5 Conclusion ............................................................................................................................ 135

Chapter 5 The Bengalicization Project: The Education System and the Politics of Homogenization ..... 137

5.1 Introduction .......................................................................................................................... 137

5.2 Defining Bengaliness and the Bengalicization Process ............................................................. 138

5.2.1 Bengaliness and Its Contested Meanings........................................................................... 138

5.2.2 The Bengalicization Project ............................................................................................. 141

5.3 Bangladesh’s National Curriculum ......................................................................................... 143

5.4 Bengalicization and the Country’s Education System ............................................................... 145

5.4.1 Normalizing Bengaliness ................................................................................................. 146

5.4.2 The Racialized and Limited Presentation of the Adibashis in Textbooks ............................. 151

5.4.2.1 Offensive Representations in Textbooks..................................................................... 151

5.4.2.2 Nationalizing History and Glorifying Bengaliness....................................................... 158

5.4.2.3 How Do Adibashis Perceive and Experience These Offensive Representations? ........... 160

5.4.3 Bengalicized Curriculum, the Modern/Tradition Dichotomy, and the Loss of Adibashi

Knowledge Systems ................................................................................................................ 162

5.5 Conclusion ............................................................................................................................ 170

Chapter 6 Reproducing Colonial Consciousness: Control of the Standardized, High-Stakes Testing

System ........................................................................................................................................... 171

6.1 Introduction .......................................................................................................................... 171

6.2 Understanding the Notion of Colonial Consciousness .............................................................. 172

6.3 Test Control: Testing as a Pedagogic Device ........................................................................... 176

6.3.1 Teaching to Test: Control over Learning........................................................................... 176

6.3.1.1 Exclusion of the Indigenous Meaning of Learning ...................................................... 176

6.3.1.2 Creating Learning Barriers ........................................................................................ 181

6.3.2 Control over Identity ....................................................................................................... 186

6.3.2.1 Test Performance of Adibashi Students ...................................................................... 186

6.3.2.2 Categorizing Students as “Passed” and “Failed” ......................................................... 189

6.3.2.3 Eliminating the Non-dominant Identity ...................................................................... 193

xv

6.3.3 Control over Social Relations and Roles ........................................................................... 196

6.4 Conclusion ............................................................................................................................ 202

Chapter 7 Conclusion...................................................................................................................... 204

7.1 Findings of the Study ............................................................................................................. 206

7.1.1 Education as a Nationalist Project of Homogenization and Assimilation ............................. 206

7.1.2 Failing the “Other”: Stories of Discrimination and Marginalization .................................... 209

7.1.3 The Loss of Adibashi Perspectives ................................................................................... 213

7.1.4 Further Alienation and Colonization ................................................................................. 215

7.2 Directions for Future Research ............................................................................................... 216

Appendix A List of Adibashi/Indigenous Communities in Bangladesh ............................................... 220

Appendix B Historical Timeline ...................................................................................................... 223

Appendix C Questionnaire 1............................................................................................................ 225

Appendix D Questionnaire 2 ........................................................................................................... 228

Appendix E GREB Clearance Letter ................................................................................................ 230

Appendix F List of Textbooks in Primary and Secondary Education .................................................. 232

Appendix G Academic Grading in Bangladesh ................................................................................. 235

Bibliography .................................................................................................................................. 236

xvi

List of Figures

Figure 1 Concentration of Adibashi Groups in Bangladesh…………..….………………….…………..10

Figure 2 Location of the Manipuris in Bangladesh …….………..………………………………………16

Figure 3 The Location of CHT Adibashi population ………..…………………...…………………..20-21

Figure 4 Presentation of History in Textbooks …………………………………….…………………..159

xvii

List of Tables

Table 1 Representation of Adibashis in Bangladesh and Global Studies ……….…………..…………152

Table 2 Passing Rate in Primary Education Certificate Examination (P.E.C.E) in Two Remote

Primary Schools in Rangamati…………………………… ……..……………………….……187

Table 3 Passing Rate in Junior School Certificate (J.S.C.) and Secondary School Certificate (S.S.C.)

in Two High Schools in Remote Areas of Khagrachari………………………………………..187

Table 4 Comparative Data on the Test Results (J.S.C., S.S.C., and H.S.C.) of Three CHT Districts….188

xviii

List of Abbreviation

AL: Awami League

BANBEIS: Bangladesh Bureau of Educational Information and Statistics

BBS: Bangladesh Bureau of Statistics

BNP: Bangladesh Nationalist Party

CHT: Chittagong Hill Tracts

CBRM: Community Based Research Method

CORE: Course on Research Ethics

CRT: Critical Race Theory

GCE: General Certificate of Examination

GREB: General Research Ethics Board

GPA: Grade Point Average

HSC: Higher Secondary Certificate

IRM: Indigenous Research Methodology

JP: Jatiyo Party (National Party)

JSC: Junior School Certificate

KPP: Krishak Praja Party (Peasant Tenant Party)

L1: First Language

L2: Second Language

MPO: Monthly Payment Scheme

NEP: National Education Policy

NCTB: National Curriculum and Textbook Board

PCJSS: Parbattay Chattagram Jana Samhati Samity (United Peoples Party of the Chittagong Hill Tracts),

PECE: Primary Education Completion Examination

SSC: Secondary School Certificate

TCPC: Tri-Council Policy statement

1

Chapter 1

Introduction

1.1 Introduction

In February 2010, Bijoya,1 an Adibashi/Indigenous student from Chakma community, sat

for her SSC2 examination in a test centre in Rangamati,3 Bangladesh. Despite careful preparation,

she did not even know if she could write the test; nor did she feel confident about the outcome of

the test. Just a few days before, a conflict broke out between the Bengali4 armed forces and Shanti

Bahini5 (Peace Force), an insurgent group in Chittagong Hill Tracts in Bangladesh.6 Such

conflicts were a common phenomenon in the region, though this time it was severe—houses were

burnt and people were killed. Bijoya and her family ran away from their village and took shelter

in the home of one of their relatives near Rangamati city. She recalled the night before her test

when there was a curfew in the city. All she heard around her was, “ujo … ujo” (run away). Her

father did not want her risk her life to take the test; however, Bijoya did not want to lose one year

of her education as missing the exam meant failing the test. They left the house early in the

morning and travelled hours to reach the test centre. Bijoya was so traumatized that she did not

know what she wrote (Chakma participant 23, personal communication, August 25, 2019).

Shilpi, another Chakma girl, was scared about her JSC7 test as she struggled with her

school performances. Shilpi’s mother tongue was Chakma and she hardly understood Bangla,8

1 Pseudo name. 2 Secondary School Certificate Examination (grade ten public exam) that occurs once a year. 3 A hill tract district in Bangladesh 4 The majority group in Bangladesh. 5 An armed wing of Parbattay Chattagram Jana Samhati Samity-PCJSS (United Peoples Party of the Chittagong Hill Tracts), which is considered as an insurgent group of Adibashi political groups. 6 The CHT in Bangladesh is militarized, and the Bengali armed force is comprised of military officials and locally trained armed groups. 7 Junior Secondary Certificate exam (grade eight public examination). 8 Bangla is the dominant language in Bangladesh.

2

the language of instruction and assessment in schools in Bangladesh. She was a student in the

remote village of Khagrachari9 where she did not have contact with many Bengalis, the dominant

group. She struggled to write and understand Bangla, the language she had to read. In school

tests, her teachers helped her to understand the test questions but in a public examination they

could not provide assistance. Her major fear was not understanding the questions, which is what

happened. She failed the test (Chakma participant 6, personal communication, June 28, 2019).

Sujon, another Adibashi student from Meitei Manipuri10 community, was very

enthusiastic about school but his negative test experiences gradually took away his interest in

education. He realized that the textbooks inaccurately portrayed their culture. When he wrote the

correct information about their culture in the test instead of the information given in the

textbooks, he was penalized with score deductions. When he inquired about it, he received harsh

comments from his teacher. He realized that to pass the tests, he would have to unlearn his

culture. He felt forced to accept what the textbooks said and the tests acknowledged, and he

started to lose his interest in school (Manipuri participant 20, personal communication, August

19, 2019).

Similarly, Rajon, a Chakma student, could not sit for his SSC test as he failed to meet the

attendance requirements. He lived near the school, but he always had to join his family during

Jumm cultivation, a traditional farming system in the Chakma community. Jumm fields were up

in the hills, far away from his school, so he missed many classes and tests during that time;

therefore, his teachers accused him of being “inattentive” at school. He was not allowed to sit for

the SSC exam because he missed the test preparations/pre-requisites. Realizing school had no

9A hill tract district in Bangladesh. 10 A plain land Adibashi/Indigenous group.

3

place for students like him, he left (Chakma participant 8, personal communication, June 27,

2019).

The stories of these four Adibashi/Indigenous students are not unique; rather, they

exemplify the common experiences of many Adibashi students. Although the narratives seem to

disclose these students’ educational struggles in the tests,11 a careful analysis of the situations

indicates that their suffering goes well beyond the school boundaries, affecting their life

experiences. Since the public examinations are standardized and centralized and determine their

future educational decisions, this system further intensifies their suffering. Due to the lack of

consideration of their socio-economic and cultural backgrounds and their extenuating

circumstances, the educational lives of these students were driven by the fear of failing the test

competition. Paradoxically, the conditions of Adibashi students are hardly recognized in the

Bangladeshi education system, let alone in the testing system. Except for a couple of newspaper

articles, students like Bijoya, Shilpi, Sujon, and Rajon hardly appear in any conversation in the

mainstream media. Even if they do, their “failure” is projected as a result of their “deficit” or

“inattentiveness,” without reflecting on their unique struggles and contexts in Bangladesh.

The public examinations that the Adibashi students referenced are standardized, high-

stakes tests, which follow a centralized, uniform system, and determine students’ achievement

and promotion. Every student in Bangladesh has to pass four public examinations before they

begin their post-secondary education. The standardized, high-stakes testing system is one of the

most accepted and legitimized educational practices in Bangladesh. The education system

mandates such tests at every level to ensure that students’ knowledge and ability are assessed and

measured (Sacks, 2000). Considering the tests as the most effective method of identifying “good”

11 There are four public examinations during the first twelve years of education in a student’s life.

4

and “bad” students, as well as screening out the “bad” ones, the test scores in this scenario

determine the eligibility of students for further education and future careers (Au, 2010). The

system does not understand where students like Bijoya, Shilpi, Sujon, and Rajon come from and

what they experience.

Being a Bengali, the dominant ethnic group in Bangladesh, I grew up knowing almost

nothing about Adibashis until I became a teacher. During my eight years of teaching in private

universities in Bangladesh, I had the opportunity to meet some Adibashi students in my English

language courses. I was fortunate enough to know some of them personally, and I realized their

educational struggles were different from most Bengali students. They had linguistic insecurity

about both their first languages and Bangla, the national language; learning English as a foreign

language was an added struggle for them.12 Although I could recognize their barriers, the existing

system did not allow me to address their situations. I understood that the entire education system

was built around the dominant practices in such a way that a Bengali person like me had hardly

any scope to perceive the problems of Adibashi students in education. It is true that many Bengali

students in Bangladesh experience impediments in schools due to poverty; however, Adibashi

students’ battles are more severe as, apart from poverty, their struggles involve cultural,

linguistic, and ethnic alienation as well as political and economic oppressions. Driven by my

academic curiosity and passion for social justice and equity, I investigated the personal hardships

of some students that impeded their success in education. I started digging deep into the testing

contexts to understand relevant issues and identify the limitations of the existing education

system that is grounded in the colonial educational values and practices.

12 The medium of instruction and assessment is Bangla in the public education system in Bangladesh. English is taught as a foreign language, as a mandatory subject. Post-secondary education emphasizes English more and many universities designate English as the medium of instruction.

5

Although numerous studies have criticized the standardized, high-stakes testing system in

the Western context, especially in North America and Australia, there is a dearth of critical

research that questions the legitimacy of the testing systems in the South Asian context,

especially in Bangladesh. Studies in the West identify the capitalist and discriminatory

approaches of the testing systems and illustrate how these tests are damaging for minority, socio-

economically disadvantaged, and disabled students (Kohn, 2000; Natriello & Pallas, 2001;

Maudus & Clarke, 2001; Amerein & Berliner, 2002; Jones, 2007; Nichols & Berliner, 2007;

Darling-Hammond, 2007; Au, 2010). Many scholars have explicated the political biases of the

testing system that serves the needs of countries’ elites (Sacks, 2000; Nichols & Berliner, 2007;

Moses & Nanna, 2007; Au, 2010; Koyama & Cofield, 2013). There are a small number of studies

that incorporate the African and Asian contexts (Lang Ong, 2010; Ekoh, 2012;), but very few

have addressed the South Asian context where the standardized tests bear heavier consequences

(Boucher, 2021). However, the studies of the Bangladeshi testing system that were conducted in

last ten years mostly focused on the impact of English-language assessments on students

(Tahereen, 2014; Sultana, 2018; Al Amin & Greenwood, 2018). They seemed to ignore the

country’s socio-political situation and its impact on diverse students and their future decisions.

This study intends to fill that gap, questioning the legitimacy of the standardized, high-stakes

testing system in Bangladesh and investigating the condition of Adibashi students in the testing

scenario while addressing their socio-political backgrounds and extenuating circumstances.

This research is the first study in Bangladesh that investigates the standardized, high-

stakes testing system and its impact on Adibashi students from a critical lens. It explores the case

of Adibashi students and shows how their socio-political backgrounds shape their educational

experiences and test performances. In particular, this study intends to examine whether there is

any relationship between the political structure and the standardized, high-stakes testing system

6

of Bangladesh. By identifying the political biases, it asks whether the testing system serves some

specific groups and disadvantages others, especially Adibashi communities.

1.2 Research Objectives and Questions

The purpose of this study is to identify the role of the standardized, high-stakes testing

system as a political weapon, and its nationalist ideologies which have not been explored much in

non-Western contexts, especially in Bangladesh. It seeks to develop an understanding of the

nationalist politics of Bangladesh and the standardized, high-stakes testing system, and to identify

the connection between these two in the case of Adibashis. Therefore, the project examines the

testing mechanism and its connection with education policy, education language policy, the

national curriculum, textbooks, evaluation strategies, and classroom and school practices, as well

as identifying the socio-political biases of these educational and testing policies and practices. It

also identifies the factors that benefit the privileged Bengali students, and marginalize and

exclude Adibashi students. In this way, this study primarily aims to investigate whether the

standardized, high-stakes testing system is a politically and culturally biased system that

disseminates the exclusionary nationalist ideologies of Bengali elites. Further, it asks how both

the nationalist politics and the testing system are part of a bigger colonial agenda of Bengali elites

to exclude and discriminate against the Adibashis. Most importantly, this study intends to open a

critical investigation regarding the discriminatory and exclusionary practices of the testing

system, which disadvantage Adibashi students and benefit Bengali elites, as well as establish a

foundation for further research in this area.

Therefore, this dissertation explores the relationship between the politics of nationalism

and the standardized, high-stakes testing system in Bangladesh, and investigates the

consequences the socio-politically marginalized Adibashi students face in the testing system. It

revolves around the following questions: How does Bangladesh’s standardized, high -stakes

testing system reproduce a hierarchical and colonial structure of domination and exploitation for

7

Adibashi communities? In what specific ways do the underlying principles and practices of the

standardized, high-stakes testing system manifest the socio-political agenda of Bengali elites,

promoting a homogenous nationalistic identity by excluding/marginalizing the Adibashis? How

do the educational and testing practices deliberately disadvantage Adibashi students? How does

the testing mechanism establish the hegemony of dominant Bengali elites by excluding the local

knowledge and praxis as well as the cultures and identities of Adibashi students from the

curriculum and school practices? The dissertation takes up these questions and also asks what

further avenues of research are necessary to bring educational equity to the Adibashi

communities.

1.3 Research Contributions

The research adds a new dimension to the understanding of the standardized, high-stakes

testing system in Bangladesh in specific ways.

First, this research contributes to the literatures of postcolonial studies that explore the

colonial legacy of nation-building processes in postcolonial nation-states, which infiltrates all

socio-political systems including education. This study identifies the colonial structure of politics

of nationalism in Bangladesh, laying out a domination and exploitation relationship between the

Bengali elites and Adibashis. It also adds this finding to the understanding of the nation-building

processes of other postcolonial countries where the dominant elites have left behind the

minorities in their national development process. In addition, this study examines the ways in

which the colonial evolution of nationalist politics stipulates a national education system in

Bangladesh, and opens a critical investigation into the education and testing system that

disseminates the colonial agenda of political elites and reproduces the discriminatory, socio-

political structure of Bangladesh among Adibashis.

Second, this research contributes to Adibashi education and Adibashi studies in

Bangladesh, an under-researched area, in three ways. Firstly, this study indicates the lack of

8

understanding regarding the existence of Adibashi knowledge systems as an alternative

knowledge system in Bangladesh. The discussion of Adibashi education is only limited to the

mother tongue education policy13 (see chapter 4). This study extends that discussion further and

emphasizes the application of Adibashi knowledge systems and the need for understanding the

diverse cultural backgrounds and distinct learning requirements of Adibashis. Secondly, while

explaining the political biases and exclusionary practices of the standardized, high-stakes testing

system, this study indicates the ongoing colonial oppression and marginalization that the

Adibashis experience, which shape their educational experiences and performances. In this way,

it clarifies that it is crucial to unfold the layers of colonialism to develop an understanding of

Adibashi education and studies in Bangladesh. Thirdly, this study emphasizes Adibashi voices to

represent their educational sufferings and obstacles, and provide us with Adibashi perspectives on

their cultural and political subjugations.

Third, this research is one of the first studies in Bangladesh to have initiated a critical

discussion of the legitimacy of the standardized, high-stakes testing system in the country. While

identifying the political and cultural biases and factors that disadvantage Adibashi students in the

tests, this study sets the groundwork for future research that could address the equity, diversity,

and inclusion values of the education system, as well as develop a culturally fair assessment

system for the Adibashis and other marginalized groups. Most importantly, this critical discussion

contributes to the understanding of the testing system and the conditions of the Adibashi groups

in the system.

Fourth, the most important contribution of this research is to create a critical

consciousness among both the Bengalis and Adibashis regarding the socio-political and

13 The National Education Policy of 2010 has incorporated a clause on the mother tongue education policy that intends to promote the use of Adibashi languages for education at the primary level.

9

educational conditions of the Adibashi groups in Bangladesh. To forward that consciousness,

dissemination of the study’s findings through academic and non-academic articles, newspaper

stories, and different forms of community meetings and presentations should, at least, prompt a

reconsideration of the testing policies and practices, influence future educational policies, and,

most importantly, raise awareness about the Adibashis’ marginalized conditions in Bangladesh.

1.4 Contextual Background

I discuss the backgrounds and contexts of this dissertation in three sections as this study

provides information on the Adibashis of Bangladesh, as well as the Chakma and Manipuri

communities with whom the research engages; the structure of the education and testing system

in Bangladesh; and the country’s historical background.

1.4.1 Bangladesh and Its Adibashis

Bangladesh, a South Asian country, is usually perceived as a monocultural country,

though there are many ethnic and Indigenous groups. They have distinct cultures, religions, and

languages (Roy, 2012). However, the government statistics, censuses, and reports hardly

recognize that diversity. There are controversies over the number of Adibashi communities in

Bangladesh. Although the government census (1999) mentions the names of 29 Adibashi

communities, many Adibashi scholars, researchers, and activists claim that there are more than 54

communities (see Appendix A) (Roy, 2012; Dhamai, 2014). The discrepancy also exists in the

total number given for the Adibashi population. The recent government census (2011) has

identified that 1.8% of people (in number, 1,586,141) are Indigenous in Bangladesh, whereas the

communities claim that the number is about five million (Dhamai, 2014). The government

censuses and reports intentionally tamper with the number to undermine the presence of

Adibashis (Roy, 2012). In addition, both the intent and the structure of the government census is

problematic; it deliberately leaves out the options for claiming Adibashi or ethnic identity, and

10

clouds the information on the Adibashis by classifying them under one blanket segment as

“other” (Bleie, 2005, p. 13).

Figure 1

Concentration of Adibashi Groups in Bangladesh

11

Note: From “An overview of Indigenous Peoples in Bangladesh” by B. M. Dhamai, 2014,

Survival under threats: Human right situation of Indigenous Peoples in Bangladesh, p. 18.

Copyright 2014 by Asia Indigenous Peoples Pact and Kapaeenge Foundation.

Adibashis are often classified as plain land and Chittagong Hill Tracts (CHT) Adibashis

based on the spatial characteristics of the location in which they live (Roy, 2012; Dhamai, 2014).

Santal, Garo, Hajong, Koch, Manipuri, Khasi, Rakhine, and around 40+ groups live in three

regions of the plain land, the frontier districts of the northwest, central north, southeast, and

northeast regions of Bangladesh (see Figure 1). About eleven to thirteen Adibashi communities14

live in the Chittagong Hill Tracts, and they are Chakma, Marma, Tripura, Tanchangya, Mro,

Lushai, Khumi, Chak, Khiyang, Bawm, and Pangkhua (Dhamai, 2014), and some have added

Murang and Kukis to the list, who collectively identify themselves as Jumma people (High

Landers) (Mohsin, 1997; Dhamai, 2014). Most Adibashi communities in Bangladesh are the

descendants of either the pre-Aryan Mongolian group or the Austric-speaking Proto-Australoid

race (Dhamai, 2014; Rafi, 2017), though the ancient history of Bangladesh is contentious.

While there are many controversies over this ancient history, clearly people inhabited this

land before the Aryans’ arrival (Khokon, 2013; Rafi, 2017). The four groups, apart from the

Aryans, found in this region are Negrito, Astro-Asiatic, Dravidian, and Mongoloid (Khokon

2013; Rafi, 2017). The Negritos who came to Bengal15 earlier left no descendants in the region.

Around 5000-6000 years ago, the Astro-Asiatic groups attacked the Negritos and invaded Bengal.

Kol, Bhil, Shantal, Munda, and Pahan are the descendants of the Astro-Asiatic groups (Rafi,

2017). Then, the Dravidians, and later the Aryans, came, and the interactions among all of these

groups miscegenated a new, mixed variation of the Aryans (Rafi, 2017). The last were the

Mongoloids who started living in the South-Eastern regions of Bengal, the present-day CHT zone

14 Some sources mention thirteen to fourteen CHT Adibashi groups. 15 Banga was the ancient name of Bengal, which in the British period was comprised of West Bengal and

East Bengal, though the range of the region varied in different times before the colonial era.

12

(Khokon, 2013; Rafi, 2017). Garo, Koch, Tripura, Chakma, and many other groups are the

descendants of the Mongoloids. The Bengalis are often considered as either members of the

Astro-Mongoloid or of the Mongol-Dravidian race, who are also the ancestors of many

Indigenous Peoples in Bangladesh (Dhamai, 2014). In a way, Bengalis are a mixed race, a

miscegenation of all these groups, whose early bloodline is also rooted in the ancestry of these

Adibashi groups (Dhamai, 2014; Rafi, 2017), though the concept of a mixed race is a myth to

many (Tripura, 2015). That means the peoples of Bengal, including the Bengalis, who live in

Bangladesh now are not the descendants of one single group; rather, Bengal is a land for different

ancient races.

Apart from the statistical discrepancy, the Adibashis have been also identified by

offensive terms since the birth of Bangladesh. Controversies and debates exist over the

identification of the Adibashis in Bangladesh as well. Although the term “tribal” was introduced

by the British rulers, this name is still pervasive in the nationalist discourse of Bangladesh.

Moreover, tribal and upajati (sub-nation) are constitutionally acknowledged and widely used

terms in Bangladesh. The word “Adibashi” was also used as an alternative for tribal or upajati

until the 1990s as they have similar etymological meanings; Adibashi meant adibashinda, “the

original inhabitants of a given place” (Rycroft & Dasgupta, 2011, p. 1). At present, “Adibashi”

refers to a cultural identity and adibashinda has a demographic reference (Rahman, 2016).

Recently, while Adibashi leaders were claiming their rights and demands through the terms

Adibashi or Indigenous, the Bangladesh government introduced a political term khudra nri

goshthi (small ethnic group) and discouraged the use of Adibashi or Indigenous. However, all of

these names are meaningless to most communities who usually prefer to be identified with their

own community names (Gerharz, 2014). In this study, I use Adibashi and Indigenous Peoples

alternatively to indicate these ethnic minority groups in Bangladesh.

13

This politics of naming is also rooted in the colonial understanding of Indigeneity across

the world. Bengali elites promote two reasons for rejecting the Indigenous identity of the

Adibashis in Bangladesh: first, by emphasizing the arrival or Indigeneity of the Bengalis in this

land, and second, by exploiting the concept of settler colonialism for Indigeneity. Bengali

political elites took advantage of the definitional argument of Indigenousness that existed in the

international politics of Indigeneity, which was dominated by the hegemonic definition of

Indigeneity in Western contexts. A fixed definition that was legalized by the UN states mandated

a strict requirement of historical continuity with a pre-invasion or pre-colonial society on a

specific territory, which was the dominant criterion to define Indigeneity (Kingsbury, 1998). The

definition restricted the applicability and spread of this concept in many parts of the world,

especially in Asia and Africa, as the contexts of these regions are different than the North

American contexts. More confusion was added when the definition focused on the common

experience of colonial settlement since the colonial experience is different in Asian contexts.

Exploiting these confusions, the attitudes of different Asian governments, especially Chinese,

Indian, and Bangladeshi governments, still show reluctance to accept the applicability of

Indigeneity in their countries (Kingsbury, 1998). This fixed definition of Indigeneity that

emphasizes the idea of “who came to this land first?” is overturned now and understood more

holistically in its local contexts. However, Bengali elites still stick to the older idea and

manipulate the thousand-year-old unknown and untraced history of Bangladesh to legitimize their

politics (Dhamai, 2014; Khatun & Sumon, 2017). They not only stress the near past and partial

history to show the CHT Adibashis as immigrants to the land, but also try to establish the native

origin of the Bengalis by indicating the partial evidence of the earliest people in Bengal.16 These

16In 2010, the then Foreign Minister, Dipu Mony, identified the Bengalis as the Adibashis of Bangladesh,

claiming that the Bengalis lived in this land for more than four thousand years and the traces were found in Wari-Boteshwar (Khatun & Sumon, 2017).

14

strategies are nothing but the politics used by the elites to promote an exclusionary nationalist

agenda.

In addition to these debates and politics, systemic discriminations and political

transgressions have transformed the Adibashis into one of the most marginalized groups in

Bangladesh. They have to fight poverty as they represent the bottom 20% of the people in

Bangladesh (Kabir & Nath, 2005; Roy, 2012; Dhamai, 2014). Despite the fact that most people in

Bangladesh are classified as poor, the constitutional misrecognition and non-acknowledgment of

Indigeneity, as well as the discriminatory practices of the political elites, have marginalized the

Adibashis further and turned them into the poorest of the poor in the country.17 In addition, no

socio-economic and political policies, nor any laws, address their cultural identities and

particularities, and unique conditions, thereby allowing the atrocities of the political perpetrators

with impunity. For example, land grabbing, sexual assault, forced migration, religious

conversion, and mass killing are regular phenomena in Adibashi regions and remain

unrecognized and unheard due to the generalized laws and policies (Adnan, 2007, 2008). Thus,

they are landless and refugees, as well as colonized, in their own country.

Similarly, the Adibashis are disadvantaged in the education system in Bangladesh.

Although Adibashi leaders and scholars have demanded a separate regional provision for the

education of Adibashi students, the political elites are reluctant to offer any decentralization of

educational practices; rather, they promote a universal and uniform education system for all. As a

result, Adibashi students can neither study in their own languages nor have an alternative

17 While 31.05% of people lived below the poverty line in the country in 2013, the rate was 65.05% in the CHT zone in 2015 (Shaha, 2015). Similarly, 60% of plain land Adibashis are categorized as "extremely poor" (Barka et al., 2009). According to the World Bank Group Household Income and Expenditure Survey

from October 2016, 80% of plain land Adibashis and 65% of CHT Adibashis live below the poverty line in Bangladesh whereas only 23% of Bengali people live under that line (Murmu, 2020). Also, the poverty ratio between the Bengali settlers and Adibashis in the CHT is 55%:65% (Barkat, 2008, as cited in Dhamai, 2014).

15

curriculum that addresses their community practices. Most importantly, the uniform structure of

education lacks understanding of the socio-economic and distinct cultural conditions of the

Adibashis, which prevents them from enjoying their basic rights to education. In fact, the

centralized education fails to provide a supportive school environment to promote the

participation of Adibashi students in schools; for example, with inadequate numbers of teachers

and schools and the lack of financial and educational supports, most Adibashi students are unable

to obtain education (Dhamai, 2014). As a result, Adibashi students are a way behind the national

average of school enrolment rates, duration of education, and graduation rates. The dropout rate

of these students is also higher than the national average18 (Chakma & Soren, 2014).

1.4.1.1 Socio-economic Backgrounds of the Chakma and Manipuri Communities

As this study engages with two main Adibashi communities, Chakma and Manipuri (see

chapter 2), I provide some background information on these two communities.

Manipuri Community

The Manipuri community, a plain land Adibashi group, is divided into three sub-groups:

Meitei, Bishnupriya, and Pangan. The evolution of the Manipuris is defined from two

perspectives—mythical and historical—but both perspectives indicate that the evolution of these

groups was based on a place called Manipur, a part of present-day India (Sinho, 2015). Scholars

indicate that the Manipuris are a mixed nation evolved from the miscegenation of multiples

groups who came to the land (Sinho, 2015). As a result, the Manipuri culture and identity, shared

among three different groups, developed through more than five thousand years of cultural

evolution (Sinho, 2015). The Manipuris in Bangladesh live in the Sylhet division, especially in

Kamalganj village in Moulvibazar district19 (see Figure 2). Although Ronojit Sinho, a Manipuri

18 According to Bangladesh Bureau of Educational and Information Statistics (BENBEIS) (2016), the drop-out rate was 59% in CHT whereas the national rate was 19.2 in 2016 (Khaing, 2020). 19 Among eight upajillas (sub-district) in Moulvibazar, Manipuris live in six upajillas. Kamalgonj is the biggest Manipuri village in Bangladesh.

16

scholar, (2015) says that there are 51 Manipuri villages in Moulvibazar, the inhabitants of

Kamalganj say that these villages are populated by the Bengalis now as many Manipuris have left

(Manipuri participants, personal communication, August 2019).

Figure 2

Location of the Manipuris in Bangladesh

Note: These images were adapted from different websites:

https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:BD_Sylhet_District_locator_map.svg

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moulvibazar_District

https://gosylhet.wordpress.com/category/about-sylhet/sylhet-division/sylhet/

https://gosylhet.wordpress.com/category/about-sylhet/sylhet-division/moulvibazar/

17

The three Manipuri groups speak two different languages and follow different religions.

While Meitei and Pangan Manipuris speak the same language—Meitei Manipuri, a Tibeto-

Burman language—Bishnupriya Manipuris speak Bishnupriya, an Indo-Aryan language. Both

languages have distinct writing scripts; the former uses their own writing script while the latter

follows both Devanagari and Bangla scripts for writing (Ahsan, 2001; Sinho, 2015). Many Meitei

Manipuris also use Bangla script for writing their language. Due to the linguistic connection, the

Pangans are often considered Meiteis. In religious beliefs, the Manipuris are diverse too. Both

Bishnupriya and Meitei Manipuris are Hindus, followers of the Gouriyo Boishnob religion,20

which is in the heart of Manipuri culture. Some Meiteis are followers of their ancient religion,

alokpa. However, the Pangans, the smallest group, who were influenced by the Muslim invaders

during the first millennium, are Muslim now (Sinho, 2015). In summary, the Manipuris, who all

identify with one single name, have diverse cultural practices and values.

Conflicts and debates exist among the groups over the issue of “true” Manipuri identity;

both Meitei and Bishnupriya groups claim they are the “true” Manipuris, rejecting the

belonginess of the others to the identity (Ahsan, 2001). Although both communities claim the

authenticity of their cultural and spiritual practices and want to project the differences between

them, they share more similarities than dissimilarities (Sinho, 2015). Both groups consider

Rasleela, Rothjatra, and Kirton to be their central cultural aspects21; except for the linguistic

difference, their songs, dances, and musical instrumentals are also identical, playing the same

tone and essence of music (Sinho, 2015). However, some community participants emphasized the

fact that the musical essence and spiritual aspect of Kirton and Rasleela are different from each

20 An ancient version of a branch of Hinduism. 21 In Rathjatra, the Manipuris organize a big rally with their religious idol, Jagannath Deb, that travels a long path. In Rasleela, which is the biggest festival and occurs during a full moon, they replicate the spiritual dance of Krishna and Radha (primeval forms of God in Hinduism) and their mates with spiritual recitations. It is a night-long event attracting visitors from India and Bangladesh (Sinho, 2015). Manipuri

dances are thousand-year-old, traditional, and spiritual, telling the mythical stories of Radha and Krishna.

18

other while each claiming their own as authentic and more spiritual (Manipuri participants 1 & 7,

personal communication, August 16 & 20, 2019). The community elders perceived this conflict

as a product of the identity politics crafted by the Bengali political elites who fail to understand

the internal diversity that exists within the community (Manipuri participants 1 & 7, personal

communication, August 16 & 20, 2019).

The Manipuris have distinct knowledge systems and community-based social structures,

which have been deeply affected by the influence of Bengali language and culture. The Manipuris

are usually strict vegetarians and farmers; however, a shift in their food habits and livelihood

choices are noted now as many Manipuris are trying non-vegetarian food and different

professional options. As young generations prefer higher education and white-collar jobs, many

Manipuri members are migrating to cities to explore these opportunities. As a result, changes are

observed in Manipuri community practices and behaviours. In addition, the Manipuris have their

community laws and law-enforcement system called gram panchayat,22 which usually consists of

the elders, priests, and learned people of the village (Sinho, 2015). The gram panchayat tries to

resolve their community conflicts and problems internally instead of forwarding them to the

existing law enforcement system in Bangladesh (Sinho, 2015). Moreover, they have a community

support system for addressing community problems and providing assistance to the members in

need. The community members have said that the Manipuris do not have personal problems that

they have to deal with alone; they are always community problems and the community solves

them collectively (Manipuri participants 7, 13, & 27, personal communication, August 5–22,

2019). These practices are disappearing, though the Manipuris have deep respect for them.

According to a study done by the Ethnic Community Development Organization (ECDO),

80% of Manipuris are literate, though the rate of higher education is low (Ahmmed & Singh,

22 Rural local self-governance system.

19

2009). The numbers also vary in three communities; according to the community participants, the

Bishnupriya Manipuris have a higher literacy rate than the Meitei and Pangan Manipuris

(Manipuri participants 2 & 27, personal communication, August 16 & 10, 2019).

Chakma Community

The Chakmas, a hill tract Adibashi group, live in three Chittagong Hill Tract districts—

Rangamati, Khagrachari, and Bandarban—and in some parts of Cox’s Bazar in Bangladesh (see

Figure 3). The Chakmas also live in many parts of India, such as Mijoram, Arunachal, and

Tripura, and some parts of Myanmar. The Chakmas are the largest Adibashi group in Bangladesh,

with a population of about half a million (Dewan, 2007). They are the descendants of the

Mongoloid race (Dhamai, 2014) but speak an Indo-Aryan language and use a writing script that is

often called a “corrupt” combination of Bengali and Burmese alphabets23 (Mohsin, 1997, p. 12).

Although a contested narrative exists regarding the ancestry and evolution of the Chakmas,

according to the most popular narrative, the Chakmas lived in Champaknagar24 and then in

Arakans, the present-day Chittagong Hill Tracts (Mohsin, 1997; Chakma, 2015).

Figure 3

The location of CHT Adibashi population

23 Their words are from Sanskrit, Pali, and Prakrito. However, many people have included them in the Sino-Tibetan language group. Chakma language, which is often called a corrupt Bangla, has gone through a huge change due to the over influence of Bangla (Chakma, 2015). 24 A trace of this place has not been found.

20

Note: From “Land Rights of the Indigenous Peoples of the Chittagong Hill Tracts, Bangladesh”

by R. C. Roy. IWGIA Document No. 99, Copenhagen 2000, p. 20–21. Copyright 2000 IWGIA

and Rajkumari Chandra Kalindi Roy.

The Chakmas are mainly Buddhist but they have many influences and rituals from their

ancient religion Aghortara. They celebrate Maghi Purnima, Boishakhi Purnima, Modhu Purnima,

and many other practices from Buddhism (Chakma, 2015). Due to missionary education and

NGOs, many Chakmas are accepting Christianity now. Bizhu is their biggest cultural festival,

which they celebrate for three consecutive days, performing three different forms of rituals:

fulbizhu, mulbizhu, and nuobojhor25 (Chakma, 2015).

25 Bizhu celebration starts with the last day of the Bengali calendar and continues for the next two days. The

first day is for cleaning; the second day is for socialization, games, and dance; and the third day is for religious and social activities.

21

The Chakma society is still agricultural; it was completely based on Jumm cultivation26

before but now the system also includes plough cultivation27 and gardening (Chakma, 2015).

Jumm cultivation was not only a livelihood option for the Chakmas, but it was also entrenched in

the Chakma social structure; the Chakmas cultivated, grew, and stored food in groups for the

community. In every community, there was one common food reservoir that served community

food necessity (Chakma participant 13, personal communication, June 29, 2019). They also had

community gardens and graveyards. This structure is almost non-existent now, especially after

the construction of the Kaptai dam28; most communities were displaced, thus losing their

community ties and traditions.

Like most Adibashi groups, the Chakmas also believe in community-based land practices

and the traditional land management system, a concept different from the modern land ownership

system. They do not believe in the land-ownership concept; rather, they believe in maintaining a

land–people relationship and passing down the land to the community’s next generations

(Dhamai, 2014). Therefore, land documentation is an alien concept to them, but the state does not

recognize their traditional land rights and has enacted discriminatory land laws against their

system; thereby, the Chakmas, like other Adibashis, are losing their lands to the state and Bengali

settlers due to appropriation laws and lack of documentation (Chakma, 2014).

Among all the Adibashis, the Chakmas are the most educated. The literacy rate is 37.7%

(Rafi & Chowdhury, 2001), which is higher than any other community. Being displaced from

their lands and community practices after the construction of the Kaptai dam, the Chakmas took

26 Swidden cultivation, or shifting cultivation, or slash-and-burn cultivation 27 This is a cultivation method that is usually applied in plain land and uses plough as a tool to loosen the

soil before sowing the seeds. 28 The construction of the Kaptai Dam, Kaptai Lake, and Karnafully Hydropower Station in the CHT in the early 1960s has displaced about 100,000 Adibashis (70% were Chakmas) from their lands and homes (Chakma, 2021).

22

shelter in the mainstream education system, seeking their salvation (Chakma participant 13,

personal communication, June 29, 2019).

1.4.2 The Education System in Bangladesh

Bangladesh inherited its education system from its British colonial past (Ali, 1986, as

cited in Rahman et al., 2010). It is comprised of three tiers: primary (class one–five),29

secondary (class six–twelve), and tertiary level (starting from undergraduate studies). Secondary

education, the longest schooling period, is divided into three sub-stages: junior (class six–eight),

secondary (nine–ten), and higher secondary (eleven–twelve) (Begum & Farooqui, 2008). Each

stage of this schooling ends with a public examination that certifies the graduation of students.

Also, following the past colonial system, three parallel streams exist in the secondary education

system: general, madrasah, and technical or vocational education. General education focuses on

secular culture while madrasah30 education emphasizes the Islamic religious aspects. Technical or

vocational education presents a practical view of education, providing courses on applied science,

technology, and engineering. There is also an English version of education that follows the

national curriculum.

Apart from these parallel streams of public education, there is private and non-formal

education in Bangladesh. Although the primary education is free for all, there are private

kindergarten schools that combine national and British curricula, which are taking over the role of

public primary education in urban areas. More than 98% of the secondary educational institutions

29 Although the National Education Policy of 2010 has mentioned that primary education will be of eight years long instead of five and there will be a one-year, mandatory pre-primary education, this system has

not been implemented yet. 30 Students complete all the courses from general education with an extra focus on Arabic and religious education in the madrasah system.

23

are privately run (Bangladesh Bureau of Educational Information and Statistics-BANBEIS,

2014), though most of the cost is covered by the government fund. Most importantly, there is a

growing number of privately run, English medium schools, which follow the British curriculum

and General Certificate of Examination (GCE) syllabus. English medium students prepare for O

level and A level examinations—equivalent to SSC and HSC in Bangladesh31—which are

conducted by the British council. In addition, the NGO (non-government organization) run

schools offer non-formal education, which mostly serves the marginalized communities.

However, it is a short-term education that is usually limited to three to five years of schooling.

Given the circumstances in recent years, a strong inclination to the privatization of the

education system has been noted in Bangladesh. Private education is slowly becoming the

primary engine of “quality” education, which promotes the commodification of education,

making it more inaccessible to the socio-economically marginalized groups. In addition, such

privatization fuels the test competition and education business, and benefits the Bengali elites

who promote the egocentric, nationalist values and the affluent groups who can afford private

education. While promoting the Eurocentric values of homogenization, as well as the political

and economic benefits of the elites which exclude non-dominant languages, cultures, and

identities, this capitalist approach to education further contributes to the hegemonic view of

nationalism in Bangladesh.

1.4.2.1 The Standardized, High-Stakes Testing System in Bangladesh

The standardized, high-stakes testing system in Bangladesh is also rooted in the colonial

history of education in South Asia as the public examination is a direct British inheritance (Doha,

2015). Following the London University rule, the British government introduced a system of

31 Secondary School Certificate (SSC) and Higher Secondary Certificate (HSC)

24

entrance examinations for students to mark the completion of high school education, which would

allow citizens to prepare for jobs and post-secondary education (Doha, 2015). Although initially

this exam was controlled by the British universities, later local Indian universities were assigned

to conduct the exams. The legacy of an entrance exam still continues in Bangladesh in different

names and forms through the establishment of different education boards regionally. The system

serves the same purposes, though the curriculum and textbooks have gone through a series of

changes.

The National Education Policy (NEP) (2010) and National Curriculum (2012) clearly

indicate the significance of tests in evaluating students’ learning achievement and cognitive

development. Therefore, tests were introduced at every level of education. The

continuous/continual evaluation32 is emphasized for class one and two, but students at class three

and onwards have to face at least three exams each year and four public examinations before they

start post-secondary education (NEP, 2010). However, the government has recently drafted a new

curriculum (2020) that aims to reduce the multiple layers of public examinations and bring a

change in the testing structure (The Draft of National Curriculum, 2020). Although the

implementation plan of the new curriculum targets the academic year 2022, many experts have

expressed their doubts about this impractical implementation plan (Ahmed, 2020). Articulating

their concerns about the enactment of the National Education Policy (2010), they said that the

major changes in the curriculum require specific institutional capacity and competent teachers. In

addition, extensive teacher training and clear guidelines on new pedagogic and assessment

strategies are indispensable, which the plan has not addressed yet (Ahmed, 2020).

32 It is a kind of formative assessment which includes multiple informal assessment strategies in class to evaluate students’ progress.

25

The public examinations in Bangladesh are standardized and bear heavy consequences.

Before students reach the post-secondary level, they have to pass four public examinations in

Bangladesh: class five, eight, ten, and twelve. Historically, Bangladesh had two public

examinations—SSC (Secondary School Certificate) and HSC (Higher Secondary Certificate)—

but in 2009, two more public examinations were introduced—PECE (Primary Education

Completion Examination) and JSC (Junior School Certificate). Students sit for their first public

examination, PECE, at the age of ten or eleven, which is an inappropriate age for any high-stakes

test. These are achievement tests in nature; they not only determine the promotion of students to

the next level but also shape their modes of further education, life decisions, and careers (Sultana,

2018). As a result, the incorporation of more tests in early childhood education has enhanced the

test stress and stakes more by introducing the screening process at an early stage. What has added

more stress to the scenario is that these examinations take place only once in a year. The system

does not offer any alternative arrangements for the students who fail or miss the tests; in these

cases, the stakes are higher as the students have to wait for the next year to take the test again

before they can advance. Given the heavy stakes of these examinations, the tests have a bearing

on the students’ social status, too. The test results are publicly released and make national news

every year in Bangladesh (Sultana, 2018), which enhances the social value of the tests.

The public examinations have standardized provisions operated by a central

administrative system in Bangladesh. For example, the dates and test cent res are scheduled and

decided centrally. The test centres and invigilators are usually different from students’ own

schools and teachers. Also, the test questions are set centrally and the test scripts are distributed

anonymously among the certified and trained examiners who follow a standardized rubric to

evaluate the test scripts (National Curriculum and Textbook Board-NCTB, 2012), which is often

26

influenced by the political ideologies and goals. In addition, eleven education boards33 work

under the provision of the Ministry of Education to administer the public examinations, JSC, SSC

and HSC, at secondary levels. Also, the Ministry of Mass and Primary Education operates the

primary education curriculum, and decides on PECE examinations. Thus, the whole education

system is operated through a decision-making process at the top of the system.

1.4.3 Historical Background

Exploring the history can explain how the relationship between the Bengalis and

Adibashis has been shaped and reshaped by various historical and political events. Therefore, in

this section, I provide a historical background of Bangladesh, highlighting significant events,

transitions, and movements (See Appendix B).

The form of nationalism that would represent the real essence of Bengali identity is

deeply ingrained in its pre-colonial history. Analyzing the 3000 years of pre-colonial history

(Hindu-Muslim and Indigenous history) of Bangladesh (Bangladesh Bureau of Statistics-BBS,

2012) clearly explains the syncretistic culture—an admixture of multiple religious, cultural, and

linguistic traditions—developed through the historical interaction among the forces of different

faiths and cultures (Osmany, 1992). It originated in the pre-Aryan34 Indigenous cultures, is

shaped by the interaction between Vedic35 and Buddhism after the Aryans arrived,36 and is

complemented by its correlation with the Muslims in Bengal. Due to the thousand years of

interactions among different groups, Bengal or Banga developed a tolerant, co-existent,

pluralistic culture.

33 Dhaka, Rajshahi, Sylhet, Chittagong/Chottogram, Comilla/Cumilla, Khulna, Barisal/Barishal, Rangpur,

and Dinajpur are regional boards. Madrasah and Technical are two alternative education boards. 34 There was a Neolithic culture in Bengal before the Aryans’ arrival; this culture was formed through the interactions among various groups that came to this land, such as Negritos, Proto-Austroloid, Quasi-Negroid, Dravidian, and Mongolian (Rafi, 2017). 35 Later an evolution of Vedic cultures, which had diverse branches, were framed as Hinduism in the British period. 36 About three or four thousand years ago, the Aryans arrived in Bengal; they were nomadic and hunters, but their culture transformed into an agricultural system after they arrived in Bengal (Rafi, 2017).

27

This culture of co-existence was distorted by the colonial experiences and its consequent

nation-building process (Mohsin, 1997). The notion of nationalism in Bangladesh (see chapter 3)

which exists today is imported to this land by the elites educated in Western universities during

the British colonial period. The beginning of Bengali/Bangladeshi nationalism was embedded in

“a series of political twists and turns” marking Muslim separatism in the early 1900s, though the

divide-and-rule37 policies of British rule had carefully crafted the distinctions between the

religious identities long before (Kabir, 1994, p. 30). The quest of the Muslims of Bengal for a

separate identity continued even after Indian nationalism—which dreamt of an independent

Indian subcontinent— was formed, as the nationalist objectives were too vivid for the Muslims to

identify with (Kabir, 1994). Such a trend of emphasizing one aspect of identity over others in the

formation of nationalism was “subject to vicissitudes” and necessary during that time (Kabir,

1994, p. 15), but this process excluded many local particularities. Following Ghulam Kabir

(1994), here I illustrate the evolution of nationalism in three different phases during the 20th

century.

1.4.3.1 First Phase (1900–1947)

The initial phase of the evolution of the present Bengali nationalism was first connected

to the socio-economic, marginalized position38 of Bengali Muslims, which later gave rise to their

quest for a separate political identity. The partition of Bengal in 1905 was a blessing in disguise

for the Muslims as it brought financial,39 political,40 and educational41 benefits for them. The

37 The first scientific census in 1871 showed the categorization of Indian people based on religious identities (Garcia, 2015). The Hindu and Muslim Law, various differentiated laws, the inheritance law, and

many more have intensified the division. 38 The Muslims in Bengal were usually of low social status and poor economic conditions while the Hindus used to occupy most of the advantageous employment positions because of their colonial education (Kabir, 1994). 39 The Muslims eventually occupied more government positions. Also, Dhaka, being the centre of East Bengal, flourished in business. 40 A provision for a separate Muslim electorate was legislated in 1909 (Osmany, 1992; Kabir, 1994). 41 Muslim students rose from 3% to 14% in 1908 (Kabir, 1994).

28

partition, followed by the formation of the Muslim League in 1906 and rise of the Muslim middle

class, gradually constructed a Muslim identity that later evolved into a political framework of

Muslim nationalism42 (Kabir, 1994). While this Muslim consciousness allowed them to negotiate

with the British government for their socio-economic benefits, the annulment of the partition of

Bengal in 1911 at the continuous plea of Bengali Hindus since its enactment in 1905 further

intensified the division between the Muslims and Hindus in Bengal. Eventually, the political

consciousness based on the distinct religious identities became strong among the Hindu and

Muslim leaders. Therefore, several attempts43 to restore Hindu-Muslim unity to form an anti-

British movement later, in fact, could not fix the rupture. Rather, the division among the religious

leaders was further reinstated due to the Hindu leaders’ reluctance to accept separate electorates

for the Muslims and the Muslim League leaders’ fear of losing the value of Muslim communalists

under the shadow of Congress leaders44(Osmany, 1992; Kabir, 1994). The political demand for

distinctiveness among the leaders eventually led to the development of “two nations theory”45—

Indian and Pakistani nationalisms (Khondker, 2016). So, the Muslim separatism that was initiated

through socio-economic deprivation was later reinforced by the fight for political rights and

elective offices in the region (Kabir, 1994).

In addition, Muslim leaders in Bengal were divided based on class issues. While the

Muslim League directed by the elites was representing Muslim nationalism through its emphasis

42 The partition of Bengal was followed by some significant events that led to the construction of Muslim nationalism later: the formation of Muslim League in 1906, the establishment of Dhaka university in 1921, the rise of the educated Muslim middle class in Bengal, the increased state patronage of the British government for Muslim education and employment, intense antagonism against the Hindu Bengalis, and the annulment of the partition in 1911 (Kabir, 1994). 43 The Khilafat Movement, a pan-Islamic movement of the Muslims, was supported by the Hindus in India. Also, in 1923, the Bengal Pact between the Hindus and Muslims aimed to ensure separate electorates for the Muslims (Kabir, 1994). 44 Congress, formed in 1885, was the first political party in British India, which promoted Indian nationalism and later led the Indian Independence Movement. 45 In the India Muslim League conference in 1940, Mohammad Ali Jinnah, founding father of Pakistan,

articulated this theory that believes Muslims and Hindus are two distinct nations having different customs, traditions, religions, and values, and they cannot share the same land (Kabir, 1994).

29

on Muslim solidarity, the Muslim middle class and peasants in East Bengal were organized under

the Krishak Proja Party46 (Peasant Tenant Party–KPP) in the 1937 provincial election47 (Kabir,

1994). This division not only marked the differences in political ideologies of different Muslim

leaders but also indicated the regional alliance of the groups.48 Although the dream for an

independent Muslim nation surpassed Bengali cultural aspects in the identity formation process

and built a strong Muslim solidarity, the distinctions in political and cultural ideologies between

the leaders of the two groups were emphasized right after the partition in 1947.49

In each phase of the nation-building process, Adibashi groups were not incorporated as

the exclusionary British policies50 kept them distanced from the nationalist movements in Bengal.

Neither Congress nor the Muslim League addressed these groups, though the Muslim League

leaders asked for the incorporation of CHT into Pakistan during the partition (Mohsin, 1997). In

addition, the British divide-and-rule policy51 did not allow Adibashi elites to mobilize and

develop any well-crafted plans for their distinct native-states (Mohsin, 1997). However, the

different circle chiefs,52 leaders of three administrative zones in CHT, first appealed for their

46 Fazlul Huq, a Bengali Muslim, was the leader of the party. 47 The election polarized the political elements into two distinct groups. The Muslim League represented

the aristocracy in the western wing and promoted Islam, and the Krishak Proja Party represented the middle class and small land-holders promoting the agrarian culture of Bengali peasant Muslims (Kabir, 1994). 48 Because of the skilled craftmanship of the Muslim League leaders to unite two political groups to build a strong Muslim solidarity, the local loyalties and considerations were undermined for a separate Muslim state during the anti-colonial movement (Kabir, 1994). Although the elites of the Muslim League gained

support from the major KPP leaders for an independent Muslim national identity, the political understanding of the middle class and rural peasants in East Bengal was always distinct from the political ideologies of Muslim elites (Kabir, 1994). 49 The partition of greater India gave birth to two independent nation-states: Pakistan and India. Pakistan was comprised of two geographically separated regions: East Pakistan and West Pakistan. East Pakistan later became independent as Bangladesh in 1971. 50 Different tribal regions were declared as excluded regions in Bengal to protect the political, economic, and administrative interests of the British (Mohsin, 1997). 51 There were three local chiefs in the hill tracts for Chakma, Marma, and Tripura groups whom the British played against each other and exploited to gain power over the region (Mohsin, 1997). 52 The CHT was divided into three Circles, administrative unites, which were placed under a chief appointed by the British government. This system helped the British government to turn the local chiefs

into their instruments to legitimate their authority as the main administrative power was at the hand of District Commissioners who were British agents (Mohsin, 1997).

30

distinct native-states, and later wanted to be incorporated into India, which the British did not

even consider during the partition (Chowdhury, 2016).

1.4.3.2 Second Phase (1947–1971)

The second phase saw the reappearance of Bengali cultural and linguistic identity that

was “pushed to the back seat” during the anti-colonial movement when the Bengalis received the

first blow of Pakistani nationalism to their linguistic identity (Kabir, 1994, p. 122). Right after the

partition in 1947, the government of Pakistan declared Urdu to be the state language of Pakistan

whereas Bangla was the mother tongue of the people of East Pakistan53 (Kabir, 1994). Pakistani

elites imposed Muslim identity, culture, and language (Urdu) on Bengali Muslims to integrate

them into the “pure” Pakistani Islamic culture and change their adherence to the secular Bengali

identity, which the elites considered non-Islamic. This imposition turned the Bengalis more

towards their ethnic identity, creating new symbols, slogans, and myths; thereby Bengali

nationalism based on linguistic and cultural identity ensued (Osmany, 1992; Kabir, 1994) (see

chapter 3 & 5).

The linguistic marginalization of the Bengalis was also followed by economic,

administrative, and political discrimination. The exclusion of Bengali leaders from the central

cabinet persuaded them to mobilize under a separate political party, the Awami Muslim League,

formed in 1949 (Kabir, 1994). In addition, multiple discriminatory policies and practices of

Pakistani elites intensified the Bengalis’ secular national identity and, eventually, consolidated a

dream for a separate independent nation in East Bengal. Specifically, their dissatisfaction was

triggered by the issues, like the authoritarian and undemocratic structure of central leadership, the

economic deprivation of Bengali peasants and the middle class, biased employment policies, the

53 East Bengal or present-day Bangladesh. Around 56% of Pakistan’s population spoke Bangla.

31

extreme Muslim nationalism of Pakistani elites, the crisis in constitution making, the transition to

military leadership, and the dismissal of several cabinets and coalition governments. These

discriminations led Bengalis to wage a nine-month liberation war in 1971 and win independence

(Kabir, 1994). The emergence of cultural nationalism based on the linguistic and cultural aspects

of the Bengalis was thus reinforced by the necessity of economic nationalism permeating political

nationalism in Bangladesh (Khondker, 2016).

Bengali nationalism, which emphasized Bangla language and culture, flourished to its

greatest extent during the liberation war, or the Bangladesh war of independence (March–

December 1971). Although referring to this as the war of the Bengalis might have addressed the

sentiment of Bengali Hindus, it failed to include the ethnic minorities or non-Bengalis in

Bangladesh. In fact, the liberation war generated enemy narratives against the Adibashis based on

the role one played in the war. The narrative projected many Adibashis as suspicious groups who

possessed an anti-liberation motive, though the political elites failed to incorporate them into the

movement, as well as into the national identity. Moreover, the criteria to join Mukti Bahini

(liberation force) was politicized, prejudiced, and ambiguous, which prevented many Adibashis

from participating in the war.54 Because of such exclusionary approaches by Bengali elites, many

Adibashis were confused about their role in the movement and war. Despite these exclusions,

many Adibashis participated in the war, which the extreme Bengali nationalist groups did not

acknowledge; in fact, the leaders possessed an antagonistic approach towards them.

54 The construction of national identity entirely excluded the Adibashis and the selection of the national anthem, naming of Bangladesh as the land of Bengali, a generalized call of the political leaders addressing

the Bengalis to participate in the war, and most importantly, identification of the war as the fight of the Bengalis have alienated the Adibashis from every angle. Besides, many Adibashis could not join the Mukti Bahini (liberation force) due to a dubious criterion that determined the eligibility of participating in the war through the affiliation with the Awami League (Mohsin, 1997). This process prevented many from participating and those who joined had to return because of the discriminatory attitudes of the Bengalis towards them in the camp (Mohsin, 1997). As a result, many Adibashi leaders were confused about the role

they needed to play. While some leaders, such as Mong Raja, participated directly in the war, some remained non-committal or neutral and a few joined the Pakistani force (Mohsin, 1997).

32

1.4.3.3 Third Phase (1971–Present)

In the third phase, nationalism achieved its most convoluted form as independence could

not end the quest for Bengal identity in Bangladesh, which I will discuss in three stages: Bengali

nationalism, Bangladeshi nationalism, and a contested stage.

Firstly, during the era of Sheikh Mujibar Rahman55—the leader of the independence

movement and first President of independent Bangladesh—Bengali elites continued to promote

secular Bengali nationalism focused on Bengali culture and language,56 which excluded the non-

Bengali Adibashi groups. Even if one assumes that such homogenous national identity was

necessary for making an independent Bangladesh possible in 1971, the conscious attempts to craft

a new national identity in independent Bangladesh on exclusionary terms was extremely repulsive

for its non-Bengali groups.57 Sheikh Mujibar Rahman, who dreamt of an independent Bangladesh

based on a secular identity, could not conceive an inclusive national identity that addressed the

Adibashis in Bangladesh. Instead, being blinded by his self-promoted Bengali nationalism, he

repeatedly asserted the sole existence of Bengali people in Bangladesh and, in fact, threatened58

to diminish the existence and identities of the Adibashis (Mohsin, 1997). However, this national

identity also could not satisfy the majority of Bengali Muslims who fought for a separate nation

based on its Bengali identity (Kabir, 1994). Secularization of media and education 59 created

discontent among ordinary people as they had not given up their Muslim identity (Kabir, 1994).

Mass dissatisfaction further intensified when the democratically elected government took an

authoritarian turn while failing to address the economic crisis of a newly formed state. As a result,

Sheikh Mujib brought a twist of Islamization to his public policies and education in the later

55 1971–1975. 56 Secularism became one of the constitutional principles. 57 The first attempt was to exclude the Adibashis constitutionally and reject their call to acknowledge their separate identities. 58 Even a threat of transforming the Adibashis into minority was given by the then leader (Mohsin, 1997). 59 The first education commission of Bangladesh, formed during Sheikh Mujib’s era, secularized the

education system and removed the Islamic practices and ideologies to emphasize secular Bengali identity (Qazi & Shah, 2019).

33

period of his regime to address the growing mass dissatisfaction, as well as attract Arab financial

support for the post-independence broken economy (Kabir, 1994). Thus, the political path to

exclusion and discrimination was reinforced in independent Bangladesh.

Secondly, after Sheikh Mujib’s death ,60 the form of nationalism evolved from Bengali to

Bangladeshi with an emphasis on a Muslim identity. Through his legitimacy doctrine of this

identity, General Ziaur Rahman61 continued authoritarian rule with military supports but with a

civilian mask based on his promoted Bangladeshi nationalism (Kabir, 1994). This new form of

nationalism focused on both Bengali and Muslim identity with its territorial aspect .62 Though

Bangladeshi nationalism was not fundamentalist63 in nature, its pro-Islamic promotions64 gave

rise to some fundamentalist political parties and grounded the Islamization process in

Bangladesh. After Zia’s assassination in 1981, Bangladeshi nationalism became more Islamicized

by de-emphasizing the “Bengaliness” of the identity (Mohsin, 1997) and establishing Islam as a

state religion during General Ershad’s military regime.65 Such a shift in the national identity also

infiltrated the socio-political structure of Bangladesh, as well as the education system, by

Islamicizing the policies and curriculum.66 Although Bangladeshi nationalism is often interpreted

60 Sheikh Mujibar Rahman, along with his family members, was assassinated in an army coup on August

15, 1975. 61 General Zia was the founding leader of the Bangladesh Nationalist Party. He was also a freedom fighter. 62 General Zia changed one of the constitutional principles, “secularism,” by the “Absolute trust and faith in Almighty Allah” to signify the Islamic identity of Bangladeshi nationalism. Bangladeshi nationalism focused on both Bengali and Muslim identity and identified the people who live in Bangladesh as Bangladeshi. Later, Zia claimed seven factors of Bangladeshi nationalism: territory, people (irrespective of

religion), Bengali language, culture, economy, religion, and the legacy of the 1971 liberation war (Kabir, 1994). 63 Zia emphasized the territorial difference between the Bengalis of East and West Bengal. 64 Zia used Islamic proclamations in his speeches and in the media, incorporated Islamic education in the school curriculum, and established madrasahs (Osmany, 1992; Kabir, 1994). 65 After the assassination of General Zia, President Lieutenant General Hossain Mohammed Ershad came

into power in 1982 through a military coup and continued his martial law until 1985. He fo rmed a political party titled Jatiya Dal (JP) and pretended to win two elections that were boycotted by other political parties. All the power was in the hands of the President and the parliament was a rubber-stamp institution under the control of Ershad’s party. No form of media had any freedom (Kabir, 1994). 66 After 1975, education was gradually Islamicized, promoting a “pseudo-Islamic Bangladeshi identity” when the military regimes of General Zia and General Ershad changed the form of national identity from

secular identity to Muslim Bengali identity (Rahman et al., 2010, p. 120). For example, Islamiat was introduced as a compulsory subject for Muslim students from class one to eight and as an elective subject

34

as a notion of bringing totality to the Bengali national identity and possessing a possible

integrative force to incorporate the non-Bengali identities within the framework of territorial

nationalism67 (Mohsin, 2013), the Adibashis remained excluded on ethnic, linguistic, and

religious terms.

Thirdly, after the democracy movement of 1990–1991,68 which formally ended the rule

of the military, the politics of nationalism reached its extremely contested state. Since then, the

country’s political system has been controlled by two major political parties (Awami League-AL

and Bangladesh Nationalist Party-BNP),69 with an exception of a two-year break70 during 2007–

2008. Following their predecessors, these two parties manipulated one aspect of identity over

another at different points of their rules to draw attention from the majority community (Mohsin,

1997). Both secular and Islamic identity have been exploited for the purpose of consolidating the

political support base. Remaining “confrontational and non-cooperative” to each other and

adherent to their “egoistic and self-defeating strategy,” both parties displayed their “monopolistic

tendency to capture power and grab lootable state resources” causing “political instability and

uncertainty” for the ruling elites (Hossain, 2015, p. 369). In addition, both parties made their

“concession towards Islamists” (Rozario & Samuel, 2010, as cited in Khondker, 2016, p. 37)

for class nine and ten during the regime of General Zia (Osmany, 1992). Later, Ershad’s regime made Arabic a mandatory subject for primary and secondary education (Kabir, 1994). 67 Moudud Ahmed, the Deputy Prime Minister during the Zia regime, pointed out the inclusive nature of

Bangladeshi nationalism as it identified people with the state, not with the ethnic origin. So, he mentioned , this nationalism incorporated the possibility of receiving acceptance from the CHT Adibashis as Manobendra Larma, a Chakma parliamentary member, contested the idea of Bengali nationalism in Bangladesh parliament in 1972 (Mohsin, 2013). 68 During the Ershad regime, both AL and BNP tried to protest the authoritarian military rule through strikes and demonstrations; however, the lack of unity between the groups weakened the protest. In October

1990, when the student groups and leaders from both parties were united against the military regime and combined to form a civic movement for Ershad’s resignation, the movement widely received the common people’s support and acceptance. With the growing expansion of the movement, Ershad resigned on December 4, 1990. The democratic government started with a large-scale, free election and a new form of parliamentary system with Khaleda Zia as the prime minister in 1991. 69 The AL holds onto Bengali nationalism while the BNP holds onto Bangladeshi nationalism. 70 A caretaker government was usually formed for administering the elections. In 1997, the caretaker government delayed the elections for two years and was in charge of governing the country.

35

when needed, thereby promoting Islamization of polices and education.71 In addition, the present

political power (AL) has been engaged in “Awami League-cizing” the country, promoting their

sole contribution in the independent movement in the name of Bengali nationalism, while

compromising their secular ideologies with Islamic fundamentalism. These situations have been

marked by elite conflicts as they resist the formation of a syncretistic national identity (Hossain,

2015). Thus, the narrative of national political identity has been directed more towards achieving

and perpetuating political power and benefit rather than representing the people and their

identities.

Following their predecessors, both political parties have showed their like-mindedness in

excluding and exploiting Adibashi communities. When it comes to giving the Adibashis their

political right of distinct identity, both parties find this threatening to national unity and

sovereignty. Both Bengali and Bangladeshi nationalism have produced a thick narrative of

building a cohesive society by excluding different ethno-religious minorities either based on

cultural or religious identity, or both. Thus, the evolution of identity formation in Bangladesh has

seen a transition from cultural syncretism to cultural fundamentalism.

1.5 Structure of the Dissertation

This dissertation is comprised of seven chapters. The current chapter introduces the research

topic, provides contextual information, and states the research questions and objectives, and

research contributions. It also provides a detailed background of Bangladesh and its Adibashi

communities, the education and assessment structure, and, most importantly, the historical

discussion on the politics of nationalism.

71 Both political parties, AL and BNP, used textbooks as a medium to show their contributions to the nation-building process. While AL wants to promote themselves as the sole contributor to the independence movement of Bangladesh, BNP wants to deny that contribution and emphasize the contribution of their

own leaders. Moreover, the narratives of the history are fabricated by juxtaposing the selected events of the near-past to evoke the national identity and detestation for “others” (Ghosh, 2012).

36

In the second chapter, I discuss my methodological choices and procedures for

conducting this study. I show how I combined various methods and tools in order to gain an in -

depth understanding of the topic and collect data from multiple sources. I also discuss how I

analyzed my data and developed the major themes of this study. I present my positionality in this

research and demonstrate the ways in which I tried to minimize my power position and develop

trust among the participants.

In the third chapter, I develop an analytical framework of domination and

exploitation/exclusion, connecting the facets of nationalism in Bangladesh and principles of the

standardized, high-stakes testing system. The framework addresses issues at two levels: macro

and micro. While the macro-level discussion identifies the exclusionary and assimilative

ideologies of nationalist politics that discriminate against Adibashis, the micro-level illustration

provides a theoretical discussion on the political and cultural biases of the standardized, high-

stakes testing system and its exclusionary practices against non-dominant students. The

discussion also establishes a connection between the nationalist politics of Bangladesh and high-

stakes testing practices.

In the fourth chapter, I analyze one of the major themes of the dissertation, linguistic

subjugation, reproduced by the education language policy. This chapter elucidates how the

language policy in the education and testing system creates negative educational experiences for

Adibashi students by generating learning barriers, establishing the supremacy of Bangla, and

producing a sense of shame and embarrassment among the students. Then, this chapter elaborates

on how these experiences persuade Adibashi students to change their linguistic preferences,

thereby impacting their Adibashi identities.

In the fifth chapter, I first define Bengaliness and the Bengalicization project, and then

show how the national curriculum, including the standardized, high-stakes testing system,

establishes Bengaliness as a norm and standard, and persuades Adibashi students to accept the

37

system. While identifying homogenizing practices as the Bengalicization process, I show how the

national curriculum endorses the dominant knowledge system and promotes the assimilative

attitudes of the elites to disseminate the dominant values among the Adibashis, thereby

stigmatizing their knowledge systems.

In the sixth chapter, I define colonial consciousness and explain how the high-stakes

testing system operates a control over Adibashi students’ learning, identity, and social role. I also

show how this control is the power of Bengali elites that infiltrates the consciousness of the

Adibashis, reproducing their colonial subjugation.

The last chapter offers some concluding remarks based on the findings of this dissertation

and indicates how this study fills in some gaps in the existing literatures. It also highlights some

directions for future research.

38

Chapter 2

Methodology

2.1 Introduction

“Do you want to know my story?” I was surprised by the sudden question of Manu,1 a

30-year-old Chakma man and office assistant at a school; he was showing me the road in

Khagrachari2 after I finished my interview with a schoolteacher. We stopped by a river and talked

for an hour. I did not need any formalities, such as asking for his consent or providing

information on my research. He started telling the stories of how he had to stop his studies and

start working, which he would never have shared before because leaving school was not a

surprising occurrence in his community. Knowing that I visited the school for an interview, he

wanted to share what he had experienced. I realized that research does not always follow the

ways that the researcher expects.

In this chapter, I illustrate the methodological choices of this research, including various

methods, approaches, and tools that I have employed for collecting and analyzing the narratives

of the Adibashis, as well as other data and insights. As this study examines the standardized,

high-stakes testing system in Bangladesh and its nationalist and colonial approach towards the

Adibashis, I engaged the community members and have incorporated their voices into this

investigation, thereby reflecting their experiences of marginalization and subjugation created by

this testing system. While the queries and focused population of this research have necessitated

the incorporation of Adibashi voices on the one hand, time constraints, logistic issues, and my

non-Adibashi identity as a researcher posed many challenges to the implementation of such

mandates on the other hand. Therefore, I needed a methodological tool that could encompass a

1 Pseudo name. 2 A Chittagong Hill Tracts district in Bangladesh.

39

diversity of methods, addressing the interdisciplinary investigation of this research and, at the

same time, respecting the community norms and practices.

2.2 Fieldwork Qualitative Research

I have chosen a qualitative research method, with a focus on the field research method,

comprised of observations, case studies, semi-structured interviews, and secondary data; I believe

that the flexibility and broader scope of this method has allowed me to investigate and address a

range of issues. This research also takes insights from the principles of Community-Based

Research (CBR) and Indigenous Research Methodology (IRM); these principles helped me to

transform the techniques and tools of this research into culturally appropriate and respectful

practices. Moreover, this research needed this combination to address the power imbalance

embedded in my positionality, as well as the necessity to build trust and relationship with the

communities.

Fieldwork is the core of this qualitative research, providing a “keen” and “sensitive” lens

(Baker, 1999, p. 69) to receive an in-depth understanding and detailed insight of the participants’

world. Qualitative research collects and analyzes non-numerical data to gain a thorough

understanding of the inner world of the people; it describes the world of participants “from the

inside out,” showing their points of view (Flick et al., 2004, p. 3). Thereby, this method provides

a better “understanding of the social realities” and draws “attention to processes, meaning

patterns, and structural features” (Flick et al., 2004, p. 3). Besides, field research is a qualitative

method of obtaining a comprehensive knowledge of some social segments at the same time as it

connects to a broader social context. This method predominantly emphasizes observation, note-

taking, and interaction while developing an understanding of the social scenario and participants’

roles within a social structure (Baker, 1999). Field research is crucial to identify and analyze the

central characteristics of a particular social environment and its role in constructing certain social

behaviors (Baker, 1999). Therefore, this qualitative research engages an array of techniques, such

40

as observation, interviews with open-ended questions, and document/artifact analysis, to better

know the context without interfering with the natural environment (Blackstone, 2018).

Consequently, I have employed a spectrum of methods in this research. As this is partly a

bibliographical research about the impact of the standardized, high-stakes testing system on

Adibashi communities in Bangladesh, I develop an analytical framework of domination-

exploitation structure, drawing on the literatures of the politics of nationalism and the testing

system (see chapter 3). This research is also case-study-based and investigates the example of

Bangladesh, with a special focus on its ethnic minority groups. This specific case study focuses

on an in-depth investigation of the fragments of two Adibashi communities in order to develop an

understanding of the bigger picture of the Adibashis in Bangladesh. To investigate the case in the

field, first I applied various observation strategies during my stay. I tried to “immerse” myself in

the situation without being forceful while I observed the field and participants (Baker, 1999, p.

46). I have gathered my understanding both as a researcher and participant; I observed their

lifestyle, educational environment, and settings; interacted with community members; and

participated in the conversations of the interviews. Second, I conducted semi-structured, in-depth

interviews to collect stories from community participants regarding my research investigation. I

also interviewed some scholars who have expertise in the issues connected to Adibashi

communities in Bangladesh. Third, I collected relevant documents, reports, statistics, and many

other data from community elders, teachers, and writers in order to address the research statement

more holistically. That means, this research uses secondary data and published documents

collected from various government and non-government sources. Applying all of these methods

together provided me with a scope for the triangulation of the data, validating the accuracy of

information and considering the alternate explanations of contexts (Stake, 1995).

The case-study method complements the fieldwork and provides a “holistic” (Tellis,

1997, p. 1) and “intensive” insight into the field. This is a “systematic” investigation of an

41

individual, a group, a unit, or a community (Heale & Twycross, 2018, p. 7), or “a contemporary

phenomenon within its real-life context”; this method examines “in-depth data” or “contextual

realities” (Noor, 2008, p. 1602) based on different variables (Heale & Twycross, 2018). This

method takes into consideration a case or cases (Yin, 1984) and investigates the case or cases in

its real-life contexts, going beyond the quantitative statistical analysis; it explores the perspectives

of multiple actors and includes multiple forms of data, both qualitative and quantitative, to

illustrate different aspects of the phenomenon through an in-depth investigation (Tellis, 1997;

Cohen & Crabtree, 2006). Therefore, a case-study-based research method enables me to apply the

triangulation of data while considering not only the opinions and experiences of the individual,

but also others’ perspectives about their social world (Tellis, 1997).

In addition, this research is informed by the principles of the Community-Based Research

Method (CBRM) while engaging participants from Adibashi communities in Bangladesh. CBRM

is an overarching approach and collaborative inquiry that brings together university researchers

and community researchers; this method ensures equal participation of all community researchers

in decision-making, values the contribution of all researchers, and harvests knowledge and action

for achieving social change and justice (Minkler, 2004). Considering practicality, time

constraints, and the limited scope of this research for conducting a CBRM, this study could not

implement a complete collaborative method; however, it followed the principles of CBRM and

applied a semi-collaborative approach, making it more community-oriented and participatory

(Wallerstein & Darun, 2006). Instead of the community researchers or insider-researchers group,

I formed community advisory groups and took advice from them. They have provided me with an

insider perspective and shaped my research methods to a great extent. Their role is like a “liaison

person” or “cultural guide” (Minkler, 2005, p. ii4), contributing their cultural knowledge to my

methodological procedures, and thereby shaping my understanding of the communities and

informing my interview structures and communication strategies. To effectuate the participation

42

of the advisors, I followed their advice on community norms and practices and engaged them in

the interviews when possible. During the fieldwork, we worked as a team to decide on many

particularities of my communications and visits to different places. While engaging the advisors

in the research, I was able to establish an initial level of trust among the community members,

which reduced my distanced position to a great extent.

This research also takes some insights from Indigenous Research Methodology (IRM).

Apart from focusing on collaboration and participation, Indigenous research is defined as an

ethically sound and culturally appropriate method for Indigenous groups that involves Indigenous

ways of knowledge acquisition and dissemination (Porsanger, 2003). IRM centres around the

“relationality” or “relational accountability” (i.e., “being accountable to all your relationship”

[Wilson, 2008, p 177]). Establishing a kin relationship between “ourselves” and “others” (Bishop,

1996, as cited in Porsanger, 2003) is central to the Indigenous knowledge system. Although this

research did not follow IRM completely, it tried to respect Indigenous ways of knowing,

knowledge systems, and communication strategies. My non-Indigenous background and

Eurocentric educational training primarily obstructed my understanding to initiate an IRM.

However, my cultural roots and values and my new knowledge in cultural studies have developed

my understanding of IRM; thereby, I tried to implement many aspects of IRM in this study.

Especially, I applied a relational approach and storytelling method while interacting with

community members. I value my relationship with previous Adibashi students and strive to build

trust with the community members. Also, the data collection method has valued Indigenous ways

of knowing and practices by prioritizing trust-building efforts through pre-talk sessions and

storytelling methods for sharing personal narratives. In fact, the analysis incorporated the original

narratives of participants, respecting the experience of the Adibashi knowledge system. I believe

that my cultural upbringing in Bangladesh and non-Western ways of perceiving the kinship

43

connections did not alienate me from establishing relationality—a major IRM principle—

throughout this research.

2.2.1 Why This Combination of Methods and Tools?

The following two issues were considered in the selection of methods and tools for this

research: first, the nature of this research investigation, and second, ethical consideration. On the

one hand, this research sets out to examine the individual experience of Adibashis in education,

especially in the standardized, high-stakes testing system, and identify the facets of broader socio-

political constructs, which informed their experiences. Therefore, I visited the field to observe

and interact with the communities. I asked multiple questions: what they thought about the

education system; what their experiences were in schools; how they found the testing system;

what problems and difficulties they faced in this system; what impact the educational experiences

had on their community lives; what their overall expectations were in the education system; and

so on (see Appendix C & D). On the other hand, I had to consider the ethical issues, such as

power relationship, trust, and benefits of the communit ies while I engaged with

Indigenous/Adibashi communities who are marginalized in Bangladesh.

Given these core principles and values of this research, I have considered three reasons

for choosing my fieldwork, qualitative method with such combinations. First, this is an

interdisciplinary cultural studies research that necessitates a contextual investigation of cultural

identities and practices in the meaning-making and power-bearing functions from a variety of

perspectives (Winter, 2004). This study benefits from the framework of a qualitative research to

“subject the cultural forms, practices, and processes of contemporary societies to critical

investigation and analysis” (Winter, 2004, p. 115). Second, this method allows me to gain

insights from participants’ life experiences, thinking processes, and their socio-political world.

The “open” and “more involved” (Flick et al., 2005, p. 5) approach of qualitative field research

helps me to gather knowledge from various perspectives, and consider the diversity of Adibashi

44

participants’ perspectives, their unique contexts, and socio-political conditions that construct their

reality. Moreover, field research is very appropriate for identifying the role of a group or

community in its natural operation, receiving a clear picture of the situation, and identifying

“forces that are operating” (Baker, 1999, p. 68). Third, the flexibility of a qualitative method

helps me to incorporate a spectrum of methods (Baker, 1999; Flick et al., 2004), thereby adding a

high degree of relevancy to participants’ cultural practices and comfort. Such a scope of

customization provides me with an opportunity to achieve a high credibility and face validity of

this research and its objectives. For example, inspirations from CBRM and IRM enable me to

develop trust and relationship with community members in order to minimize the power

imbalance that my positionality possesses. I incorporate methods and approaches, such as a semi-

collaborative approach and conversational method or storytelling, and consider ways to ensure

participation, respect and trust-building efforts, power balance, and dissemination of research

results. Thus, the qualitative social research is a bricolage that can address all the practicalities

and diversities of its methodological process (Denzin & Lincoln, 1996, as cited in Winter, 2003).

So, conducting a qualitative research that has a scope of incorporating the inner world of

participants, as well as multiple other perspectives, allows me to investigate the research

questions from an objective perspective through the lens of subjective stories.

2.3 Data Collection

2.3.1 Conversational Method: Semi-Structured, In-Depth Interviews or Storytelling

Semi-structured interviews were the primary method of this fieldwork research for

understanding Adibashis’ experiences in education. I visited many places in Rangamati,

Khagrachari, Sylhet, and Moulvibazar to communicate with community members (see section

2.2.3) and arranged semi-structured interviews. This is one of the most effective forms of

interviewing in fieldwork qualitative research; these interviews are informal in tone and

conversational in nature (Longhurst, 2003), and are often termed as “soft” interviews, providing

45

more flexibility and scope to gather open responses from participants (Longhurst, 2003; Horton et

al., 2004; McIntosh & Morse, 2015). Semi-structured, in-depth interviews are highly compatible

with qualitative research for providing insight into participants’ inner worlds. While the objective

knowledge of this qualitative research constructed the framework for developing initial interview

prompts, the subjective knowledge of each participant continuously shaped or reshaped the

structure of further interviews (McIntosh & Morse, 2015). I found casualness, flexibility, and

exhaustiveness to be the key principles for successfully conducting the interviews.

Considering Adibashi community practices, I facilitated the interviews to take a

conversational turn through storytelling. Semi-structured, in-depth interviews embed a scope of

incorporating the storytelling approach in the conversation to elicit meaningful experiences from

participants (Mahat-Shamir et al., 2019) and engage participants into a “dialogic participation,”

which is “relational at its core” (Kovach, 2010, p. 40). Moreover, the conversational method or

storytelling is an Indigenous “method of gathering knowledge,” which is aligned “with an

Indigenous worldview that honors orality as a means of transmitting knowledge and upholds the

relationality which is necessary to maintain a collectivist tradition” (Kovach, 2010, p. 42).

Therefore, instead of planning a question-answer session, I transformed the interviews into

storytelling sessions, where participants, advisors, and I were engaged in in-depth conversations,

sharing our personal stories. This method thus allowed me to participate in the conversation and

share my stories, and then listen to theirs. This process transformed the interviews into

collaborative storying, which enabled me to deepen the bond and trust through sharing and

listening (Wilson, 2001; Bishop, as cited in Kovach, 2010). While I became a participant in the

conversation, I set the ground for a natural “talking,” which evoked the emotional need for

narrating the lived experiences of participants in storied terms or a storytelling manner (Mahat-

Shamir et al., 2019). Thus, storytelling helped me to attend to participants’ feelings, as well as

46

community practices, thereby building trust and bonding with them, and eliciting information for

this research.

Therefore, interview sessions were casual, like a daily-life conversation with few

interruptions and formalities. Interviews were mostly facilitated by me, but community advisors

took over in some cases when needed. Also, some interviews were facilitated by the community

advisors in order to ensure the comfort and trust of the participants. With the permission of the

participants, I took notes for and recorded most of the interviews. Instead of direct questions, the

interview prompts were phrased through narrative queries, often including my personal narratives

(see Appendix C). The interviews were rarely interrupted to maintain the normal flow of

“talking,” unless necessary to guide towards the expected topic.

In order to maintain the informal tone and address the preference of the participants,

some interviews were conducted in group conversations, especially in the case of interviewing

family members or friends together. I found these group conversations most effective; the

participants complemented each other’s comments and stories, thereby enabling the natural flow

of the conversation. Such conversations also felt self-assuring for participants as they did not

have to worry about formalities. In most cases, participants led the conversations, expressed their

opinions and knowledge, and, most importantly, argued against each other’s opinions and

resolved existing paradoxes among the participants within the conversation (Horton et al., 2004).

Thus, semi structured, in-depth interviews were accommodative and emancipatory to the

conditions of Adibashi participants.

Despite the pre-determined, tentative structure of the semi-structured interviews, these

allowed me to practice flexibility to address participants’ demands and comfort both before and

during the interviews. Before stepping into the interviews directly, I always tried to have at least

one pre-talk session to create a comfortable context for participants to get to know me and my

research. Such small talks at the “pre-interview phase” developed a level of trust and comfort

47

(Corbin & Morse, 2003) among the participants and allowed me to collect their consents for

interviews. Except for a few cases, I managed to have such pre-talks before the full interviews.

When I scheduled interviews with the participants, I asked for their preferences on the location,

mode of interviews (one-to-one or group conversation), language, and time. In addition, during

the interviews, I utilized the benefits of open-ended questions and scope for reshaping the

questions for further explanations and clarification; this opportunity offered me a high level of

flexibility to practice (Mahat-Shamir et al., 2019), thereby providing a high “degree of relevancy”

of the interviews to the research topic (McIntosh & Morse, 2015, p. 1). Thus, both participants

and I, as a researcher, enjoyed the flexibility and comfort that the structure of these interviews

offered.

Given this circumstance, I prioritized participants’ preferences for venues or locations of

the interviews to ensure their comfort and mental ease (Longhurst, 2003; Dearnley, 2005). Many

participants initially considered the remoteness of their locations and proposed to visit my

preferred place. However, when I insisted that I could travel, almost all preferred their own

houses or villages for the interviews. So, mostly I travelled to meet the participants in their

preferred places. In many cases, I was invited to visit their houses, and spend time and dine with

their families. These opportunities allowed both of us to have plenty of pre-talks to get to know

each other, thereby turning these visits into more relational and casual meetings, which created a

level of comfort, trust, and connection with the participants. In fact, these visits provided me with

knowledge about their lifestyles and cultures. Also, the conversation at their own chosen places

had more spontaneity than the conversations at my chosen ones. The latter needed more meetings

for the participants to open up and express themselves. Thus, the selection of the site added more

freedom for the participants.

Gifts were also an option that I considered when I met participants. Suggested by the

community advisors, I took gifts for each participant and added food when visiting families,

48

which is a cultural practice within the communities. I also received many gifts from the

community participants, especially their cultural and heritage products. Many participants sent

food to my hotel and invited me for lunch/dinner. These activities indicated how much I was

accepted among the community members.

In addition, interviews with the scholars were more formal but conversational in tone.

The conversations with them were mostly based on their insights and opinions on the research

topics, and collected information from the interview narratives (see Appendix D). The interviews

were mostly brief, precise, and scholarly discussions on the issues, which did not require any

trust-building or power-balancing practices.

2.3.2 Gathering Data from Secondary Sources and Observation

Apart from the interviews, I collected published and unpublished reports, documents,

local journals, and community publications during my field visit. Many participants willingly

offered their own or community publications for this study and informed me about the source of

other documents and books. I also collected some confidential statistics on the test results of some

local schools. These documents, statistics, and secondary data have added extra credibility to the

analysis of this study. However, due to a lack of clear statistics on the test results of Adibashi

students, as well as non-cooperation of government offices, I failed to collect government data on

education and tests.

Moreover, observation and note-taking were effective methods to collect information in

the field. The opportunity to visit some villages and houses helped me to understand the

geographical and socio-cultural contexts of these communities. Most importantly, my visit to

some schools in Rangamati and Khagrachari provided me with an insight into the educational

environment and institutions in Adibashi regions. With permission, I sat in classes, observed, and

talked with students and teachers. However, I did not record any of these conversations as I had

49

not sought their consents. I gathered some ideas on class size, school structure, teachers’

approach, classroom environment, and many other relevant issues.

2.3.3 Participants and Location

This study is mainly based on two Adibashi communities in Bangladesh, one from plain land

and the other from Chittagong Hill Tracts (CHT). From CHT zone, I visited Khagrachari and

Rangamati districts, and from the Sylhet division, a plain land region, Sylhet and Moulvibazar

districts. The community advisors’ connection with the communities from these locat ions

informed my decision to choose these areas. Also, in order to address diversity in Adibashi

communities, I engaged with two communities from two geographical locations instead of one.

As I prioritized the trust-building efforts, the advisors’ connection with their community members

allowed me to enter the community with an entrusted identity. Therefore, I visited different places

in Khagrachari, such as Nalbuniya Bazar, Kachalong, Dighinala, and Khagrachari Sadar, and in

Rangamati, such as Baghaichari, Langadu, Chakma Raj Bari (palace), and Rangamati Sadar. I

met Chakma participants in these locations. Later, I visited Kamalganj in Moulvibazar, and

Jalalabad and Sylhet Sadar in Sylhet for interviewing Manipuri participants. I met Bengali

scholars in Dhaka and Adibashi scholars in Khagrachari, Rangamati, and Dhaka.

Three types of participants took part in the semi-structured, in-depth interviews:

community partners or advisors, community members or participants, and scholars.

Community partners or advisors: Community partners were the participants who

worked as allies of this research to effectuate the semi-collaborative approach of this study. There

were four of them; two advisors were from the Chakma community and two were from the

Manipuri communities. Chakma advisors were my students and Manipuri advisors were my

friends, one from Meitei and the other from Bishnupriya3 groups. I had multiple meetings with

3 Meiteis and Bishnupriyas are two groups of Manipuri communities speaking two different languages (see chapter 1).

50

them (online and offline) before and after I went to Bangladesh. These meetings informed my

knowledge about community norms, practices, greetings, lifestyles, likes and dislikes, and eating

habits, thereby shaping my communication strategies and interviews. Moreover, their strong

connection with the community was the key to my entrance and acceptance by other community

members. Most importantly, they performed the role of key informants in this research, helping

me to choose the location of the study, connect me to the community members, recruit the

participants, and often facilitate the interviews. Additionally, they validated the information

collected through the interviews and provided further explanations. Apart from advising, they all

participated in in-depth, semi-structured interviews, sharing their experiences and opinions (see

Appendix C).

Community participants: I interviewed 23 participants from the Chakma community,

25 from the Manipuri community, thirteen from Meitei, and fourteen from Bishnupriya group.

They all were 18+ and literate. Eight Manipuri participants—three from Meitei and five from

Bishnupriya groups—and six Chakma participants were female. A couple of participants were

community elders—the most learned ones—and teachers.

Scholar participants: I interviewed a total of ten scholars, Indigenous and non-

Indigenous. Some of them were community leaders, activists, and scholars. Among them, four

were Adibashi scholars and rest were Bengali who have worked with Adibashis and published on

Adibashi issues.

2.3.4 Recruitment

Based on my previous connections with some Adibashi members, I recruited all

participants in three phases during my fieldwork in Bangladesh in the summer (June-September)

of 2019. The same tactic was used to select the locations.

In the first phase, I recruited my previous contacts as community advisors, though I

unofficially contacted them before the interviews and received their consents. As the advisors

51

were from Chakma and Manipuri communities, I chose these two communities for my fieldwork.

I formed two advisory groups, each consisting of two members: one for each community

representing the CHT and plain land Adibashis respectively. The long-term trust and relationality

that we had for each other was the asset of this research; it was their support that encouraged me

to engage with the community participants. They were not paid partners in this research;

however, I gave them some gifts.

In the second phase, based on the community partners’ connections, I contacted many

Adibashi participants from these two chosen communities and everybody responded positively.

Community advisors suggested possible participants, and I invited these people to participate in

the study. I called them, discussed my research briefly, and asked for their consent for pre-talk

sessions. Almost 50% of the participants were recruited through the connection of advisors.

However, I also applied a snowball technique for recruiting other members when I was in the

field and asked the existing participants to connect me with others.

In the third phase, I recruited ten scholars—Adibashi and non-Adibashi—who had

expertise in Indigenous issues of Bangladesh, applying a convenience sampling tool. I contacted

them through emails, introduced my research topic, and asked for interviews. Those who

responded to the emails and agreed were recruited for semi-structured interviews. I contacted

fifteen scholars and was able to interview ten as the rest did not respond.

2.4 Data Analysis

2.4.1 Translation and Transcription

Although I offered all participants the opportunity to use their mother tongues for

interviews, all chose Bangla. I directly translated the narratives into English and prepared an

intelligent transcript of each interview. This transcription method is concise, reader friendly, and

free from verbal expressions like fillers, pauses, and repetitive phrases. While preparing the

52

transcripts, I deleted some irrelevant expressions, utterances, and repetitions to make the

conversation grammatically correct; however, I was careful to keep the meaning of the

conversation unchanged.

2.4.2 Analyzing the Narrative

I applied a narrative analysis method, which explores the “what,” “why,” and “how” to

analyze and interpret stories or narratives4 (Reissman, 2008, p. 11). It allowed me to consolidate

fragmented images to build a complete picture of the context, constructing the story of an

individual.

I have followed a four-stage process for developing the major themes: codes, categories,

patterns, and themes (Kim, 2016). First, I read each sentence multiple times to identify the codes

in different segments of sentences in each conversation that conveyed a message. Second, I

grouped those codes into small categories. Third, after categorizing the codes, I looked for

repeated patterns in the categories. Fourth, combining the connected categories, I identified major

and minor themes in the conversations and decided on the major ideas for this study.

I have used an analytical framework of domination-exploitation structure as a tool to

identify and analyze the issues of marginalization, oppression, sufferings, failure, subjugation,

and powerlessness of Adibashi students in the narratives (see chapter 3). While operating with the

conceptual understanding of nationalist politics and its facets of exclusion, which are interwoven

into the educational and test practices, I forwarded that understanding through the narratives of

Adibashis with the engagement of the theories. In the following chapters, I have offered a range

of theoretical tools under the framework of domination-exploitation readings to analyze the

collected narratives and information. I have analyzed each interview to represent a larger social

4 Narrative analysis “interrogates intention and language—how and why incidents are storied, not simply the content[s] to which language refers” (Reissman, 2008, p. 11).

53

phenomenon that indicates the intersection of personal incidents of suffering and difficulties, and

socio-political issues of the society.

I have incorporated the stories into this study in two ways: oral history and a condensed

story method. The former uses a direct excerpt or two from the narratives of a participant, and the

latter incorporates a shortened and precise version of the narratives. In both cases, the stories

evidence the subjective experiences of an individual, shedding light on the broader social context.

Both forms of stories were at the heart of each chapter, followed by an analytical discussion.

Furthermore, I used the collected information and statistics to support and validate the

analysis of this study. Moreover, the narratives from the scholars were used for similar purposes,

reinforcing the themes identified from the narratives. Such a triangulation approach to analyzing

the narratives proved very effective in this study, cross-validating the findings and analyses.

2.4.3 Ethics

As a primary researcher, I have followed the Tri-Council Policy Statement: Ethical

Conduct for Research Involving Humans (Government of Canada, 2018), and the research ethics

for conducting Indigenous research (Chapter 9 of the Tri-Council Policy Statement), especially in

the context of Indigenous research in another country (Chapter 8, B of the Tri-Council Policy

Statement). Also, I completed the Course on Research Ethics (CORE). My research has followed

the TCPC 2 ethics guidelines on respect, welfare, and justice, and received approval from GREB

(General Research Ethic Board), Queen’s University (see Appendix E). The selection of methods

and tools was done addressing the TCPC ethical guidelines and minimizing the risks, limitations,

and conflicts that this study possesses.

I have tried to address all risks, especially the risks that stem from psychological and

social issues, linguistic and cultural sensitivities, and power imbalances that the participants

might have experienced in this study. First, although the research had some possible risks of

triggering mental trauma for the participants, I did not encounter any mental breakdown

54

incidents. Rather, the participants appreciated the opportunity to share their experiences and

sufferings. Second, in order to minimize the social risks of being identified, I ensured the

complete privacy and confidentiality of the participants. Not only were interviews done in

confidence, but my visit to these places was not disclosed to anybody else except the participants.

Third, considering the power imbalance created due to my power and privileged identity, I

planned every aspect of this research to minimize the power role and enhance trustworthiness (see

section 2.4). Fourth, in order to minimize the cultural and linguistic gap, I followed the directions

and advice given by the advisory groups and informed my methodological procedures

accordingly.

The communication, recruitment, and consent collection phases were completed

following the community customs, and the privacy and confidentiality instruction of TCPS 2. The

objectives of the research and confidentiality strategies were clearly explained to all participants,

including the scholars, before the interviews. This research does not include any identifiable

information of any participants; however, the scholars and some participants did not object to

disclosure of their identity. Moreover, the letter of information was written in both Bangla and

English for the better understanding of the participants. I collected the participants’ consent,

including that of the scholars, mostly through signatures. Almost all agreed to sign the papers and

kept their copies. Also, they had the right to withdraw their involvement any time before

publishing the results and to provide their preferences for interviews.

2.5 A Reflexive Method: Identity, Positionality, and Power

When [the word “research” is] mentioned in many indigenous

contexts, it stirs up silence, conjures up bad memories, it raises a

smile that is knowing and distrustful. (Smith, 2008, p. 1)

I applied a self-monitoring and self-critical approach to the methodological procedure of

this study while questioning my thinking process, epistemological biases, methodological

procedures, and positionality, as well as evaluating the validity and usefulness of this research

55

(Corlett & Marvin, 2018). In particular, this reflexive research—a variant of reflective research—

goes beyond the method of reflecting on various levels or processes and themes of the research. It

further engages a self-critiquing approach to the ways of conducting research while bringing

changes to the process simultaneously (Hibbert et al., 2010, as cited in Corlett & Mavin, 2018). In

order to reflect on my epistemological assumptions, positionality, identity, and power role, I

became self-critical and embraced the “unreliability” and “unpredictability” of the contexts

instead of assuming any fixed and “appropriate” notion of methods and techniques. A flexible

approach to fieldwork research, as well as the application of multiple methods, tools, and

techniques, has allowed me to be self-critical and self-reflective about my positionality and power

position, which I have discussed in the following sections.

Reflecting on my positionality in this research is crucial. Positionality is a cultural

concept comprehended through the notion of difference (Franks, 2002) and defined by “where

one stands in relation to ‘the other’” (Merriam et al., 2001, p. 411). Franks (2002) mention s three

types of positionality based on the agency of the researcher: ascribed (the researcher has no

control), selective (the option the researcher prefers), and enforced (a position imposed by

others). Moreover, the concept of positionality needs to be illustrated at the intersection of

multiple identities of the researcher, defined in terms of culture, gender, race, ethnicity, class,

personality, and many other aspects (Merriam et al., 2001; Muhammad et al., 2015; Corlett &

Mavin, 2018). Besides, this concept mandates its comprehension in terms of power and privilege,

and the researcher’s relationship with contexts and communities, often through insider-outsider

perspectives (Collins, 1999a, as cited in Muhammad et al., 2015). By applying the reflexive

approach to elucidate my positionality in this research, I reflect on my identity in relation to

Adibashi communities in Bangladesh, power that I possess, and my relationship with the

community members.

56

I can explain my positionality in this research through the insider-outsider perspective.

While the outsider doctrine that values the outsider researcher as an objective and neutral

observer condemns the insider researcher’s ability to develop a proper analysis, the insider

doctrine treasures the group knowledge and empathy of the researcher, challenging the limitations

of an outsider researcher’s cultural understanding. However, many scholars are reluctant to use

such a dichotomy to define a researcher’s position, seeking a notion of “space between” (Dwyer

& Buckle, 2009, as cited in Kerstetter, 2012, p. 101). The “space between” is a mu ltidimensional

space where the researcher’s identities, cultural knowledge, background, and relationship to

participants shape the researcher’s positionality somewhere between these two extreme polarized

positions.5 Baker (1999) also acknowledges the varying degrees of the researcher’s role in terms

of assimilation with the targeted group, thereby impacting the researcher’s position and

methodological procedure of fieldwork research. Given this discussion, instead of considering my

position as a complete outsider researcher, I have found my positionality oscillating between

insider and outsider in different contexts and with different participants, depending on the

emphasis on the different aspects of my identities, as well as my trust and relationship-building

efforts.

2.5.1 Positionality, Identity, and Power

As a primary researcher of this study, I reflect on the “complex, multi-layered, and

dynamic” identities of a researcher that inform the power relationship between researchers and

participants, thereby shaping methodological procedures of the research (Muhammad et al., 2015,

p. 1047). While every human has multiple identities, researchers need to understand their position

at the intersection of those identities (Crenshaw, 2005). A person is identified through both

5 Banks (1998) mentioned four positionalities—indigenous-insider, indigenous-outsider, external-insider,

and external-outsider—that represent differences in researchers’ knowledge and values based on their socialization within different ethnic, racial, and cultural communities (as cited in Kerstetter, 2012).

57

ascribed features, such as race, ethnicity, gender, or skin colour, and earned characteristics, such

as education, class, and profession; however, one’s own and others’ perspectives also matter

(Oetzel, 2009, as cited in Muhammad et al., 2015). Researchers’ identities and power roles are

also shaped by variables like place, time (Narayan, 1993; Mercer, 2007, as cited in Kerstetter,

2012), and the relationship between researchers and participants (Dwyer & Buckle, 2009, as cited

in Kerstetter, 2012). In addition, researchers’ biographies and personality traits, which often

inform their perspectives to identify themselves, impact their methodological procedures

(England, 1994; Moser, 2008), either benefitting or impeding the research (England, 1994;

Moser, 2008). While certain identities of a researcher may bring the researcher closer to the

community, some aspects may push them outside. In this case, I believe that minimizing the

power role and developing trust and relationship with communities, which CBRM and IRM offer,

may mitigate the tension that positionality creates.

I want to acknowledge that some aspects of my identity automatically situated me in an

outsider position in this research. My identity as an outsider researcher is not only characterized

by my outsider position in the community but also by the privilege and power my identity

upholds (Kerstetter, 2012). My identity as a Bengali person has further distanced my position in

the communities; the socio-political tension between the Bengali settlers and Adibashis,

reinforced by the oppressive approach of Bengali elites towards the Adibashis, has disturbed the

relational coexistence of these two groups in Bangladesh. Moreover, my educational background,

urbanized identity, economic and professional status, affiliation with a Canadian University, and

research expertise have situated me in a more privileged power position in comparison to those in

Adibashi communities. In addition, my identity as a primary researcher who approached the

community with the idea indicates a power position and has often posed challenges to my

research. For example, in a couple of interviews where the community advisor was absent, the

58

participants were hesitant and reserved at the beginning and took time to be expressive and

spontaneous with an outsider.

Contrarily, certain aspects of my identity often situated me in a closer position to many

participants, if not in an actual insider position. Both England (1994) and Moser (2008) indicate

an implicit assumption about feminist researchers’ ability to develop a reciprocal relationship

with research participants through empathy and mutual respect. Recognizing my empathy and

understanding, a family did not hesitate to invite me to stay with them whereas very few Bengalis

had such an easy access to the village. My identity as a woman has often placed me in a closer

position to the community and provided me more access to their “inner” world; for example, I, as

an educated woman, was cordially invited and entrusted to visit participants’ houses, dine with

them, and meet and talk to their family members. I wonder whether the same acceptance and

access would have been offered to a male Bengali researcher or academic. Also, my identity as a

teacher at a well-established university in Bangladesh has increased my acceptability and

trustworthiness among the community members, especially among teachers and students;

however, this identity also possessed the risk of generating power relationship during the

interviews with students. Women and teachers bear less threatening and intimidating identities in

Bangladesh because of their empathy, and trustworthy and respectful social status.

Similarly, I think my extroverted personality, social skills, sensitivities, emotional

intelligence, interest in community-based practices, and my communication skills have

established my acceptance among community members positively. For example, perceiving

warmth and empathy in our pre-talk session, a Manipuri participant invited me to their house to

meet his 90-year-old mother who lived a very distinct lifestyle; very few people were allowed to

enter his mother’s private space. Later, my natural conversation with his mother gave him more

assurance, thereby encouraging him to share personal stories about his daughter. In such cases, I

59

found that the relationship and trust that I started to develop with the families minimized the

power of my outsider position and identity, and situated me closer to the community.

In addition, my personal experiences (i.e., my biography) combined with my personality

traits have further shaped my identity and my positionality because fieldwork is “personal” and

“confrontational” (England, 1994, p. 249). My middle-class family background, my upbringing in

a very minimalist and non-elitist family environment, and my schooling in a suburban area in

Bangladesh gave me a deep understanding of the rural and suburban culture, history, and identity,

and enabled me to engage deeply with the rural contexts of my research. In addition, my

experience as a struggling, lower-middle-class student and as a woman in Bangladeshi society,

and my current experience as an international student in Canada have allowed me to develop an

appreciation and understanding of the challenges that Adibashi students face in Bangladesh. Also,

my experience as a student from a racialized community in Canada, understanding of Indigenous

studies and cultural studies, and critical perspectives on identity, culture, history, and education

have allowed me to develop a “genuine” empathy and establish a close connection with the

community members.

However, my positionality was also different when I interviewed the community advisors

and scholars, both Indigenous and non-Indigenous. Because of my long-term relationship with the

community advisors, my position was more collaborative and less asymmetrical during the

interviews with them. Also, the communication with the scholars was less challenging as they

were aware of the research practices and power politics in Bangladesh. Rather, I experienced

scholarly, academic conversations with them. Moreover, as they have published academic and

non-academic articles, they were expressive and critical about the research topic, and were not

sensitive about the political and critical conversations.

2.5.2 Power Acknowledgement, Trust, and Relationality

60

Given my identities and positionality, I want to acknowledge some fundamental facts of

this research. First, it is not a utopic representation of a “perfect” qualitative research done by an

outsider-researcher taking insights from both CBRM and IRM, and combining flexible methods.

Despite the fluctuation in my positionalities and power position, in fact, nothing can change my

outsider position of power and privilege as a Bengali researcher who spent an insignificant

amount of time with the community members. I also cannot deny my primary objective of

collecting narratives from the Adibashi participants for the purpose of my dissertation. It is also

true to some extent that, driven by my own goal of validating my research investigation, I made

the effort to travel to remote places and collect information. Moreover, like England (1994), I

want to concede that every story shared by the participants informed the answer which I was

looking for in my research.

In addition, there were some factors—albeit uncertain—that I want to acknowledge here,

which might have affected the power relationship between the participants and me, as well as the

narratives. First, my position as a primary researcher and initiator remained unchanged

throughout the research, thereby unwantedly shaping the modes of the interviews. Second,

recording the interviews often disturbed the naturalness of the conversation, though the

participants did not object. I found some participants were cautious about their word choices

during the recording. Third, I also found my identity as a teacher distanced me from two young

student-participants. Although they shared their experiences, they were not spontaneous and

natural in their conversations. In addition, my relationship with the community advisors was

rooted in a culturally shaped, teacher-student, asymmetrical power relationship, which is difficult

to remove from the psyche of any students. In fact, I am uncertain how much this relationship

affected their spontaneity and narratives, though I know it did not affect their trust and bonding

with me. Fourth, a couple of participants who held government positions exhibited a sharp

contrast in their opinions with those of other participants. Although they expressed their concerns

61

about the cultural dislocation and struggles in education, they consciously refrained from giving

any political opinions, especially on the government’s role and decision. Their narratives seemed

to be framed deliberately, showing their “artificial” appreciation and support for the

government’s good intention and efforts for the Adibashis. This attitude revealed the obligations

of their professional commitments.

Given the circumstances of these unmitigated power challenges, I have found that

acknowledgement of the limitations in the field is crucial as unacknowledged and unaddressed

power in research may endanger the efforts and willingness to conduct research successfully

(Wallerstein & Duran, 2006). I believe that acknowledgement of my power position and tension

between the Bengali elites and Adibashis in every case has minimized the risks of power

imbalance to some extent. Such acknowledgement also set the ground for building trust and

relationship with the participants. In addition, apart from incorporating many strategies and

methods to respect community norms, the trust that existed between me and the community

advisors has enhanced the trust among the community members (Kerstetter, 2008; Runnel &

Andrew, 2013). I believe I have left the field with a level of trust and a kind of relationship with

the community participants. I also have a continuous relationship with the community advisors

and many participants through social media and many other platforms.

Despite my power position in the research, I did not always find myself holding an upper

hand in the field. I often realized the power position of community participants over this

fieldwork as well. Considering community members as an integral aspect of my research without

whom the research would be incomplete, I needed to rely more on their stories. I had to negotiate

with my comfort, time conveniences, and often security while I prioritized participants’ consent,

time, and opinions. As I visited their villages and houses, I found myself driven more by their

directions and opinions instead of mine. Being alone and an outsider in the villages where

Bengalis do not visit often, I had to follow the directions of the participants, trusting their

62

opinions. Specific locations, such as Baghaichari and Langadu, were considered places of unrest

and conflict,6 which most local Bengalis found unsafe for an outsider woman travelling alone. I

had to negotiate between my trust in the participants and local Bengalis’ opinions about Adibashi

locations. For example, my visit to a Chakma village in Nolbuniya Bazar, a remotely located

village detached from the Bengali locality, was risky and suspicious7 to many Bengalis in

Khagrachari due to its isolated location where very few Bengalis live. However, I did not

experience any negative attitudes among the villagers; rather I received a welcoming reception

from the community members. In addition, the regions, especially Khagrachari and Kamalgonj in

Moulvibazar, were full of geographical and seasonal barriers,8 making the internal travel between

places difficult and dangerous for an outsider. So, I often found myself vulnerable and powerless

while deciding on my movements.

2.5.3 Acknowledging and Addressing Other Possible Limitations

I want to acknowledge a couple of more issues in this research. First, I recognize that the

research participants may not be as representative of the communities as I think because diversity

exists within every community. I do not include the interviews of any Adibashi participants who

never went to school; however, many Adibashis have no formal education. Therefore, this

research possesses the challenge of incorporating partial attitudes of the participants due to their

educational background, level of assimilation, and urban residency (Minkler, 2005). Moreover,

among the participants, I failed to maintain a gender balance, engaging equal numbers of male

6 These are the most militarized areas where fights among Bengali armed forces and armed insurgent groups of militant Adibashis are a common phenomenon. 7 Militarization and political use of the local Bengalis against the Adibashis often create a relationship of

mistrust and suspicion about each other among the Bengalis and the Adibashis. Situations often force local peoples to fight with each other. 8 The roads are hilly and narrow. Moreover, during the rainy seasons, these paths become slippery and possess the risk of landslides.

63

and female participants, as I found women were less interested in giving interviews. I also could

not contact any member from Pangan Muslim Manipuri community. Second, the chosen two

Adibashi communities are often considered to be the most privileged communities among all the

Adibashis. Both Chakmas and Manipuris are more advanced in their participation in education

and their literacy rate. I failed to engage more marginalized communities as I did not have any

personal connections with any of them. So, this research possesses the drawbacks of representing

comparatively privileged groups. Third, all interviews were conducted in Bangla, not in the

participants’ mother tongues. Moreover, they were translated into English for the transcripts.

Translations often possess the risk of losing the meaning and cultural essence of many proverbs,

discourses, and information, or misinterpreting the message because of the incommensurability of

cultural information. I tried to minimize the risks of misinterpretations by cross-checking the

meaning of many cultural words and information with the advisors so that the research did not

lose anything in translation.

2.6 Dissemination of Research Results

I feel obligated to disseminate the results of this study through the publication of

academic and non-academic articles, and I informed my participants of my plan. Moreover, I

have started writing short, non-academic articles in Bangla in storied terms for community

journals. I intend to continue these efforts to disseminate my experience among the communities.

I believe these efforts will contribute to the construction of new knowledge on Adibashi

education and studies, and create social awareness regarding the political biases of educational

practices and the power relationship between Bengali elites and Adibashis among both the

Adibashis and Bengalis.

2.7 Conclusion

The methods and techniques employed have helped me to develop a participant-friendly

approach to the research, offering me plenty of opportunities to address participants’ comfort and

64

needs. The triangulation of data from different sources provides more credibility to the findings,

constructing a holistic picture of Adibashi contexts. While a combination of methods addressed

various limitations and practicalities, this research was able to elicit meaningful interpretations of

the narratives to construct themes for this study.

65

Chapter 3

Understanding the Politics of Exclusion: Nationalism and Standardized,

High-Stakes Testing in Bangladesh

3.1 Introduction

The aim of this chapter is to develop an interdisciplinary analytical framework that

integrates nationalism, colonialism, and the standardized, high-stakes testing system. This

framework is designed to examine the ways the standardized, high-stakes testing mechanism

reflects the nationalist project and biases of Bengali elites which then deliberately exclude the

Adibashis. At the centre of this framework is an understanding of the nationalistic approach to the

testing system that is drawn from different disciplines, such as political science, cultural studies,

critical education, and Indigenous education. Therefore, I identify the conceptual issues of this

dissertation on two levels: macro and micro. At the macro level, I provide an overview of the

politics of nationalism in Bangladesh that is based on the historical evolution of the country’s

nation-building process. At the micro level, I examine the ways in which the standardized, high-

stakes testing system is used to further deprive and discriminate against Adibashi students. The

purpose of this framework is to show how a testing system can serve as a means to maintain the

political domination of Bengali elites over Adibashi communities.

3.2 The Macro Level Analysis: Nationalism and Internal Colonialism

3.2.1 Understanding Key Concepts

It is imperative to understand the concepts of ethnicity, nation, state, and nationalism, and

the articulation of these notions in shaping national identities in the South Asian context,

especially in Bangladesh. I develop a working definition for each, and then show how the politics

of nationalism in Bangladesh is influenced by these concepts.

66

3.2.1.1 Ethnicity and Ethnic Group

Ethnicity or ethnic group refers to any kind of group identity (Kellas, 1998; Tilly, 1994).

It can be small or large but should possess a commonality based on an inherited culture, race,

religion, and common history. Ethnicity generates strong emotion or sentiment and creates a

belongingness to each other (Ganguly & Phadnis, 2001). Although many controversies and

debates exist over the understanding of ethnicity, especially in its association with the notions of

nation, nationalism, state, and Indigeneity, the terms ethnicity or ethnic groups can be

comprehended in isolation, too. An ethnic group may eventually have a political goal and an

ambition to seek independence to form a nation and state, but all ethnic groups may not have such

political aspirations (Ganguly & Phadnis, 2001). However, in the present-day political context, an

ethnic group in a nation-state is often understood as distinct from a nation occupying the position

of a “quasi-national” minority group (Phadnis & Ganguli, 2001, p. 19).

Ethnicity and ethnic identity were crucial variables in the formation, reformation , and

consolidation of state structures in South Asia (Ganguly & Phadnis, 2001). Ethnic and national

identity in South Asia was formed following social, political, and cultural contexts (Kellas,

1998)—“the larger social milieu” (Phadnis & Ganguly, 2001, p. 27). Phadnis and Ganguly (2001)

have nicely delineated the construction of ethnic identities in South Asia through vertical—one

cultural marker1 over another—and horizontal—one identity2 over another—distinctions to form

their identity. Such construction of ethnic identity has been the basis of forming national identity

during different historical events, often resulting in ethnic conflicts.

Given this analysis, I use a broad definition of ethnicity in this study that integrates all of

these approaches, and views the consciousness of attachment to a group of people, which centres

1 Language, race, food, or religion. 2 The Bengalis emphasized Muslim identity during the anticolonial movement in the late 1940s, but later

they prioritized their secular Bengali identity over the Muslim identity in their nationalist movement against the Pakistani elites.

67

on a shared feature/s. It can develop based on any specific feature or an interaction among all of

these mentioned above.

3.2.1.2 Nation and State

The terms nation and state are often used interchangeably in some parts of the world, but

they are different. While a state is defined as an independent and sovereign power with a defined

territory and a complete legal system, a nation is characterized as a group of people who have a

sense of connection amongst themselves based on one or more common traits (Rejai & Enloe,

1969). The main distinction between a state and nation lies in how one perceives them; the former

is defined as a “political-legal” system and the latter as a “psycho-cultural” notion (Rejai &

Enloe, 1969, p. 143). While a state needs international recognition, a nation may not. A nation

can exist within or without a state. However, both can exist conterminously whereby a political

sovereign system is based on one homogenous national identity (Phadnis & Ganguly, 2001). A

nation-state emerges following the formation of a nation, whereas a state-nation reverses the

process (Rejai & Enloe, 1969).

Different opinions exist as to whether or not a concept of a nation should be understood

in association with a state. Both Giddin (1985) and Gellner (2008) view a nation and a state

interchangeably, and emphasize the unity of a constructed community based on a shared culture.

However, an opposite idea also exists that views state and nation separately. While Anderson

(2006) defines a nation as “an imagined political community” (p. 6-7), Anthony Smith (1991) and

James G. Kellas (1998) mention that a shared history, culture, and common sovereign system

work as a binding force to create a common consciousness of an imagined community. However,

Rejai and Enloe (1969) express their doubt of the existence of any shared features, such as a

language, culture, or history, in practice. It is true that exceptions always exist.

In addition, there are some broad definitions that do not conceive of a nation through any

specific criteria. Hugh Seton-Watson (1964), Alfred Cobban (1970), and J. Hobsbawm (1994)

68

consider any large group of people to be a nation when they desire to identify themselves as such.

Although framed in the 1950s, Ernest Barker’s definition has been one of the most

comprehensive delineations of a nation. His definition refers to a “body of persons” in a specific

territory who live a “life of contiguity,” developing two types of “mental sympathy”: a common

consciousness evolved through a shared history and mutual agreement for future independent

coexistence (1952, p. 53). In other words, a nation may or may not have a state but needs a

common reason to group together.

Considering all of these interpretations, I want to view a nation holistically and broadly; I

define a nation as a group of people who find themselves connected based on a common reason

and consciousness.

3.2.1.3 Nation-building vs State-building

Much confusion exists over the notions of state-building and nation-building processes.

While these terms are often understood interchangeably in some contexts, they have distinct

meanings in other contexts. However, in the contexts of modern nation-states, both terms are

interconnected and should be comprehended together (Dinnen, 2007). Despite many confusions

and several definitions, most scholars argue that state-building process refers to the strategies,

efforts, and practices to construct a functioning and durable state and build its capability and

accountability to meet the attributes of a modern state. Further, nation building process refers to

the process of developing a cultural identity or a binding force to create a political community

who see themselves as citizens of a given state (Dinnen, 2007; Scott, 2007). In other words, while

state building focuses on the key institutions and an international assistance, as well as the

practical actions for establishing or strengthening these institutions, nation-building emphasizes

the process of building the connection and relations between the citizens and state (Dinnen,

2007). In brief, although these two processes have different aims, they complement each other.’

69

Although controversies exist over the idea that whether the development of a nation

mandates a well-functioning state or vice versa (Scott, 2007), it is well argued that both terms

should be articulated together in understanding how modern nation-states function. Modern states

require an ongoing nation-building process that aims at establishing and maintaining an integrated

national society based on broadly conceived shared values and goals. A sense of a shared identity

among the citizens inspires them to identify with the same national identity and become a part of

a political community (Dinnen, 2007). This identity not only creates social cohesion and harmony

and reduces the risk of divisions but also lubricates the functions of many state institutions

(Dinnen, 2007). Similarly, the absence of a shared identity is perceived as a threat to the

construction of a cohesive national community as well as a stable state. The nation-building

process unites the national communities within a structure of a modern state and solidifies its

social and political actions (Dinnen, 2007). Therefore, states are usually considered the product of

national determination (Ganguly & Phadnis, 2001).

While in many European countries, nation-building that took shape over the centuries

preceded the state building and nationalism worked as a major force in constructing many of

these states, in Africa and Asia, especially in South Asia, where colonization brought the idea of

nationalism, the process is reverse (Dinnen, 2007). During the British period, the colonial powers

created artificial borders and imposed a foreign governance structure with a combination of little

local socio-cultural norms (Dinnen, 2007). Later, the evolution of nationalist movements

appeared as anticolonial movements providing a sense of shared identity among many leaders and

communities (Ganguly & Phadnis, 2001; Dinnen, 2007). After independence, multiple states

were formed retaining the artificial borders along with incompatible bureaucratic infrastructures,

but they lacked the sense of unity that was created against the presence of a common enemy

(Ganguly & Phadnis, 2001; Dinnen, 2007). Therefore, South Asian states needed the nation-

building approaches that considered the tasks of fabricating a political national identity in order to

70

support the state-structure. These approaches exclusively focused on a homogenous national

identity or a majoritarian ethnic identity in order to produce a “pulverized and uniform sense of

national identity to coincide with state boundaries that seldom reflect ethnic divisions on the

ground” (Ganguly & Phadnis, 2001, p. 13). However, weak state-structure and lack of a nation as

well as a pluralistic social environment became a challenge for the successful operation of many

South Asian nation-states. In other words, state-building and nation-building were practiced

simultaneously in South Asia, which have often worked against each other and given rise to many

regional and ethnic divisions (Dinnen, 2007).

3.2.1.4 Nationalism and National Identity

Complexity lies in understanding the concept of nationalism as it is not uniquely defined.

In general, nationalism is the strongest passion in the present political world, working as a

binding force to tie different groups together in a state (Sabhlok, 2002). However, nationalism has

been defined in different ways through emotional and political characteristics: the former aspects

define nationalism as a collective sentiment or a group consciousness (Kohn, 1994), or “an

emotional loyalty” to a state (Hayes, 1926, para. 4), whereas the latter features identify

nationalism as an ideology (Kamenka, 1973) or an ideological movement to form a nation (Smith,

1991). It is ubiquitous that nationalism is a political behaviour or ideology that “builds on

people’s awareness of a nation (national self-consciousness) to give a set of attitudes and a

program of action[s],” which can be cultural, economic, and political (Kellas, 1998, p 4). This

form of consciousness or awareness can be a result of manipulation or spontaneous emotions

(Sabhlok, 2002). Moreover, Smith has defined nationalism by consolidating its roles in a nation-

building process—the construction of a consciousness and aspiration for the attainment of a

political goal, autonomy, and identity (1991). These various definitions that focus on different

aspects demonstrate the reason why there is no universal criterion to frame nationalism.

71

National identity is considered to be an indispensable part of modern nation-states and

their practices of nationalism, though national identity can be understood exclusively from the

state-system. It can be comprehended in association with the distinct notions of euro or civic

nationalism and ethno-nationalism (see section 3.2.1.4.1). The civic national identity refers to an

inclusive form of political identity that demonstrates a person’s identity in association with

country’s citizenry, historical and cultural traditions and values, as well as its national sovereignty

(Kiss & Park, 2014). In contrast, the ethnic national identity is based on the community’s

traditions, language, culture, and/or religion, which often develops distinctly from the state’s

national identity and evolves to form a distinct state (Kiss & Park, 2014). Despite these terms’

distinct connection with states, both notions of national identity comprise of two aspects: self-

categorization and emotional attachment or a sense of belonging to a nation (Tajfel & Turner,

2004). In the context of nation-states, the political and emotional aspects of national identity

usually stem from a socially constructed consciousness of nationalism that is formed based on

state’s fabricated cultural homogeneity and national heritage, which is often imposed on diverse

populations (Jamali, 2015).

In this study, I view nationalism as a constructed consciousness or a sense of solidarity

among a group of people with a goal of forming and maintaining a nation-state; this

consciousness or solidarity can be based on any common goal or aspect, such as ethnicity,

history, ancestral roots, a connection to a territory, or a common language and culture.

3.2.1.4.1 Separating Euro-Nationalism from Ethno-Nationalism

For this study, it is crucial to understand the difference between civic nationalism and

ethno-nationalism. The concept of civic nationalism has an antagonistic association with the

notion of ethno-nationalism as the former is usually assumed to entrap ethnic minorities within

the border of a nation-state by applying assimilation processes, which often give rise to the latter

(Ganguly & Phadnis, 2001). So, ethno-nationalism refers to the connection between the ethnic

72

identity and ideology of nationalism, which Tambiah defines as “regional and sub-national

reactions and resistance against the excessive or unwelcomed centralizing and homogenizing

policies of a nation-state” (1996, p. 124). While drawing the distinctions between euro-

nationalism (civic) and ethno-nationalism, Comaroff emphasizes the secular, contractual, and

territorial aspects of euro-nationalism for envisioning a state, whereas ethno-nationalism is

defined based on an ethnic identity having emotional attachment, cultural specificities, and

loyalty of its subjects (1996, p. 124). In other words, the imposition of euro-nationalism in a

nation-state that is full of diverse ethnic groups may create ethnic conflicts and lead to the rise of

ethno-nationalism.

The modernization paradigm of nationalism better explains this contradictory relationship

between euro- and ethno-nationalism, as well as the incongruity of the former notion in pluralistic

societies, like South Asia. Ethno-nationalism, which is often perceived as an opposite notion to

the modernization project, considers that modernization destroys the traditional way of life of an

ethnic community (Phadnis & Ganguli, 2001). While Gellner’s notion of nationalism needs a

“modern” education system and industrialization for constructing a homogenous culture and

identity (1992), Hechter’s theory of internal colonialism (1975) condemns the modernization

project of a nation-state as a method of creating a socio-economic gap between the majoritarian

elites and culturally marginalized groups. While illustrating this gap between the national elites

and the rest of the population in the postcolonial3 South Asian contexts, Chatterjee explains that

this “hiatus” was “the mark of non-western modernity as an incomplete project of

‘modernization’” (2003, p. 136). Indeed, nationalism in South Asia is a fabricated notion based

on the dominant culture and traditions that have gone through a process of standardization to

form a “modern” national identity (Chatterjee, 1993); this process further contributes to this

3 Here “postcolonial” refers to the period that started after British colonialism ended.

73

“hiatus” between national culture and common people’s tradition (Chatterjee, 2003). That means

euro-nationalism fits better in the modernization paradigm, which views ethno-nationalism as a

threat.

Given that context, the idea of nationalism, imported from Europe during the colonial

period, was quite unfit for South Asian contexts (Upreti, 2006). The contexts that led to the rise of

civic or euro-nationalism in Europe based on the French revolution and upheaval of European

philosophy (Phadnis & Ganguly, 2001) broke many large empires with heterogenous cultural

groups into several nations; this process gave rise to several independent states having

homogenous national identities, such as the Baltic states (Upreti, 2006). South Asian countries are

full of multi-ethnic, multi religious, and multilingual groups, lacking the conditions for a

homogenous and unified nation-state. Imported Western nationalism failed to understand the

cultural pluralism in South Asia and create peaceful and stable states (Phadnis & Ganguly, 2001).

As a result, the incompatibility of this borrowed formula of a unified national identity with the

cultural pluralism of South Asian countries, especially India, Pakistan, and Bangladesh, resulted

in ethnic conflicts and multiple ethno-nationalisms. Paradoxically, the local elites perceived

cultural pluralism as a threat to national security and developed a common misconception about a

“successful” nation-state, which stipulated its unique identity and culture (Nandy, 2005). In a

way, civic nationalism became an inspiration to the nation-building process in South Asia and

legitimized the statist desire of many ethnic nations; the belief was that the centralization,

modernization, and secularization process of civic nationalism would eventually diminish the

religious fundamentalism, ethnic gap, and conflicts, and develop a common political will (De

Silva, 2001). However, this process was an “unmitigated tragedy” (De Silva, 2001, p. 1), derived

from the forceful and artificial construction of nationalism that tried to tie different identities and

cultures together under one fabricated national identity. In other words, the nation-building

74

process in South Asia progressed holding the hand of Western nationalism, but not recognizing

the contextual outcry of the ethnic communities.

3.2.1.5 Understanding Colonialism and Internal Colonialism

Colonialism usually refers to foreign intrusion or domination of an external group of

people over other group/s of people (Shoemaker, 2015), which is operated through an

amalgamation of “territorial, juridical, cultural, linguistic, political, mental/epistemic, and/or

economic control” (Murray, 2020, p. 315). European colonialism applied various strategies and

practices to primarily maintain the territorial domination of the Europeans upon non-Europeans

(Murray, 2020). In the post-colonial context, the meaning of colonialism has changed and

evolved to the understanding of the political and economic control of the one group/s of people

by another. This control can be observed in the relationship between the rich countries of the

north and developing or underdeveloped countries, in which the rich countries control the internal

affairs of their former colonies without establishing their physical domination (Hodder-Williams,

2001). This form of colonialism, also termed as neocolonialism, persists in the world continuing

the colonizer’s influences in the governance of these post-colonial countries. While forming the

nation-states, these countries replicate the colonial structure of bureaucracy in which the political

elites replace the roles of colonizers, who exert their economic and political domination over the

non-dominant groups (Hodder-Williams, 2001). Hence, the notion “international colonialism” is

imperative to the understanding of various ways and strategies that reproduce the colonial forms

of exploitation and domination between ethnically/culturally heterogeneous groups within a

sovereign territory (Das, 2020).

The notion of internal colonialism was first used in Russia by Lenin to explain the

exploitations of peasants by the urban classes, and then by Gramsci to define the marginalization

of Italian Mezzogiorno (Calvert, 2001, as cited in Hicks, 2004). In recent years, this notion has

been widely used to explain the domination-exploitation relationship between two distinct

75

communities within the structure of a nation-state (Wolpe, 1975; Martins, 2018;). Gradually, the

use of this notion has been extended to elucidate the conditions of Indigenous populations as

ethnic minorities within a modern, nation-state structure around the world, especially in Latin

American, North American, and African contexts, as well as the ethnic conflicts or intra-regional

relationships in many postcolonial countries (Hicks, 2004). This notion arises out of the necessity

to understand the colonial form of discrimination and exclusion that ethnic minorities face from

the dominant groups.

The structure of domination-exploitation is the major theme of different definitions of

internal colonialism, though it has been applied distinctively. According to Casanova (1965),

“Internal colonialism corresponds to a structure of social relations based on domination and

exploitation among culturally heterogeneous, distinct groups” (p. 33). Casanova also illustrates

how the notion of internal colonialism can explain the replication of colonial economic and

ethnic-racial conflicts, ethnic and national discriminations, the constitution of modernized

bureaucracy, technologies of governance, and identity formation in new nation-states (2002, as

cited in Martins, 2018). Later, drawing on Lenin and Gramsci, Michael Hechter states that

internal colonialism describes the core-periphery structure within a nation-state where the core or

the centre is usually the dominant cultural group having the high concentration of wealth and

power, and culturally different peripheries are the marginalized groups possessing less privilege,

wealth, and power of decision-making (1975). Such exploitations heighten the ethnic

consciousness among the minorities, creating resentment which often leads to ethno-nationalism

(Phadnis & Ganguly, 2001). In broad terms, internal colonialism can be defined either as a

domestic analogy to the social and economic domination of classical colonialism or as an intra-

national exploitation of distinct cultural groups (Hicks, 2004). This term generally encapsulates

racial and ethnic discriminations, manipulation, assimilation, systemic oppression , and social

domination within a regional boundary.

76

In this study, I propose to define internal colonialism as a nationalist scheme of

discrimination and exploitation that establishes the hegemony of dominant ethno-religious groups

and marginalizes ethnic minorities or Indigenous communities; it does so by denying their

identities and cultures, and by systematically subordinating and oppressing them in the name of

national unity and sovereignty. I think the concept of internal colonialism, as an analytical

construct, is more effective in explaining the postcolonial situation in Bangladesh as well as the

relationship between Bengali elites and non-Bengali Adibashi communities. Despite that

Bangladesh is an independent country, ethno-religious minorities, especially Adibashis

communities, often feel excluded. The very framework of Bengali/Bangladeshi nationalism upon

which the country’s national political identity is structured paves the way for Bengali political

elites to systematically discriminate against Adibashis.

3.2.2 Nationalism in Bangladesh: A Colonial Legacy

The politics of nationalism in Bangladesh is firmly rooted in its historical past, colonial

experience, and a series of contradictory political interactions among the political elites (Osmany,

1992). The historical evolution of nationalism in Bangladesh explicates (see Historical

Background in chapter 1) how its colonial root of the nation-building process has distorted its

syncretistic tradition of Bengali/Bangladeshi culture; this process has developed a divisive

approach, teasing out different aspects from this synthesis and positing one aspect against another

to shape a national identity. In this section, I show how the politics of nationalism in Bangladesh

lays out an internal structure of a state that intentionally fosters relationship between the powerful

centre of the Bengali elites and marginalized Adibashi groups (Ahmed, 1992). Therefore, I

discuss the major facets of the politics of nationalism in Bangladesh that reproduce the

domination-exploitation structure for the Adibashis.

3.2.2.1 Hegemonic, Elitist, and Homogenous

77

The Bengali/Bangladeshi nationalism, rooted in colonial ideologies, is inherently

hegemonic and divisive (see Historical Background). While establishing a hegemonic, nationalist

discourse and identity, these forms of nationalism prioritize the domination of Bengali elites and

their partisan beliefs and marginalize the Adibashis on cultural, linguistic, and religious terms

(Mohsin, 1997; 2000). Neither ethnicity/language/culture/secularism-based Bengali nationalism

nor Muslim identity and territorial based Bangladeshi nationalism could form a consolidating

discourse on the syncretistic4 identity of Bangladesh to include Adibashi identities. Rather, the

country has been divided on the question of a national identity since independence, both

representing the hegemony of the dominant elites (Hossain, 2015). The Adibashis never could

enter the narratives of national identity; rather they have been treated constitutionally as a

“backward” group, and identified as upajati (sub-nations) and tribes (Bang. Const. Amend. 15,

2011). Despite the changes in the forms of nationalism over time, these egocentric nationalist

ideologies of the elites could not incorporate the Adibashi identities into the national discourse.

The construction of Bengali/Bangladesh nationalism has been an elite-driven project that

eventually involved the ordinary people to validate the newly created tradition. Chatterjee states

(1993) that Bengali traditions, especially language, literature, and drama, were modernized

following the European forms by the effort of bilingual Bengali elites and intellectuals during the

colonial period (Chatterjee, 1993). However, the elites were divided among themselves based on

their religious beliefs, each reshaping Bengali history and culture from their own religious lens

(Osmany, 1992; Kabir, 1994). Later, while mobilizing against West Pakistan’s imposition of

Muslim culture and Urdu language on the Bengalis, the political elites and intelligentsia in the

East fabricated a new secular and modern Bengali identity (Mohsin, 1997), and appropriated it in

the new context. The new identity consolidated newly invented traditions based on the language

4 Coexistence of multilingual, multireligious, and multicultural identities.

78

movement in 1952 (see chapters 1 and 5). However, such construction could not become

imaginative enough to address non-dominant identities in Bangladesh.

Given the role of the elites and the historical evolution of nationalism (see Historical

Background in chapter 1), the nation-building process in Bangladesh seems to be a product of

imprudent, impractical, and impassioned elitist political urgency (Hossain, 2015). Historically,

the political elites felt the necessity to form a new national consciousness in the face of increased

marginalization while addressing an immediate political goal—a legislative demand, an election,

or independence.5 To validate that political necessity, they tried to generate an emotional need

and imprinted a sense of solidarity among the ordinary people. This situation eventually created a

political urgency for a homogenous identity that overshadowed other local considerations (Kabir,

1994). Moreover, a misconception about the need for the unique and uniform culture of a nation-

state has shaped the elites’ political ideologies (Nandy, 2005). These political beliefs constrained

them to develop a well-defined and inclusive national identity that could produce pragmatic

political actions after independence. More specifically, while developing a national identity, the

Bengali elites failed to take any inspiration from the pre-colonial, syncretistic culture or lessons

from the conflicts and tragedies of the anti-colonial movements in the early 1900s and the

liberation war in 1971. As a result, they could not consider cultural pluralism as a solid

foundation for a nation-state’s long-term solidarity. The secession of Bangladesh from Pakistan

within 25 years of the partition6 has shown how fragile the Muslim solidarity was for unified

Pakistan. Similarly, Bangladesh was imagined following the blueprint of a homogenous national

identity, which was dissociated not only from the ordinary Bengalis’ identities but also from

those of the ethnic minorities. In brief, the popular Bengali national identity was an impractical

political vision of short-sighted and bubble-headed political elites.

5 The election in 1937, the election in 1970, and the following movements in the 1940s and 1971

respectively. 6 Partition of India in 1947.

79

Consequently, the evolution of a homogenous national identity in Bangladesh has

antagonized Adibashi identities through the enemy narratives, which were rooted in the colonial

experiences but shaped during the Pakistani period, especially in the 1971 liberation war.7 The

British crafted a demarcation between the Bengalis and Adibashis through various divide-and-

rule and isolating strategies (Chowdhury, 2016) that eventually formed a diametric relationship

between them. Later, self-contradictory approaches of Bengali elites towards the Adibashis

during the independence movement8 complicated this relationship further. Although this

movement failed to display any inclusive attitudes and strategies towards the Adibashis to

incorporate them into the national identity and liberation war, Bengali elites later developed an

anti-liberation image against the Adibashis based on their “limited” role in the war (see Historical

Background in chapter 1). The post-independence interactions between the Bengali elites and

Adibashis also support this perspective. In fact, after independence, the political elites operated a

mass killing9 in CHT, assuming the Adibashis to be an enemy to Bangladesh (Mohsin, 1997). As

a result, many Adibashis had to flee to the neighbouring countries to save their lives. Also, no

recognition was given to Adibashi freedom fighters while Bengali fighters were glorified and

awarded (Mohsin, 1997). Instead, Sheikh Mujibur Rahman10 threatened to “diminish” Adibashi

identities and existence if they would not become Bengalis (Mohsin, 1997). Even now, the

ongoing glorification of the liberation war as the sole victory of the Bengalis disseminates the

hegemony of the dominant Bengali identity, culture, and history11; this belief rejects the existence

of any other shareholders in this historical success.

7 Discussed in the historical background section in Chapter 1. 8 Nine-month war against the Pakistani elites in 1971 (March to December). 9 Just after independence, the Mukti Bahini (a group who fought for liberation) searched for Chakma people and killed many, accusing them of an anti-liberation motive and cooperation with the Pakistani Army. The government has overlooked the brutality by naming it as a post-war normalcy (Mohsin, 1997). 10 Father of the nation and leader of the independence movement. 11 The historical narratives in Bangladesh change based on the political party in power.

80

The evolution of a homogenous national identity has entailed a series of rejection and

denial of Adibashi identities in Bangladesh. The country’s political forefathers dreamed of a

“culturally homogenous country” (Smith, 1991, p. 12) by assimilating the Adibashis into Bengali

identity. Sheikh Mujibur Rahman declared during and after the liberation war, “Every person

living in Bangladesh is a Bengali,” which was manifested in the constitution of Bangladesh12

(Mohsin, 1997, p. 53–62). While inviting all of the Adibashis to be Bengalis, he proclaimed,

“From this day onward the tribals are being promoted into Bengalis” (Mohsin, 1997, p. 53–62).

In fact, the present-day political non-acknowledgement of Indigenous/Adibashi identity is rooted

in Sheikh Mujib’s rejection of Manobendra Narayan Larma’s13 appeal in 1972, which asked for

the recognition of Adibashis’ distinct identities and regional autonomy (Mohsin, 1997; Debnath,

2010). These declarative statements and rejections clarify the political objective of the Bengali

elites who wanted to establish and disseminate a homogenous national identity in a newly

independent country, which stipulated the integration of Adibashi identities into the Bengali

identity. Thereby, even after 40 years of independence, Bangladesh was one of the eleven

countries in the world that did not vote for the UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous

Peoples in 2011 (Ahmed, 2010). Given these circumstances of denial and rejection, Bengali elites

have been trying to establish a Bengali-dominated Bangladesh, denying the existence of the

Adibashis in the country.

3.2.2.2 Secularism and Islamization

Both secularism and Islamization have a significant place in the nationalist discourse in

Bangladesh, fabricating two extreme polarized political views, both of which exclude Adibashi

12 Article 6, part 1 of the Constitution of Bangladesh states, “The people of Bangladesh shall be known as Bangalees (Bengalis) as a nation and the citizens of Bangladesh shall be known as Bangladeshies.” (Bang. Const. Amend. XIV) 13 Manobendra Narayan Larma was the lone elected member of parliament from CHT as a Chakma leader.

He appealed for the recognition of the distinct identities of the Adibashis in Bangladesh when the citizens of Bangladesh were declared to be Bengalis (Mohsin, 1997).

81

identities. Bengali nationalism has ignored the significance of religion in the syncretistic tradition

of Bangladesh; therefore, it has de-emphasized both Muslim-ness and other religious identities.

Conversely, Bangladeshi nationalism’s emphasis on Muslim-ness has excluded all other religious

identities. The interplay between both kinds of nationalism has also informed constitutional

changes and declarations about Islam and other religions over time. It has polarized the

communities, imprinting a perpetual psychological gap (Chakma & Chakma, 2014). Both forms

of nationalism have developed while convoluting the notion of secularism in South Asian

contexts; however, both promote the political use of religion to marginalize the Adibashis.

Understanding what secularism means in the South Asian contexts and how it is different

from the Western notion of secularism is imperative to explaining the roles of these two

antagonistic but interconnected notions—secularization and Islamization—in the nationalist

politics of Bangladesh. The politics of nationalism in Bangladesh has inherited Western

secularism as a pillar of “modern” thoughts, prohibiting the practice of religion in public life; in

contrast, non-Western secularism means showing respect for all religions (Nandy, 1988).

Although secularism and religion were not antonymous in the syncretistic tradition of South Asia,

the imported Western nationalism posited one against another in this multi-ethnic and religious

geographic region, and crafted a conflicting relationship between the notions. As discussed

before, these Western beliefs failed to understand the organic essence of Bengali/Bangladeshi

identity that could represent the pre-colonial syncretistic tradition, which included the coexistence

of faiths in public and personal life (Nandy, 1988). This conflict has eventually given rise to

extremism and, as a result, both secularization and Islamization have taken a fundamentalist turn

in Bangladesh.

Secularization and Islamization of national identity were both promoted for the political

purpose of nationalist elites in Bangladesh. While secularization of identity started as a process of

removing Islamic references from public and media discourses, curtailing the Islamic part in

82

education and establishing more alliances with India (Osmany, 1992; Kabir, 1994; Mohsin,

1997), Islamization was activated as a reaction to this foreign secularization process of identity

and practices in Bangladesh. More specifically, achieving independence in 1971 on secular terms

did not mean that the Bangladeshi population left their religious identities behind (Kabir, 1994).

That is why, the post-independent nation-building process based on a secular identity could not

appease most, let alone all (Kabir, 1994). After 1975, BNP14 and then JP15 emphasized Muslim

identity in Bangladeshi nationalism to exploit the religious sentiment of the ordinary people, but

left behind the non-Muslim Bengalis, Hindus, Buddhists, and Animist non-Bengalis/Adibashis.

Bangladeshi nationalism initiated Islamization of various policies and practices and, eventually,

gave rise to fundamentalist political approaches, as well as various Islamist political parties. Their

notion of Bangladeshi nationalism underscored the Muslim-ness of Bengali identity in such a way

that it failed to represent a balanced approach to Muslim-Bengali identity, as well as

multireligious Bengali and non-Bengali identities within the territory. Such incompatibility of

religious discourse with the structure of a nation-state has distorted the “space for a continuous

dialogue among religious traditions” (Nandy, 1988, p. 180) in Bangladesh. It is not possible to

remove the Muslim-ness and Islamic culture from Bangladeshi society and, at the same time, the

coexistence of multireligious groups and traditions of religious syncretism cannot be denied.

However, the existing nationalistic discourse attempts to comprehend the presence of religious

identities through two extreme views of nationalism predicated upon a thicker concept of elitism,

dominance, and exclusion. As a result, the Adibashis remain excluded based on religion too.

In the contentious process of nation-building in Bangladesh, religion functions as a

nationalist means of a hierarchical classification mechanism to distribute colonial power and

economic resources among the dominant group members (Mohsin, 1997). In Casanova’s word,

14 Bangladesh Nationalist Party, a major political party in Bangladesh. 15 Jatiyo Party, a third major political party.

83

religion or race often becomes the vessel for monopolization of all the natural resources

(Casanova, 1965). Similarly, Islamization has been a “state-sponsored” political tool for both

political parties when it comes to “negat[ing] the cultural values and beliefs of the minority and

Indigenous Peoples” (Debnath, 2010, p. 109). This promotion of national culture with “a covert

mission of Islamization” aims to destroy Adibashi religions16 and cultures (Debnath, 2010, p.

192) through mass Bengali Muslim migration, land grabbing, and Islamization by stealth17

(Utsumi & Walker, 2018). In fact, religious sentiment of settler Muslim-Bengalis in CHT has

been exploited against the Adibashis too by accusing Adibashi cultural attributes of being non-

Islamic. Thus, Adibashi population did never fit into the political agenda of nationalism because

social, economic, and political benefits could be achieved with or without Islamic identity, but

not with Adibashi identity.

3.2.2.3 The Politics of Exclusion and Oppression

The politics of exclusion, a British inheritance, is embedded in the nation-building

process of Bangladesh. Exclusionary approaches of the British colonial rule, such as “divide and

rule” strategies, have crafted resentment among various groups, playing one against another.

Apart from the Hindu-Muslim division, the British rulers have also crafted an antagonistic

relationship between the Bengalis and Adibashis while bolstering their colonial footings and

benefits. The rulers implanted an interlocking “tribal and civilized” relationship between the

groups through different exclusionary policies,18 especially some exclusionary acts (Skaria,1997;

Mohsin, 1997; Chowdhury, 2016). In this process, the Bengalis have developed this binary lens to

perceive the Bengali-Indigenous connection (Bleie, 2005) while shaping a national security

discourse and suspicion against the Adibashis. As a result, the Adibashis are excluded from the

16 There are different strands of Hinduism, Buddhism, Animism, naturalism, and so on. These are major terms, but Adibashis are also diverse in their religious and spiritual beliefs and practices that have different names. See chapter 1 to understand the religions of two Adibashi groups who participated in this study. 17 Modern Tokyo Times. 18 Various policies that excluded Adibashi regions from the dominant groups.

84

nationalist discourses not only through the constitutional misrecognition but also through the

forceful national integration process.

Constitutional misrecognition and non-acknowledgement of Adibashi identities informs

all kinds of exclusionary policies and practices against them in Bangladesh. Since independence,

the constitution of Bangladesh has declared all the citizens of Bangladesh as Bengalis and

identified the Adibashis as upajati (sub-nations) or tribes, minor races, ethnic sects, and

communities (Bang. Const, Art. 6. & 23A Amend. XIV, 2011). Such a constitutional declaration

or misrecognition has prepared the ground for further legislative discriminations and oppressions

of the Adibashis; for example, different policies and laws do not recognize Adibashis’ special

cases, circumstances, and cultural particularities, and “there are no special legal provisions

tailored to them” (Tripura, 2014, p. 32). Most importantly, their traditional land right is not

acknowledged (Dhamai, 2014). Except for a few mentions in the education policy, most laws and

policies lack “conceptual clarity” and “concrete provisions,” which manifest the elites’

negligence towards the Adibashis and reinstate their distressed conditions further (Tripura, 2014,

pp. 34–35). As a result, they have been deprived of the conditions needed for nurturing their

community-based practices and cultures and, most importantly, the regional provisions required

for their protection. The constitutional exclusion thus sets the ground for the Bengali elites’

exclusionary nationalist politics against the Adibashis, ignoring their distinct identities, cultural

specificities, as well as sufferings and deprivations. In a way, people who are unnamed or

misnamed are easier to be unknown, unheard, and unseen.

The constitutional misrecognition also pervades the colonial politics of naming by

identifying the Adibashis by various offensive and euphemistic terms instead of the “names” they

prefer. However, until 2010, the government showed no concern with the name “Adibashi” as it

had been used as an alternative title for upajati and tribals.19 Since the name “Adibashi” received

19 See chapter 1.

85

its new political connotation for Indigeneity in the 1970s (Tripura, 2015) and acknowledgement

of Indigenous rights internationally in 1993,20 the Bengali elites started feeling uncomfortable

with the title. After Bangladesh’s denial of the existence of Indigenous Peoples in Bangladesh in

an international platform in 2007,21 the elites showed a strong position against the name

“Adibashi” and coined a new name, khudra nri goshthi (small ethnic groups) in 201022 to identify

them. This new name has allowed the Bengali elites to reject the Adibashis’ self-determination

rights, land rights, autonomy, and other benefits, which this Adibashi/Indigenous title

encompasses (Ahmed, 2010). Bengali elites find the acknowledgement of these rights to be a

threat to their egocentric nationalism, as well as the political exploitation of Adibashi resources.

In addition, this new name enables the elites to promote their willingness to reduce the use of

derogatory terms. However, Adibashi scholars have found this new title offensive too as the

implementation process of the term does not offer any explanations, which indicates that the

identification of the Adibashis is based on their meagre numbers instead of their cultural identities

(Nahar & Tripura, 2017). This naming politics has reinforced the hierarchical relationship

between the Bengalis and Adibashis, further allowing the elites to subjugate them (Ahmed, 2010;

Khatun & Sumon, 2017; Uddin, 2019). Hidden in the name, the politics of exclusion is thus in

operation.

In addition, apart from the naming politics, the Bengali elites have inherited various

exclusionary strategies of British government, which they developed in the name of “protective

isolation” of the tribal regions (Chowdhury, 2016, p. 37). The British rulers declared the CHT

area and parts of greater Mymensingh as “totally excluded” and “partially excluded” zones

20 Indigenous human rights and cultural and land rights were declared (Ahmed, 2010). 21 Bangladesh was one of the eleven countries in the world that did not vote for the UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples in 2007 (Ahmed, 2010). 22 The Government of Bangladesh has prohibited the use of the word Indigenous or Adibashi and declared

that there are no Indigenous people in Bangladesh. Instead, the use of the term khudro nri goshthi (small ethnic groups) has been encouraged.

86

respectively from the rest of Bengal23 (Chowdhury, 2016, p. 37; Tripura, 1992 & Roy et al., 2010,

as cited in Tripura, 2014, p. 29). Such a policy of isolation (Bleie, 2005) was mainly a British

colonial way of transforming the regions into their “space for revenue collection” and keeping

them detached from the uprising politics in Bengal in the late 1800s and early 1900s (Chowdhury,

2016, p. 37; Mohsin, 1997). Through this policy, the British also tried to establish their “shield

and bulwark” image as the protector of the “naïve” Adibashis from the Bengalis, creating the

illusion of the preservation of their regional distinctiveness (Chowdhury, 2016, p. 67); in effect,

this strategy further ensured the colonial hold on the regions and set the ground for more

exclusion and exploitation, pitting one against another. This exclusion was somewhat protective

of Indigenous culture and lifestyle, but mainly kept these regions reserved for policy

experimentation by the British ruler, as well as the exploitation of their political and economic

benefits (Chowdhury, 2016). In this way, the Adibashis were left totally removed from the

ongoing nationalist politics in Bengal, which deterred them from developing a voice or choice,

and realizing their political role. As a result, they remained absent from the political discourses

and anti-colonial movements, and invisible to both the political elites and the British government

during the partition in 1947. No parts of India were bothered about the annexation of the CHT

area as no leaders felt the necessity to include them in their nation-building process (Mohsin,

1997). Although the tribal chiefs24 showed their eagerness to join India instead of Pakistan, they

remained unheard regarding their preferences (Chowdhury, 2016). In fact, the British did not

consider “upgrading” them as a political group to negotiate with their choices; instead, CHT was

“awarded” to Pakistan at the Pakistani elites’ request just before the declaration of independence

in 1947 (Chowdhury, 2016). The Adibashis experienced similar forms of negligence and

23 Under the Government of India Act in 1935 (Part III, Chapter V), these regions were declared “excluded and partially excluded areas.” Five thanas in the Mymensingh district, such as Sribardi, Nalitabari, Haluaghat, Durgapur, and Kolmakanada, were partially excluded. This act was just a continuation of the

CHT Manual ACT XXII of 1880 and CHT Regulation of 1900 (Mohsin, 1997; Tripura, 2014). 24 See chapter 1.

87

exclusion during the nation-building process in the Pakistan period and liberation war in 1971.

Being confused about their roles in the movement and position in the national identity (Mohsin,

1997), Adibashis were uncertain about their status in a new independent country. In other words,

the British policies of isolation led neither the Bengalis to think of an inclusive nation-building

process nor the Adibashis to decide on their political roles and preferences.

Following such a policy of isolation, as well as a narrative of national integration, the

Bengali elites became inspired to restrict the CHT zone in independent Bangladesh too. Steeped

in antagonistic feeling against the Adibashis, the Bengali elites observed the political

mobilization of CHT Adibashis that started with the rejection of their identity in 1972 as a threat

to the national sovereignty of Bangladesh (Adnan, 2007). Thereby, the elites decided to militarize

the CHT zone right after independence (Adnan, 2007). Eventually, this zone was fully militarized

in 197625 in the name of maintaining peace and security; however, the objective was to control

the political mobilization of Adibashis (Adnan, 2007). Even today, the CHT is a highly

militarized area where there is one armed forces personnel for every six civilians (Bashar, 2011).

The armed forces militia have not only addressed the insurgent movements26 but have also

facilitated the “demographic engineering” (Dhamai, 2014, p. 11) of the CHT—first, by evicting

the paharis (high landers) from their land and villages and relocating them in cluster villages,27

and then by implanting the landless Muslim-Bengalis with the promise of allowances and land in

25 On October 6, 1976, the government deployed the military fully to handle the insurgent attacks in the CHT, which the government declared as an essential strategy in “Aid of Civil Power” (Shelley, 1992, p. 133.) 26 The PCJSS, the Parbattya Chattgaram Jana Samhati Samiti (The United Peoples’ Party of CHT), was

the regional platform for the CHT population, which was formed in the face of continuous rejection of Adibashis’ distinct identity by the Bengali elites. It also had an armed wing called Shanti Bahini that increased their armed activities at the protest of growing militarization by the then military government under General Zia. Also, General Zia’s diversion from secularization to Islamization has closed all the hopes of the CHT peoples to be accepted as a part of the Bangladeshi identity (Mohsin, 1997). 27 “Cluster village” started in 1979 in order to shift the Adibashis to a restricted place with the false promise

of providing secured livelihood and life by the government which ultimately makes them imprisoned and landless (Chakma & Hill, 2014, p 143).

88

different phases28 (Adnan, 2007). These processes involved massacres, rape, burning and

vandalization of houses and properties, mass killings, torture, land dispossessions, and abductions

(Adnan, 2007). These atrocities are still widespread in the hill tracts and plain land Adibashi

regions by the joint mission of security forces—a section of Bengali settlers, as well as a formed

and armed vigilant group of the state (Adnan, 2007). These issues hardly make the news or are

subject to laws and investigations. A deadly combination of discriminatory laws and a culture of

impunity for these perpetrators29 has devasted the lives of hill peoples and forced many to flee

(Chakma & Chakma, 2014). Thus, the ethnic and cultural biases imparted by the subscription to

hegemonic and chauvinistic nationalism provided the fundamental basis for the exclusion and

oppression of Adibashis within the nation-state of Bangladesh.

3.2.2.4 Nationalism and National Economic Development

The concept of national development also functions as a tool of the nationalist politics of

dominant elites, concentrating more power into their hands and usurping the resources of

marginalized groups. Casanova (1965) identifies this condition as an uneven wave of

development and Michael Hechter termed it “cultural division of labour” (1975, p. 315). Such a

situation refers to the technical advancement and accumulation of all the natural resources of/by

the dominant group over the non-dominant groups, renewing the social stratification. The idea of

colonial development (Casanova, 2012) in an unequal form is synonymous with a “nation,

national integration, and state control of economic activities” (Mohsin, 1997, p. 61). The

28 Planned and forced population transfer to CHT region that started in 1978–79 during the Zia regime was completed in multiple phases. This migration continued until 1984–85 and involved the migration of

approximately 300,000–340,000 Muslim Bengali peasants to CHT. This process forcibly dispossessed 100,000 Hill peoples from their homes and lands through counter-insurgency operations and military and settler attacks. Around 55,000 fled to the nearest Indian states, Tripura, and Mizoram, and took shelter in refugee camps and 30,000–50,000 sought shelter in mountainous tracts and forests. This forced migration reduced the Adibashi population in CHT from 97.5% in 1947 to 51% in 2014 (Adnan, 2007; Dhamai, 2014). 29 Because of the structure of law, barriers to access, language, and culture, the reported cases of murders, rape, and vandalization are significantly lower than the original numbers.

89

civilizing mission of the British, which stemmed from the dichotomy of modern and traditional

thought that views Indigeneity as an opposite to “modernity” (Porsanger, 2011) has been

transmitted to the Bengali elites through the structure of a nation-state; this process replicates the

colonial structure of exploitation, and social and economic dualism (Casanova, 2012).

Following the colonial form of development, Bengali elites targeted the land and

resources of the Adibashis for industrialization and urbanization. Land grabbing from Adibashis

in the name of national development is an ongoing oppression in Bangladesh 30 (Chakma, 2014).

By “barbarizing” the concept of the land–people connection of the Adibashis and their

community-based Jumm cultivation,31 in a way, the political elites have been moving the

Adibashis towards plough cultivation32 (Tripura, 2015). This has been an effective strategy of the

elites to grab the Adibashi land and exploit it for so-called development projects33 (Tripura,

2015). Both plain land and hill tracts Adibashis are landless34 today, losing their community ties

and practices. This so-called development process does not aid the progress of the Adibashis, but

mostly benefits the Bengali elites.

The CHT zone, a treasure box for the British, also became the centre of industrialization

in independent Bangladesh. The CHT was given to Pakistan by the British 35 on economic grounds

that Pakistan exploited to its full extent by industrializing the area (Chowdhury, 2016). The

30 Non-recognition of the traditional land management system of Adibashi communities has led the

Bangladesh government to classify those lands as khas land, or un-classed state forest, or state lands that the state can acquire anytime for its use (Chakma, 2014). 31 Although Jumm cultivation is an ecofriendly farming system of the Adibashis, the British and then the Bengalis created a discourse on how destructive and ancient this system is (Tripura, 2015). 32 This is a cultivation method that is usually applied in plain land and uses “plough” as a tool to loosen the soil before sowing the seeds. 33 Building dams, roads, and bridges hinders the regular life of the Adibashis. The Karnafully hydroelectric project and Kaptai Lake in the1960s, Betbunia satellite station, and the Sajek Valley tourist place are the projects that displaced and dislocated thousands of Adibashis. 34 85% of Adibashis in the North-Western region in Bangladesh are landless (Dhamai, 2014). The Kaptai hydroelectric project in the 1960s submerged 40% of arable land and displaced 100,000 people (Roy & Promila, 2014). 35 Before the British period, the CHT was an independent region, and it was annexed to the Bengal during the 1800s (Chowdhury, 2016).

90

construction of the Kaptai hydroelectric project in the 1960s displaced thousands of Adibashis

from their land, which affected their lives forever. The consequent development projects—for

instance, the construction of Kaptai dam and lake, Karnafully Papermill, Sajek Valley, and

hundreds of small industries—made the Adibashis landless and homeless, and transformed them

into an extremely marginalized group in the country (Mohsin, 1997). The Bangladesh

government has been continuing this industrialization project36 in the name of national

development until today by pushing these peoples to the remotest areas—up to the hills or into

the forest. The proposed Rampal Power Station in Khulna37 is one of the most dreadful additions

to it. This process is nothing but a way to internally colonize the land and lives of the Adibashis

in independent Bangladesh.

This land dispossession not only degrades the financial condition of the Adibashis but

also disrupts their traditional practices and beliefs. The national development concept, which is

defined by the Western notion of modernization, has mainly been implemented to benefit the

Bengali elites and displace the Adibashis from their traditional livelihoods, Indigenous

knowledge systems, and cultural practices (Barua, 2007). More specifically, losing their lands,

they are bound to opt for non-Indigenous livelihood practices, such as plough cultivation, wage

labour, lease farming, or migration to cities seeking jobs (Barua, 2007). Such changes are

disconnecting them from their communities; in this process, they also lose their self-sufficient

economy and become dependent on the “modern” education and economic system (Barua, 2007).

This development process gradually coerces them to abandon their cultural roots and knowledges,

36 Only in 2017, around 20,000 acres of Indigenous land was acquired for the purpose of tourism, eco-

forest, eco-park, and industrialization (Kapaeenge Foundation, 2017). 37 The construction of Rampal power station in Sundarban in Bangladesh is projected to displace thousands of Indigenous people, including Santal, Munda, Mahali, Oraon, Pahan, Bhuimali, Karmokar, Turi, Hari, Rai, and Rabidas. Similarly, if the Phulbari coal mine, another project in Rangpur, is completed, it will displace about 130,000 people, though the government estimation shows only 50,000 people. The number of people displaced will increase over time and could be higher than 220,000 as the coal mine will continue to

contaminate water over the years. These construction plans do not include any resettlement plan for all these people (“Observation on the State of Indigenous,” 2017).

91

and accept a Bengalicized knowledge system (Barua, 2007) which integrates them into the

Bengali culture and identity. This process also eventually weakens the political mobilization of

the Adibashis, as well as their goal of Adibashi recognition. In the name of national development,

Adibashis’ identities are being Bengalicized and are under the threat of extinction.

The above discussion on the development of the national identity in Bangladesh through

historical events, as well as many socio-political interactions among the groups, has illustrated the

national identity’s ethnocentric, chauvinistic, and colonial approach to the non-dominant

Adibashis who do not conform to the established Bengali identity. This argument also explains

the ways in which the politics of nationalism has laid out a structure of domination and

exploitation that continues to benefit the political elites at the cost of the Adibashis’ extinction. In

addition, this structure of domination and exploitation has been entrenched in various socio-

political systems, including the education system. Therefore, in the next section, th is framework

explains the political and cultural biases, as well as the nationalist ideologies of the standardized,

high-stakes testing system in Bangladesh, which in effect reproduces the domination–exploitation

structure for the Adibashis.

3.3 Standardized, High-Stakes Testing and Its Colonial Roots

A review of the concept of the standardized, high-stakes testing system in education

confirms its Eurocentric roots, as well as the political and cultural biases towards the dominant

ethnic group, Bengali elites. Moreover, this discussion clarifies how the biased testing system

serves the national elites who represent the nationalist politics in Bangladesh. The following

analysis shows how the testing system is regarded as both a distinct mechanism and part of a

broader educational system, marginalizing Adibashi communities.

3.3.1 What is a Standardized, High-Stakes Testing System?

92

High-stakes tests are usually a nationally or state-wide designed and operated

standardized achievement tests38(Marchant, 2004) that have significant consequences for both

students and teachers (Grant, 2004). The testing mechanism follows a fixed set of rules, and a

specified and uniform format of instructions, schedules, and resource allotment for administering

exams; these norm-referenced tests39 are timed, administered, and scored consistently (Kohn,

2000; Poulsen & Hewson, 2013–2014). In order to maintain these mandates, this standardized,

high-stakes testing system necessitates some processes: standardizing curriculum, quantifying or

scoring students’ performances, and categorizing students based on that score (Au, 2010). In

other words, it focuses on academic achievements by distributing scores, which are determined

by the attainment of a fixed, standardized, and culturally determined knowledge, to a specific

level of education.

While the standardized, high-stakes testing system evaluates and rank students, it ascribes

certain effects to test performances (Au, 2010), which either offer or restrict future opportunities.

Wayne Au (2010), a critical education scholar, mentions two significant aspects of the testing

system—“measurement” and “consequences.” The tests’ emphasis on measuring students’

performances through scores causes significant consequences for both students and teachers, and

largely impacts on the decision-making process in the overall education system (Amrein &

Berliner, 2002). To be specific, tests determine students’ educational fate (for example, grade

level, graduation, and career); shapes school learning, pedagogy, and curriculum; and affects

other decisions, such as teachers’ salary, schools’ sanctions, and political strategies40 (“High-

stakes tests,” 2014). While connecting all of these educational and non-educational aspects, these

38 Achievement tests refer to a method of measuring the level of knowledge and skills attainment of a particular student (Cizek, 2004). 39 Norm-referenced assessment evaluates and grades students’ learning by comparing them against other students’ performances and ranking them accordingly (Harvey, 2004–2021). https://www.qualityresearchinternational.com/glossary/normreferenced.htm 40 The Glossary of Education Reform, https://www.edglossary.org/high-stakes-testing/

93

tests create an “air of seriousness” in education regarding their significance (Nichols & Berliner,

2007, p. 162).

Besides, the high-stakes testing system is structured around a few fundamental principles,

such as meritocracy, objectivity, and accountability, creating an illusion that the system is fair and

equitable. While meritocracy offers equal competition and rewards to “intelligent ,” “skilled,” and

“industrious” students, objectivity promotes the “neutrality” of the tests (Sacks, 2000; Au, 2010).

However, the critics question whether meritocracy and objectivity can ensure equity and equality

when “merit” and “neutrality” are standardized in a testing system (Sacks, 2000); rather,

assessing and comparing students from diverse backgrounds through the standard criteria is unfair

(Au, 2010). Moreover, accountability includes measures that create the liability of actions among

the involved actors to ensure efficiency of the system (Heilig & Darling-Hammond, 2008;

McCarty, 2009; Au, 2010). Paradoxically, accountability measures create pressure on schools and

teachers to maintain a good score board while persuading them to find ways to exclude the “low

scored” or “failed” students; in this way, it concentrates more power at the hand of the policy-

makers (Au, 2010). These values form a quantitative, scientific approach to the standardized,

high-stakes testing system and establish more legitimacy while creating the image that students

are categorized, compared, and identified by centralized criteria in this system, (Au, 2010; Singer,

2019). However, for humanitarian reasons, scholars argue that these principles promote the

objectification of students by reducing them into numerical scores and denying the individual

differences students have (Au, 2010).

Mixed opinions exist regarding the application of the standardized, high-stakes testing

system in education. This testing system has been a popular and reliable tool for many developed

and developing countries to ensure a state-prescribed “quality” of education. The advocates see it

as a means of amplifying academic standards, increasing schools’ accountability, and closing the

achievement gap among various groups of students (Herman et al.,1990; Heubert & Hauser,

94

1999). However, the tests have received criticism from teachers, schools, and education scholars,

contradicting its proponents’ views. The critics argue that this kind of test compromises the

integrity of curriculum and pedagogy as it focuses more on test preparations for students than

effective learning (Au, 2010; Kearns, 2011). It narrows the curriculum by persuading teachers to

address the test contents only, lacks an open and democratic deliberation of the contents and

grades, and determines incentives for teachers and schools (Maudus & Clarke, 2001; Au, 2010).

Most importantly, this system has been widely criticized for disadvantaging the “at -risk” students,

such as students with disabilities, low socio-economic backgrounds, and minority and Indigenous

identities (Kohn, 2000; Natriello & Pallas, 2001; Maudus & Clarke, 2001; Amerein & Berliner,

2002; Jones, 2007; Nichols & Berliner, 2007; Darling-Hammond, 2007; Au, 2010; Hart &

Kempf, 2018; McCarty, 2018). Specifically, such tests subtract Indigenous culture, knowledge,

identity, and capital (Kim, 2015; Hart & Kempf, 2018; McCarty, 2018; Mullen, 2020). In a way,

the constructive promises of the high-stakes testing system operate against non-dominant

students, especially Indigenous groups.

Based on these previous studies and literatures, in this study, I define the standardized,

high-stakes testing system as a centralized and standardized assessment mechanism that is based

on the national culture and language, which aims to determine the academic achievement of

students at every level of the education system.

3.3.2 The Politics of the Standardized, High-Stakes Testing System

The standardized, high-stakes testing system promotes a specific political view of the

ruling elites rather than serving the purposes of learning for all ethnic groups. Scholars have

indicated political objectives behind the standardized, high-stakes testing system in the North

American and Australian contexts (Sacks, 2000; Nichols & Berliner, 2007; Moses & Nanna,

2007; Brantlinger, 2004; Au, 2010; Klenowski, 2009; 2015; Koyama & Cofield, 2013; Mullen,

2020). More specifically, Sacks (2000) has observed that this testing system is driven by political

95

motivation since the tests become the state’s instrument for ensuring efficiency and enforcing

competition among students, teachers, and schools. Sacks has also explained the formula of the

testing system: institutionalizing the dominant educational standard; measuring and ranking

students and teachers; encouraging the public spectacle of test scores; and assigning reward and

punishment for participants (2000). Additionally, Sacks (2000), Moses and Nanna (2007), Au

(2010), and Koyama and Cofield (2013) have considered the high-stakes tests as a strong political

tool of the elites that aims to implement the state’s education policy and state-prescribed

education, both of which promoted uniformity and homogeneity. They have added that these tests

distribute national values by influencing curriculum and classroom practices and excluding the

non-tested contents. Moses and Nanna (2007), specifically, identify this process as a “legitimate”

control of the elites over common people to follow the state-prescribed values (p. 64). The testing

mechanism and many of its technical aspects often correspond with the underlying social

constructs or interests of many societies, creating a legitimacy for this system and reproducing the

existing social culture or traditions (2007). The following three issues will provide a nuanced

explanation of the testing system’s political and cultural biases: promotion of exclusionary

practices, control over educational practices, and maintenance of a political spectacle.

First, the high-stakes testing system is an inherently exclusionary system as it promotes

the standardization of knowledge and educational practices, and elimination of “other”

knowledges and practices, as well as students; the former necessitates the latter. In order to

maintain its exclusionary practices, this testing system first needs an “official knowledge” (Apple,

1993, p. 222) or an “educational standard” (Weilbacher, 2012, p. 2), which in effect excludes the

non-dominant knowledge systems. In this process, the testing system endorses the state-

prescribed knowledge or curriculum as an official or standard knowledge, and manipulates the

curriculum and pedagogies by determining teaching contents and strategies, and forming official

pedagogy (Kohn, 2000; Klenowski, 2009; Au, 2007, 2010). However, this process is never a

96

“neutral assemblance of knowledge” (Apple, 1993, p. 222). Rather, this official knowledge is

constructed through “the selective traditions” and “legitimate knowledge” of the dominant group

(Apple, 1993, p. 222). In a way, this system constructs and reproduces the “Dominant

discourse”41—dominant knowledge, cultural attributes, and identity (Gee 1996, as cited in Au,

2009, p. 67). This “closed” system silences different learning styles, Indigenous or community-

based knowledge systems, as well as individual teachers’ opin ions regarding their students

(McNeil, 2005, p. 60). It also does not acknowledge the cultural particularities, special

conditions, and extenuating circumstances of minority students whose situations are different

from the dominant ones’ (Au, 2009, 2010). In this way, it imposes the state-prescribed knowledge

on all students regardless of their backgrounds (Au, 2009, 2010) and forces non-dominant

students to accept the dominant knowledge. It also uses the standard rubrics to identify the

“deficiency” of the non-dominant students who usually fail to represent the test standards and

survive the test competitions (Kohn, 2000; Amerein & Berliner, 2002; Au, 2010). In other words,

this system not only subtracts the needed knowledge for ensuring “good” performances of

minority students in the tests but also uses an exclusionary formula of learning and evaluation to

identify the “deficiency” of non-dominant knowledge. Such a “politics of official knowledge”

maneuvered through the operation of the testing system establishes the hegemony of the

dominant knowledge system and embeds the process of exclusion, thereby addressing the

objectives of the political elites at the expense of minority students.

Second, the standardized, high-stakes testing system also operates as a surveillance tool

of the state to monitor and administer educational practices and ensure the efficacy of the

education system through its accountability measures (Au, 2010; Mullen, 2020). As this testing

system is a state-controlled mechanism (Mullen, 2020), it functions as a powerful device of the

41 Discourse (with a capitol “D”) represents more than just a language; it encompasses ways of being and

identity that express certain norms through a variety of signals, including language, dress, rituals, movement, and culture (Gee, 1996, as cited in Au, 2009).

97

state power, ensuring the mandates of the state-operated education system: categorization and

certification of students on state-determined criteria, quantification of students’ and schools’

performances, and materialization of “success” (Heubert & Hauser, 1999). The smooth operation

of these processes need liability at every level, which the high-stakes testing system, as a part of

policy-making, creates at the bottom of the education system to reinforce competition and ensure

efficiency at work (Apple, 1993, 2004; Moses & Nanna, 2007; Au, 2010). Paradoxically, scholars

have argued that accountability promises are self-contradictory. On the one hand, accountability

is believed to increase the efficacy of the state-prescribed educational practices; it stimulates the

expected workflow, ensures “quality” teaching and learning, and minimizes the racial

achievement gap by generating motivation and responsibility among students, parents, and

teachers. On the other hand, it determines rewards and punishment for students, and sanctions

benefits and amenities for schools and teachers based on students’ test achievements (Heubert &

Hauser, 1999; Moses & Nanna, 2007; McCarty, 2009; Au, 2010). The emphasis on the test

performances as a determinant negates the claims for ensuring “quality,” efficacy, and equity in

education, which allows the policy-makers to exercise power over the education system. In a

way, this process mandates the intervention of the administrators and policy-makers in the

educational practices to create pressure and make corrections, and ensure that “quality” and

“efficacy” are achieved following the state-prescribed criteria (Heubert & Hauser, 1999; Au,

2010). This testing system is thus one of the most powerful “levers” or “regulatory power[s]” of

the policy-makers for effectuating a top-down approach to education plans and transmitting the

pressure to the bottom of the system (Heubert & Hauser, 1999, p. 29).

Third, the standardized, high-stakes testing system functions as a political spectacle,

enabling the politicians to display the betterment of the education system to the public (Nichols &

Berliner, 2007), thereby legitimizing their political hold over educational decisions. In this

system, the publication of test scores is a public phenomenon rather than confidential feedback on

98

an individual’s performance. It creates a grandiose spectacle of test success by using test scores

for ranking, certification, and promotion of students and teachers, which obfuscates its severe

consequences (Huebert & Hauser, 1999). While holding an individual responsible for their test

performances, the meritocratic testing system celebrates the “intelligence” and “hard work” of

successful students and establishes the legitimacy of their success at the cost of some students’

failure (Au, 2013). In fact, the tests blame the “corrupted” students, their “neglectful parents,”

and “inept teachers” for their “poor” test performances (Brantlinger, 2004, p. 6). This magical

power of meritocracy promotes the neutral image of the system (Darnon et al., 2018) and hides

the structural inequalities and discriminations (Lipsey, 2014; Au, 2016), thereby highlighting the

equity promises of the state. In other words, while the glory for the high rate of test success

credits policy-makers, failure counts as an individual fault. In addition, this grandiose political

success perpetuates the image of political elites as the “messengers of the popular doom and

salvation rhetoric regarding education” (Brantlinger, 2004, p. 16); this system works best for

promoting the concern of the state for its students by showing a path to academic success.

Politicians take advantage of this political rhetoric of educational failure to advertise their

concerns and care about the country and its students (Sacks, 2000). While illustrating the whole

situation through a theatre metaphor, Koyama and Cofield (2013) project the testing system as the

embodiment of “apparent” and “real affect” of “the political spectacle”; while the “apparent

affect” displays test success as a political victory, the “real affect”—racial failure and the

achievement gap—remains in the backstage (p. 277). Thus, the high-stakes testing system

establishes the legitimacy of its discriminatory practices through its strong face value.

3.3.3 Does the Standardized, High-Stakes Testing System Promote Equity in Education?

Scholars have identified the standardized, high-stakes testing system as a biased,

inequitable, and unfair system. While questioning the illusion of its fairness and equity promises,

Young obligates “impartial competition” and “equality of opportunity” to effectuate a

99

meritocratic testing system; failing to confirm these promises may result in privileging a specific

group of people (Talib & Fitzgerald, 2015, as cited in Kim & Choy, 2017, p. 116). Numerous

studies have identified that the standardized, high-stakes testing system benefits dominant and

affluent students more than minority and poor students in order to screen these students out of the

system (Maudus & Clarke, 2001; McNeil, 2005; Ladson-Billing, 2006; Nichols & Berliner, 2007;

Klenowski, 2009; Au, 2010; Taylor-Smith, 2011; Rudolph, 2013). More specifically, the

elimination process is intrinsic in this testing system (Au, 2010); the cut-scores, a generic formula

to indicate test performances, fail to illustrate the level of knowledge and skills students possess

(McNeil, 2005; Au, 2009), as well as the contextual particularities of minority and

underprivileged students. Therefore, many scholars have indicated the co-relation among tests,

class, and race/ethnicity, and identified the culturally biased definition of “standard” and “merit”

in the testing culture (Brantlinger, 2004; Nichols & Berliner, 2007; Au, 2010, 2013). So, when

students need specific cultural and economic resources to achieve academic success in the testing

system, such tests are unfair and “unequal by design” (Au, 2010, p. 136).

The fundamental cultural biases of the standardized, high-stakes testing system lie in its

meritocracy promises, which reproduce a dominant knowledge system and favour dominant

students. The meritocratic testing system promotes equal opportunities to all students to access

academic success; while “success” comes through one’s “merit” and “hard work,” “failure” is the

result of an individual’s lack of efforts and intelligence (Sacks, 2000; Kim & Choi, 2017; Darnon

et al., 2018). However, meritocracy or “merit” is defined and understood distinctively in different

cultures, nations, and groups (Sacks, 2000; Kim & Choi, 2017). Also, defining “merit” or

“intelligence” in terms of potential ability rather than actual performance has been historically

biased and problematic (Sacks, 2000). While criticizing the cultural prejudices of “merit” and its

measurement process, Kim & Choi indicate that such a meritocratic testing system safeguards the

dominant system (2017). This means that meritocracy in the testing system is a culturally and

100

politically defined criterion, which fails to address the contextually varied nature of “merit” and

creates more inequalities than equality. While neglecting the differences and obstacles minority

students have, the meritocratic testing system “blindly” assesses their performances and identifies

them as a product of their “lack of efforts and hard work” (Lemann, 1999, as cited in Au, 2016, p.

46), “lack of grit” (Horn, 2012, as cited in Au, 2016, p. 46), and “merit” (Au, 2016, p. 46).

Therefore, this system tends to identify minority students as “failed” and “inadequate” who “need

improvement” (Maudus & Clarke, 2001, p. 92) as they usually fail to represent the “merit” for

which such tests look. In a system where everything represents the dominant culture and

ideology, minority students are unlikely to thrive.

Studies have also shown that the standardized, high-stakes testing system benefits mostly

the affluent, educated elites who have cultural and economic resources to afford good test

preparations (Kohn, 2000; Ladson-Billing, 2006; Nichols & Berliner, 2007; Klenowski, 2009;

Au, 2009). Brantlinger (2004) argues that the tests reproduce the success of culturally and

economically privileged students who have accessed or can afford to access the dominant

knowledge. To be specific, this testing system has been popularized in the countries (for example,

the US, South Asian countries, and Australia) where a huge socio-economic gap exists between

the dominant and non-dominant groups, and privatization of education is prevalent (Nichols &

Berliner, 2007; Au, 2010). This system not only allows the political elites to manipulate popular

discourses on educational equality, but also establish a rare image of “quality” education and

school success, which requires “talent,” “hard work,” or financial solvency. Further, Brantlinger

(2004) adds that the scarcity of “quality” education benefits the education business of the

dominant elites who make profit out of selling “quality” education and “good” test preparations.

This process necessitates many private services and tuition to intervene to meet the demand, thus

further making “quality” education more inaccessible to underprivileged groups. In this business

101

of education, again, the privileged groups, who can afford these amenities, usually succeed in the

tests.

In other words, this testing system evaluates the “merit” that can be achieved through

one’s access to cultural and economic resources, which are usually available to the dominant,

privileged groups. This system is thus unfair and discriminatory towards the disadvantaged

groups. While causing the failure and sufferings for underprivileged, racial minority, and poor

students, the tests reproduce racial and class discriminations (Maudus & Clarke, 2001).

3.3.4 The Standardized, High-Stakes Testing System and Its National Political Agenda

Given the previous discussion of political biases of the standardized, high-stakes testing

system, there are three reasons why this testing system is perfectly suited to the political goals as

well as nationalist ideologies of Bengali elites—marginalizing Adibashi students in Bangladesh.

First, while the standardized, high-stakes testing system mandates the uniformity of “test

format, procedures, and administration” (Phelps, 2007, as cited in Schuler, 2012, p. 105), it

allows the Bengali elites to achieve their homogenizing goal of a uniform and universal education

system (NEP, 2010). Both systems complement each other, fostering the homogenization and

standardization of knowledges, learning strategies, and pedagogies. This process is achieved

through the direct controls that these tests operate over curriculum, structure of knowledge, and

pedagogy (Lattimore, 2001; Blake, 2008; Au, 2010). While endorsing the dominant knowledge,

language, and pedagogy (Au, 2007, 2010), which are based on Bangla language and culture in

Bangladesh and offer no exceptions and alternatives to diverse students (Herman et al., 1990)—

especially Adibashi students—this testing system coerces every student to pursue the same

process of learning. Further, it generates the need for meeting the test expectations—the

standardized knowledge and method of learning—which homogenize the ways of teaching and

learning in all schools. Given the heavy stakes, students are bound to follow the system. In this

process of homogenization, the tests stipulate the de-legitimation and dismissal of diverse

102

thoughts, values, knowledge, and culture (McConaughey, 2000), or non-dominant cultural

attributes. In a way, while catering to the dominant culture, these monocultural practices and

environments in schools prohibit multiculturalism or cultural pluralism in education (Valenzuela,

1999; Vinson et al., 2001; Au, 2010). Homogenization and monoculturalism thus entrench the

standardized, high-stakes testing system that yields “like-mindedness” among diverse Adibashi

students by promoting a homogenous way of thinking and learning, which Bengali elites intend to

achieve.

Second, the standardized, high-stakes testing system functions as a prominent political

weapon of Bengali elites who historically have exploited education in order to disseminate

different forms of nationalism and political ideologies (Hossain et al. 2002). Since 1971,

education in Bangladesh has taken the shape that the “changing nature of nationalism” provided

(Kabir, 1994, p. 15). The representation of the national identity, history, and culture, as well as

secular and Muslim identity, in the curriculum has been adapted according to contested national

identities (Ghosh, 2012). In addition, textbooks reflect the changing narratives on the liberation

war in 1971, contributors to the war, and national enemies in the nationalist politics. Overall, the

aims and objectives of the education policy clearly project the visions of disseminating a special

form of national history and identity, and transforming the population into a national community

(Hossain et, al. 2002). So, while promoting a uniform and standardized knowledge through a

prescribed and centralized curriculum (Barua, 2004, 2007), the country’s education is

disseminating the “national history, tradition, and culture” (NEP, 2010, p. 1) as a “standard.” In

this process, the standardized, high-stakes testing system is one of the most powerful tools of the

policy-makers to effectuate the national education policy and centralized curriculum. In a way, it

is an effective method to silence the voices of Adibashi cultures and languages in education that

do not represent the national standard (Au, 2010). It allows the elites to achieve a homogenous

national community by intervening into educational practices and determining future

103

consequences for students, which coerces Adibashi students to conform to the national practices

and principles (Freire 1970, as cited in Vinson et al., 2001).

Third, as the standardized, high-stakes testing system technically requires a number of

failed students to heighten the success of passed ones (Au, 2013), it fits best into the Bengali

elites’ political ideologies that are exclusionary and discriminatory against the Adibashis. Critics

have identified the deep-rooted eugenics42 history of the high-stakes testing system (Singer, 2016;

Loflin, 2013; Au, 2013), which follows a biased process of standardizing the criteria for

evaluating “merit” and “intelligence” in the form of a “Common Core State Standards”43 (Singer,

2016, para. 26). It also promotes academic tracking to segregate students based on their “merits,”

which benefits the dominant groups (Singer, 2016). This biased process allows the political elites

to intervene efficiently in order to remove the “unexpected” students or assimilate them into the

dominant norms (Loflin, 2013), which Kohn identifies as an educational “ethnic cleansing”

process (2000, p. 18). The Bengali elites, who have denied Adibashi identities and excluded them

from the national identity, have found this testing system to be compatible with the underlying

exclusionary nationalist politics and socio-political constructs of Bangladesh. The exclusion of

Adibashi identities from the national identity is thus embodied through the modern-day eugenic

technique of the tests.

Given the political and cultural biases of the standardized, high-stakes testing system, this

chapter establishes that the testing system conforms to the socio-political structure of Bangladesh

that is driven by the nationalist politics of exclusion and homogenization. Bengali elites, who

have been using education as a significant political tool to disseminate their political ideologies,

42 Both eugenics and standardized testing have historical roots in racist thoughts, believing that ethnicity affects intelligence (Loflin, 2013). Considering “intelligence” as an instinctive and fixed concept, the standardized IQ tests in the 1920s in the West were used to detect the “mental defectives” of children of colour and the working class, and “treated” them accordingly (Loflin, 2013; Singer, 2016). 43 Through the Common Core State Standards Initiative in 2010, the United States promote an educational

standard in English language and mathematics for K-12 students, which the tests will assess in students’ performances and provide scores at the end of each grade.

104

find the testing system to be a “powerful” and legitimate nationalist tool to activate their

exclusionary practices against the Adibashis. While catering to Eurocentric values of

monoculturalism as a dominant ideology, both the politics of nationalism and the testing system

coerce the Adibashis into accepting Bangla language and culture, marginalizing or excluding

Adibashis and their identities and cultural attributes. This chapter illustrates how Bengali elites,

who have never shown any interest in incorporating the Adibashis in the national discourses, are

extending their exclusionary practices through the severe consequences that the testing system

creates for the Adibashis. The standardized, high-stakes testing system thus manifests the

nationalist ideologies of Bengali elites to activate the domination and exclusion/exploitation

structure against the Adibashis. This analytical framework of domination and

exploitation/exclusion will inform the analyses of the following chapters, which investigate how

the testing system, as a part of the broader education system, marginalizes the Adibashis through

its discriminatory language policy, curriculum, and hegemonic control.

105

Chapter 4

Linguistic Subjugation: Language Policy in Education and Its

Exploitative Essence

4.1 Introduction

Working as a teacher in Bangladesh for eight years has given me opportunities to get to

know many students, especially some Adibashi/Indigenous students and their diverse academic

challenges. I still remember Liu,1 an Adibashi student from Rakhine community, sitting in front

of me silently after asking a question: “Why do my scores remain low when I put a lot of

efforts?” He was studying in a private university in Bangladesh where I used to teach a

mandatory English-language course. Liu had encountered some learning barriers due to the

languages that were required for learning and communication in the education system in

Bangladesh. The country’s education policy designates Bangla as the first official and English as

the foreign language2 while the post-secondary education emphasizes English. Liu had moderate

conversational skills in his mother tongue Rakhine, which he was gradually losing due to the lack

of institutional practice and community exposure. He had to learn Bangla, the national language,

at both school and home while limiting the use of his first language. Further, he had to learn

English as a foreign language in school. Later, studying in English at the university level became

another barrier for him. Knowing his background deeply affected me as I had to ask myself how

to help a student with such a linguistic identity. I realized that because he was not proficient in

either language, his performance in academia was viewed as “deficiency.” His condition

compelled me to explore the experiences of the Adibashis in Bangladesh who have to study in the

1 Pseudo name. 2 A language that is taught in school.

106

dominant language Bangla and are burdened with the task of learning English, both of which

subordinate their first languages.

This chapter explores the relationship between the monolingual education policy and

nationalist politics of Bangladesh, and investigates how the education language policy promotes

linguistic subjugation that is a structure of domination and exclusion based on language for

Adibashi students. While extending the focus on the standardized, high-stakes testing system, this

chapter also shows how the testing experience in Bangla reproduces and entrenches the

marginalized status of Adibashi students. Drawing upon the notions of linguicism (Skutnabb-

Kangas, 1988), linguistic imperialism (Phillipson, 1992), and subtractive schooling (Valenzuela,

1999), this chapter develops an analytical framework of linguistic subjugation that explicates the

subordinated status of minority-language speakers. It explains the ways in which the language of

instruction and assessment marginalizes Adibashi students by degrading the status of Adibashi

languages, further entrenching the hegemony of Bangla, and creating educational barriers and

“subtractive” experiences for Adibashi students. This chapter mostly relies on the stories of

Adibashi community members as well as a critical analysis of the Bangladesh National Education

Policy 2010 and parts of the Constitution of Bangladesh to show how this process of exclusion

works. It supports the main theme of this dissertation—examining the domination-

exploitation/exclusion relationship between Bengali elites and Adibashis, which is reproduced by

the implementation of nationalist policies and practices in the education and assessment system.

The chapter is comprised of several interconnected sections. First, I discuss the education

language policy and other relevant policies in Bangladesh. Next, I explore the theories that

explain the discriminatory role of the education language policy against minority students in

school and develop an analytical framework of linguistic subjugation that is reproduced by the

dominance of the majority language. While presenting the analysis, first I illustrate how the

binary opposition between jati (nation) and upajati (sub-nation) has been perceived through the

107

colonial interpretation of “tribe and dialect” (Phillipson, 1992, p. 43) in educational and testing

practices. In the next section, I discuss how the language of education creates learning barriers for

Adibashi students in attaining academic success. Afterwards, I show how the ubiquitous use of

Bangla in all educational practices establishes the high status of Bangla inside and outside school.

Finally, I demonstrate how such experiences create a sense of shame and subjugation among

Adibashi students, affecting their linguistic preferences and community identities in the long run.

4.2 Education Language Policies in Bangladesh

Bangladesh, a postcolonial society, promotes a centralized, national education system.

The education language policy in Bangladesh reflects the state language policy that declares

Bangla as the only national and official language (Bang. Const., Art 3, 2011). In article 17, the

Constitution of Bangladesh clearly states the goal of “establishing a uniform, mass-oriented and

universal system of education and extending free and compulsory education [for] all children to

such state as may be determined by law” (Bang. Const., Amend. XIV, 2011). This statement

demonstrates the foundational aim of the education system that intends to construct a

homogenous social structure based on the Bangla language and cultural identity through

educational practices. Accordingly, the National Education Policy (NEP) mandates the use of

Bangla as the medium of instruction for all educational practices (2010), with the exception of

English medium schools.3 The policy also emphasizes the correct and standard use of Bangla,4

rejecting the use of any other languages and dialects in classroom practices (2010). In addition, it

emphasizes the glorification of Bengali culture, tradition, and history5 (2010). As a result,

curriculum, textbooks, pedagogies, and assessments do not address any Adibashi languages,

3 The National Curriculum also emphasizes English language and offers English as a mandatory subject at all levels. 4 No. 27 in the chapter, “Aims and Objectives” of the National Education Policy, 2010. 5 Nos. 3 and 4 in the chapter, “Aims and Objectives” of the National Education Policy, 2010.

108

knowledge, or cultural attributes. Although the CHT Peace Treaty6 (1997) stipulated the regional

provision of the elementary and secondary education system as well as emphasized mother

tongue-based education for Adibashis, the government has not addressed that yet. In other words,

this education system leaves no alternatives for the Adibashis but to accept the dominant

language, Bangla.

The National Education Policy (2010) is the first country-wide policy that has included a

mother tongue education policy for Adibashi children; however, this policy has also generated

controversies and debates due to a lack of clarity and explanation. The policy aims to ensure a

mother tongue-based education system at the primary level7 for Adibashi students so that these

children can learn their own languages8 (National Education Policy, 2010, Art. 18). This policy

statement has raised concerns among Adibashi scholars and leaders as the policy fails to clarify

whether it wants to ensure learning in their mother tongues, or it wants to confirm the learning of

their mother tongues9 (Tripura, 2015). They have criticized the idea of learning mother tongues as

a language at schools whereas the communities demanded mother tongues as the medium of

instruction for Adibashi children. While responding to this criticism, the policy-makers have

identified this policy statement as a typographical error, which they want to correct (Tripura,

2015). However, the policy remains unchanged even after a group of Adibashi leaders and

intellectuals suggested a preferred correction to the policy in 2013 through Amader Prostobona

(our proposal),10 which further intensifies the confusion and doubt among the Adibashis.

6 See chapter 1. 7 The policy mentions that primary education will be of eight years, starting from class one to eight, though in practice it includes the first five years of schooling in Bangladesh. 8 “Measures will be taken to ensure the availability of teachers from ethnic groups and to prepare texts in

their own languages so that ethnic children can learn their own Indigenous languages. In these initiatives, especially in preparing textbooks, the inclusion of respective indigenous communities will be ensured” (National Education Policy, 2010, Art. 18). 9 Learning in the mother tongue indicates the situation where the mother tongue is the medium of instruction and learning the mother tongue means learning the language as a subject in schools. 10 In 2013, the government asked for opinions from all sectors of people to modernize the curriculum.

Then, a group of Adibashi intellectuals and leaders suggested some corrections and new proposals for the education policy in 2010. It was titled, Amader Prostabona.

109

Moreover, the ambiguity in the mother tongue education policy as well as the political

procrastination has delayed the policy’s implementation process. Such vagueness in policy

primarily limits the opportunity for developing an inclusive pedagogical plan for the mother

tongue education system. In fact, within the eleven years of policy-making, textbooks in only five

major Adibashi languages11 at the pre-primary level (one year) have been published and

distributed. Further, due to a dearth of appropriate and extensive trainings and proper guidelines

on pedagogy, this policy has failed to address the needs of Adibashi communities. In addition, the

implementation process has been politicized by prioritizing the comparatively “privileged”

Adibashi languages. Instead of selecting the Adibashi languages that are becoming extinct, the

first phase of textbook publications uses the languages that already have written scripts and

published literatures12 (Tripura, 2015). These issues cast doubt on the willingness of policy-

makers to implement the mother tongue education policy.

4.3 Understanding Linguistic Subjugation: Subordination of Minority Language

Speakers

In this section, I develop an analytical framework of linguistic subjugation, drawing upon

the notions of linguicism (Skutnabb-Kangas, 1988), linguistic imperialism (Phillipson, 1992), and

subtractive schooling (Valenzuela, 1999). These theories are often co-articulated to address the

power relationship between the dominant and dominated languages, indicating a situation where

minority students are bound to study in the dominant language. Skutnabb-Kangas first promoted

the concept of linguicism to explain “the ideologies, structures, and practices” that legitimate,

effectuate, and replicate an unequal allocation of power and resources (material and immaterial)

11 Textbooks only in five major Adibashi languages, such as Chakma, Tripura, Marma, Sadri, and Garo have been published and distributed. At least 30 other languages that are endangered are not addressed yet. 12 There are many Adibashi languages which do not have writing scripts or are struggling to develop or choose a writing script. Instead of addressing these issues, the implementation process focused on the

languages which already had writing scripts and literatures. Thus, comparatively more marginalized languages remained out of the focus (Tripura, 2015).

110

among different groups based on the language they speak (1988, p. 13). Linguicism explains the

ways in which linguistic barriers can generate unequal access to the substantial and non-

substantial amenities from teachers, peers, and administrators, leading to academic failure (1988).

While extending this notion of linguicism, Phillipson coins the term linguistic imperialism

(1992)—a sub-type of linguicism—to indicate the colonial power of the education language

policy that prioritizes the dominant language and marginalizes non-dominant language speakers.

He also explicates that the monolingual education policy not only promotes the use of the

dominant language but also transmits dominant values and thoughts; this policy, thus, is

connected to the “exclusion of others” or suppression of other languages, as well as the

“replacement or displacement of other languages” (pp. 17–31). Following these notions,

Valenzuela (1999) uses a framework of subtractive schooling13 that illustrates the influence of the

dominant language used in school on minority students. She demonstrates that the school system

in America is organized in such a way that the presence of the dominant language and culture at

school gradually subtracts minority linguistic and cultural practices that Mexican-American

students bring with them; this process eventually pushes minority students to accept the dominant

language (1999). As a result, these theories rightly inform the framework of linguistic subjugation

in this chapter to explain the marginalized condition of Adibashi students in education due to the

overemphasis of Bangla, the dominant language.

While investigating the impact of the monolingual education policy on minority students

at schools, researchers and educators across the world identify the factors that affect these

students’ learning, as well as their linguistic choices. Menken and Kleyn (2010) show that such a

language policy of school is likely to disfavour minority students, devaluing their languages and

cultures and ignoring their special learning requirements. In a way, schools that only value

13 Based on her three years of ethnographic work with Mexican immigrant and Mexican-American students.

111

academic progress and evaluation (Valenzuela, 1999) generate pressure for minority students to

accept the dominant norms and language. Moreover, teaching and assessment in the dominant

language affect the cognitive ability to learn (Valenzuela, 1999), as well as the academic

performance of minority students (Menken & Kleyn, 2010). Such an education system establishes

a high status of dominant language while stigmatizing non-dominant languages as minority

students find their first languages do not help them much at school. This system, eventually,

persuades minority students to reduce the usage of their mother tongues and shift to the dominant

languages (Phillipson, 1992; Valenzuela, 1999; Naido, 2006).

While situating this language shift in terms of psychological effects, many researchers

address the issues of low self-esteem (Morcom, 2017) and a feeling of shame and guilt

(Skutnabb-Kangas, 1981) that Labov frames through the term, linguistic insecurity (2006).

Skutnabb-Kangas (1981) and Morcom (2017) have pointed to the situation where the absence of

mother tongues or community languages in school practices generates a negative attitude towards

the individual self, as well as ethnic or community identities. The speakers often view their

languages as “inferior,” “bad,” “ugly,” or “deficient” (Meyerhoff, 2006, as cited in Preston, 2013,

p. 3), thereby developing a “linguistic self-hatred” or “negative prestige” about their languages

(Labov, 2006, p. 489–499). Such negative attitudes motivate students to avoid the use of their

community languages, which in effect reduce language use in the community (Skutnabb-Kangas,

1981; Kanu, 2006; Battiste, 2013; Morcom, 2017). Such behaviour may lead these students to

identify more with the dominant, prestigious form of language (Morcom, 2017), affecting their

cultural ownership and perspectives.

Researchers have also explored how such a process of linguistic shift may impact the

existence of minority languages and minority or Indigenous identities of students. Naido (2006)

and Nguyen and Hamid (2017) show in their studies that the respective ethnic minorities in South

Africa and Vietnam have decreased the use of their first languages (L1) and started using second

112

languages (L2) more as they need L2s for most of their purposes. Nguyen and Hamid (2017) have

further added that, due to the high socio-economic value of L2, minority students develop a sense

of inferiority or linguistic insecurity about their mother tongues and eventually try to connect

themselves to the dominant identity, language, and culture. This process exacerbates language

shift in a community (Naido, 2006), changing students’ linguistic preferences, thereby affecting

their minority or Indigenous identity (Battiste, 2013). In addition, many Indigenous educators in

North America indicate the damaging role of the language policy that is causing the

disappearance of many Indigenous languages (Kanu, 2006; Battiste, 2013). Also, the immigrants

in these countries have not been able to pass their heritage languages to the next generations due

to the overemphasis of the dominant language (Shin, 2010) and lack of structural supports in the

education system (Burnaby, 2008). When education coerces minority students to shift their

linguistic preferences from their mother tongues to dominant languages, they eventually lose their

connection with their communities and traditions.

The monolingual education policy that stemmed from the ideologies of the French

Revolution functions as a nationalist tool of political elites to uphold dominant language and

culture (Phillipson, 1992). The education language policy is not a value-free system; rather, it

manifests “a whole set of political, ideological, social, and economical agendas” of the national

language policy (Shohamy, 2006, p. 78). While emphasizing the dominant language for a reason,

ethics, and esthetics, such a policy fails to appreciate linguistic and cultural diversity in both

curriculum and pedagogies, which the state often finds necessary for modernization and national

unity (Phillipson, 1992). In a way, education functions as one of the “principal instrument[s]”

(Phillipson, 1992, p. 28) or “vehicles” (Shohamy, 2006, p. 78) for transmitting the social values

and modes of thought developed in dominant languages to the next generations. In this process,

the monolingual education policy, as a “decisive agent,” excludes Indigenous languages in a new

“socialization process” and propagates linguistic and cultural assimilation of diversified children

113

(Hernandez-Chavez, 1978, as cited in Phillipson, 1992, p. 21). This policy thus often promotes

the supra-ethnic language as a part of the ethnocentric project of national integration and

homogenization, which implies the “conquest and occupation” strategy of the dominant elites

(Phillipson, 1992, p. 13). Therefore, this policy not only fosters the spread of the dominant

language but also diminishes diversity and forces minority speakers to opt for dominant

languages.

Given this theoretical discussion, this framework of linguistic subjugation includes three

aspects: first, supremacy of dominant language and absence of minority languages in school;

second, the inferior status of minority languages; and third, linguistic and identity shifts among

minority students. Based on the framework of linguistic subjugation, I explain the ways in which

the monolingual education policy in Bangladesh promotes the dominant language and cultural

values, creates educational barriers, and persuades Adibashi students to undergo a language and

identity shift.

4.4 Influence of the Education Language Policy on the Adibashis

4.4.1 Colonial Cultural Myth: Tribe and Dialect in the Form of Jati and Upajati in

Bangladesh

The colonial rule necessitated the invention of the cultural mythology of “tribe and

dialect” (Phillipson, 1992, p. 43), which is analogous to the prevalent colonial terms jati and

upajati in Bangladesh. Theorizing language and dialect and nation and tribe through a binary lens

manifests a Eurocentric way of essentializing or stereotyping identities that favours the dominant

group (Phillipson, 1992). In the context of nation-states where “dialect vs language” discourses

are fabricated, dialect is a defeated language and language is a political front -runner (Calvet,

1974, as cited in Phillipson, 1992). However, the socio-political power discussion is absent in the

“dialect vs language” distinction in traditional linguistics; such an absence of a critical

114

perspective further reproduces the hegemony of the dominant language and inferior status of

dialects. This binary conceptualization is mainly based on the systematic validation of the power

relationship between the dominant and non-dominant groups, producing self-exaltation of the

former and deprecation of the latter (Preiswork,1980, as cited in Phillipson, 1992). Therefore, I

argue here that nationalization of the use of dominant language in education perpetuates the

colonial and racist ideology of perceiving the relationship between the dominant “civilized”

group (language speakers) and non-dominant tribes (dialect speakers).

Dominance of Bangla and its nationalization process exclude non-dominant languages

from the national discourses while entrenching two self-exalted concepts of Bengali elites: first, a

false pride in “glorified” Bangla, and second, an understanding of the interlocking relationship

between the “civilized” and “tribe.” However, these ideas are two sides of the same coin. In this

process, Bengali elites conceived the idea of independent Bangladesh through the lens of Bengali

national identity, which is based on Bangla language and culture (see chapter 3). This nation-

building process required Bengali elites to boost their self-exaltation by “modernizing” Bangla;

therefore, they standardized Bangla, developing “modern,” aesthetic forms of language and

fabricating a glorified past (Chatterjee, 1993). This process of glorification also necessitates the

opposite existence of “uncivilized” and “backward” groups of “tribes” (Khatun & Sumon, 2017,

p. 14) who speak “ancient” languages. These dichotomies provide a binary lens through which

Bengali elites perceive the Adibashis and their languages as “non-communicable” and “other.” In

addition, the colonial understanding of the interlocking relationship between the “civilized” and

“tribe” has sanctioned more pride and glory for the elites to boast of their culture and identity.

The idea that “we are a nation with a language whereas they are tribes with dialects” indicates

how the socio-political status of dominant language devalues and demoralizes the position of

non-dominant language speakers (Phillipson, 1992, p. 39). Therefore, the languages that the

dominant majority do not speak come to be considered as dialects or languages of illiterates,

115

“rural” people, or tribes. Inheriting the colonial discourse of exclusion and education language

policy, Bangladesh has thus developed a divisive, nationalist narrative that distinguishes between

Bangla and “other” languages.

Education further plays a substantial role in branding and spreading the national language

as a “standard,” “modern,” and “developed” language. Also, education helps countries to achieve

the dissemination of national language among the populations (Ghender, 2016). The National

Education Policy 2010 in Bangladesh not only promotes the wide use of “standard” Bangla in all

educational and assessment practices, but also upholds “glorified” Bengali identity, history, and

traditions. It also rejects the use of any regional dialects and other languages in educational

practices, which degrades the status of Adibashi languages. While the ubiquitous presence of

Bangla creates its “venerated” status, the absence of Adibashi languages in education devalues

their status too. A Chakma participant’s comment can exemplify this analysis:

If anybody speaks Bangla or English, or inserts some English

words in conversation, we consider them “smart.” If I use

Chakma, I get ridiculed among my friends. Speaking the local

language is an unsmart thing to do. (Chakma participant 18,

personal communication, July 2, 2019)

This statement shows how the use of Bangla and English in education is promoted as a symbol of

“modernity” and “smartness,” tribalizing Adibashi languages. Educational practices and school

interactions clearly manifest the distinction between dominant and non-dominant languages,

which translates the status of Adibashi languages as “unsmart” and “ancient.” Adibashi students

feel embarrassed due to this never-ending gap between the languages. Similarly, another Chakma

participant said,

Even as a teacher I often struggle with my Bangla and

mispronounce words in class. My Bengali students laugh at me

and I feel embarrassed. (Chakma participant 1, personal

communication, June 27, 2019)

116

This embarrassment that stems from the stigmatization of Adibashi identity and language is thus

reproduced by educational standards and practices.

Consequently, the education policy entrenches the “language vs dialect” and “nation vs

tribe” dichotomies that imply the colonial practice of “upgrading” the tribe or upajati into a jati or

a “modern” group. The use of the “master’s” language for “civilizing the natives” (Phillipson,

1992, p. 128) was a pervasive apparatus in both French and British colonialism. Similarly, the

objective of the education policy in Bangladesh is to “modernize” and “upgrade” the country’s

population (NEP, 2010). Such a policy clearly imparts the imperialist goal of education,

transmitting the missionary objective of the “civilization” project of the British; this project is

based on explicit “racist premises,” transforming the “uncivilized” tribe member or “hillman”

into a more “cultured” and “enlightened” person (Phillipson, 1992, p. 44). More specifically, the

use of the “standard” language of the elites in books, schools, and assessments propagates the

dominant values and culture, degrading the position of regional and Adibashi languages. Th is

process embeds a deprecating message for the Adibashis and forces students to accept the

“modern” language to “upgrade” themselves. In other words, this education policy is an effective

method to accomplish the nationalist quest of Bengali elites to “upgrade”14 the Adibashis from

upajati to Bengali jati. The political objective to transform the tribal into Bengalis is now being

accomplished in the name of a so-called “quality, modern, and updated” education (NEP, 2010, p.

iii).

In addition, the heavy significance of the standardized, high-stakes tests (see chapters 1

and 3) in education further heightens the dichotomies between dominant and non-dominant

language speakers. Foreseeing success through tests, Adibashi students are bound to use Bangla

14 Sheikh Mujibar Rahman, the first prime minister of Bangladesh, announced in Rangamati in 1973 that all tribal people should accept Bengali identity from then on and forget their tribal identities (Mohsin, 1997).

117

more, denying their languages. In this sense, Bangla is the only language that ensures educational

achievement and good scores, and acts as a “guaranteed route to prosperity” (Phillipson, 1992, p.

52) for the students. Also, this testing system does not benefit the students who do not know

Bangla well as Bangla is the only language of such assessments, which disadvantages Adibashi

students. Thus, the testing context persuades Adibashi students to more acutely conceive the

hierarchies between Bangla and Adibashi languages, internalizing the stigmatized status of their

languages, as well as identities.

4.4.2 Linguistic Discrimination against Adibashi Students

When the education system does not promote minority languages, it lays out an

inequitable system where minority students cannot receive the benefits of education the same way

that majority students do. Such an education policy excludes minority students and

“institutionalize[s] racism and linguicism and legally sanction[s] discriminatory practices

regarding the education of multilingual learners and their teachers” (Viesca, 2013, p. 5).

Skutnabb-Kangas terms it as linguicism while referring to the situations where students fail to

receive educational amenities due to the language of education (1988). Phillipson finds such a

system to be a part of a bigger socio-political structure that operates based on discriminations and

colonialism (1992). Therefore, in this section, I illustrate how the language of education produces

a discriminatory learning environment for Adibashi students and limits their opportunities to

perform well in tests.

A Bishnupriya Manipuri participant said,

When my teacher taught me ojogor15 for ‘অ’16 I did not know

what ojogor meant. Then, he said it meant shap. I did not know

that either. When I asked again what shap meant, everybody in

the class started laughing. We call it horop. I was so shocked to

know that the thing that I used to know as horop, became shap or

15 Ojogor and shap are two Bangla synonyms for the word “snake.” Horop is a Bishnupriya Manipuri word

that means the same. 16 The first letter in the Bangla alphabet.

118

ojogor all on a sudden. (Manipuri participant 27, personal

communication, August 15, 2019)

An Adibashi child usually starts their education with these types of cultural shocks and surprises

and encounters an alien learning environment. The story above delineates how a student fails to

connect his/her world with the world that the school creates for them. Such a shock derives not

only from the estranged environment of schools but also from the rejection and humiliation of

his/her known world in the dominant context.

Language works as a predominant barrier in the educational life of Adibashi students that

they struggle to overcome throughout their lives. The journey of academic learning and

achievement is alienating for Adibashi students, as the linguistic barrier blocks their

comprehension of and connection to the knowledge provided at the school. They find it difficult

to understand the educational environment and instructions and interact in class, as well as

perform well. Accordingly, one school-leaver participant pointed out how alienating school was

for him as he found the language spoken in school was not the language he spoke at home. He

hardly understood the instructions that the teachers gave. Failing to achieve the expected results,

he was forced to leave school (Chakma participant 7, personal communication, June 29, 2019).

Similarly, a study found that 72% of Adibashi students believed that they would do better if they

could study their cultural contents in their mother tongues (Tripura & Chakma, 2014). Also, in -

depth interviews with eleven outstanding Adibashi students from top-ranked universities of

Bangladesh in 2000 disclosed similar sufferings and expectations (Mohsin, 2003, 2010). While

referring to such difficulties, a Bishnupriya Manipuri journalist expressed how language creates

multiple levels of barriers for Adibashi students in school:

If as a Bengali student you have to cross three linguistic steps in

education, as a Manipuri student I have to overcome four levels

of barriers. For you it is your own dialect, then standard Bangla,

and finally English, and for me I have to start with Manipuri

language, then local Bangla dialect, then standard Bangla, and

then English. I have to overcome more barriers than you. I have

known Bishnupriya Manipuri as my own language. When I go to

119

school, door to my own language is closed; I have to use a

different language to express my feelings and understanding,

which is a big obstacle. Every Adibashi student stumbles at that

point and many of them cannot overcome. When they sit in a

class, they do not know how to talk to the students who sit right

next to them. As they cannot communicate, they feel alienated;

they feel like an outsider. Moreover, they do not understand what

teachers say; they feel cast out. A student who is only four or

five years old finds it very difficult to handle that situation. As a

result, they develop irritation and reluctance for schools and

education. The slogan “school is fun” does not make any sense

to them. They feel demotivated to go to school. (Manipuri

participant 4, personal communication, August 19, 2019)

This strong statement indicates two important things that an Adibashi student is victim of: first,

an exclusionary state policy, and second, a broken education system. The nation-building process

that did not incorporate the Adibashis and their identities also could not develop an inclusive

education system. Language functions as a tool to generate a wider and more legitimized access

to power with more benefits for the dominant students and fewer to the dominated ones.

Language barriers also restrict Adibashi students from viewing school as fun and having

an interactive learning experience, while they also impede their development, particularly when it

comes to building creative and critical skills. Linguistic barriers do not allow these students to

enjoy school activities and lessons. As these students fail to understand their teachers’

instructions and participate in class activities, both teachers and students find school to be a non-

interactive and alienating educational environment (Tripura & Chakma, 2014). Being “silent”

students, they do not learn how to question and think creatively; such an environment does not

allow them to apply their imagination, logic, and reasoning, and generate new ideas. Thereby,

Adibashi students rely more on memorization that kills their zeal for learning. Although

memorization in learning is rooted in our colonial legacy of education and every student is forced

through the process, Adibashi students have a worse experience as they do not even comprehend

what they memorize.

120

The testing competition adds more struggles to the learning obstacles the Adibashi

students face. Most Adibashi participants indicated that they had at least eight years of struggles

to achieve an expected proficiency in Bangla; many students failed or dropped out when they

could not achieve the expected proficiency. In Bangladesh, a student faces tests every three or

four months and an achievement test every year (see chapter 1). Moreover, a student has the first

public examination in class five at the age of ten or eleven. Very few Adibashi students can pass

that gatekeeping test at such an early stage of their lives because their linguistic struggles are

usually intense during the first few years of school. When students do not speak the language of

tests, it is anticipated that they would fail the test. A bank employee who works in Rangamati

shared her experience:

I remember one (Chakma) of my friends who was confused in

the exam hall wondering what the questions meant. She did not

know what to write. I myself have faced similar situations many

times. Once I found a word ponero ana17 in my test paper that I

had no idea about. Adibashi students, especially students from

remote areas or villages, face more difficulties in tests. As they

do not get enough access to Bangla, their proficiency level is

usually low; they find it very difficult to survive the tests. I do

not remember anything that I learned in my school as I

memorized without comprehending the meaning. (Chakma

participant 11, personal communication, July 2, 2019)

This statement indicates how language works as a major barrier for Adibashi students in the test

environment. This is one of the reasons why in 2016, according to BANBEIS, 59% of Adibashi

students in CHT dropped out of school when the national dropout rate was 19.8 % (Khaing,

2020). This situation is equally observed in the Canadian context where the high school

completion rate of on-reserve and off-reserve18 First Nations was respectively 41% and 60%

while the national rate was 88% (Statistics Canada, 2011). In essence, language becomes a major

obstacle to educational achievement for Indigenous students across the world.

17 A Bangla phrase that refers to a local system of measurement. While considering sixteen as a whole, the

phrase ponero ana (fifteen out of sixteen) indicates 93.75% of the measured object. 18 Designated and non-designated areas for Indigenous Peoples in Canada.

121

Moreover, there are more structural impediments connected to the language of the

curriculum in schools. Teachers’ linguistic backgrounds often do not match students’

backgrounds (Tripura & Chakma, 2014), thereby failing to produce effective communication

between teachers and students. A survey conducted by the Manusher Jonno Foundation19 reveals

that 72% of teachers in CHT area use Bangla, 15% of teachers use Adibashi languages

unofficially, and 13% combine both in teaching (Tripura & Chakma, 2014). When teachers lack

the linguistic training/background to address the struggles of these linguistically and culturally

diverse students, the education system fails to attend to their unique struggles and provide needed

support. In fact, miscommunication often occurs when teachers fail to translate students’

linguistic and behavioural cues at school (Tripura & Chakma, 2014), thereby causing academic,

physical, and verbal punishments as well as psychological difficulties for many Adibashi

students. Some students also leave school because of such miscommunications (Chakma

participants 4 and 15, personal communication, June 28–July 2, 2019).

Therefore, linguistic barriers not only restrict students’ substantial benefits to educational

amenities, such as textbooks, curriculum, and pedagogies, but also limit non-substantial

assistance, such as supports from teachers, peers, and administrators. This limited access to the

supportive behaviours and motivational discourses provided by teachers, peers, and

administrators narrows their opportunities to receive positive experiences. Rather, the social

stigmatization and deprecation of their languages in school are often reinforced by the comments

and attitudes of teachers and peers. In this environment, Adibashi students are deprived of

positive reinforcements for learning. The bank employee’s experience at school explains the ways

in which social stigmatization works. When framing her experiences through words, she stated,

When I first shifted my school at class six from a village to

Rangamati city, I faced lots of problem while communicating

with others. I hardly could understand and comprehend anything

19 A non-government organization that works to help marginalized communities in Bangladesh.

122

at the very beginning. After class eight, my Bangla started

improving. Because of my poor accent and pronunciation, I was

ridiculed a lot in my school; I did not talk much as I knew if I

said anything wrong, my classmates would laugh at me. Every

time I spoke something in Bangla, I felt very stressed and

confused. Sometimes they became curious about my language

too and wanted to hear my language which they used to find

funny and peculiar. I was a subject of fun to many. (Chakma

participant 11, personal communication, July 2, 2019)

Thus, for many Adibashi children schools become an impossible place, full of difficult goals to

achieve but lacking any support and empathy.

In addition, education in second or additional language may create a negative influence

by restraining the cognitive development of Adibashi children in education. It is true that

numerous studies show that learning multiple languages can improve students’ metacognitive

skills, developing self-efficacy and coping mechanisms as well as boosting academic

achievement (Downing, 2009; Le Pichon Vorstman et al., 2009). However, there is a lack of

research investigating whether the contexts in which the languages are learned has any impact on

the metacognitive development of students. While perceiving the asymmetrical power

relationship between the dominant and non-dominant languages inside and outside schools,

Skuttnab-Kangas (1981), Valenzuela (1999), and Morcom (2017) indicate that schools’ uneven

roles in promoting bilingualism and multilingualism can rather impede cognitive development of

minority students. The idea that “one language at home and another language at school” promotes

additive bilingualism and creates a positive impact on children’s cognitive development is

complicated. Such a positive impact necessitates an equal command of both languages, which is

only possible by receiving a balanced input from both languages in a strong bilingual education

system (Skutnabb-Kangas, 1981; Morcom, 2017). Otherwise, children may have reverse

experiences, thereby not being proficient in either language; this condition is termed

semilingualism (Skutnabb-Kangas, 1981). The result can be catastrophic for minority students

123

like the Rakhine student who I have mentioned earlier; children may fail to meet educational

expectations and perform well.20 One of the Chakma students who I interviewed said,

I do not know Chakma well because I have no idea about our

scripts. I can neither read nor write; I do not have much idea

about our culture and traditions. However, I also have problems

in Bangla; I cannot speak Bangla the way a Bengali can speak. I

often have to think before I talk. I guess that is why many of us

do not speak a lot in front of Bengali people because we have the

fear of making mistakes. Even I remember there was this one girl

named Dristhi Dewan who won a music competition; she did not

speak a lot in front of the media. All her responses were very

limited. I can relate so much to her situation. (Chakma

participant 18, personal communication, July 3, 2019)

This situation is intellectually and psychologically cramping for Adibashi students, victims of this

monolingual education system. Consequently, the question arises: What beneficial aspects does

this system have to offer these Adibashi students that can draw their attention to school and

learning? The education system that impedes their learning, stigmatizes their languages, and fails

them in the tests works predominantly to marginalize them further.

4.4.3 Hegemony of Bangla: Establishing its Superiority and High Prestige

Linguistic hegemony creates the supremacy of dominant language, which appears as

acceptable, “normal,” and “standard” to minority groups. At the same time, this hegemony leads

to a situation where minority groups accept and believe in the linguistic superiority of dominant

language and the subordinate position of their languages (Suarez, 2002). I want to argue in this

section that the monolingual education policy reinforces the linguistic hegemony of Bangla

through educational and test practices. I explore the role that the language of education plays to

reproduce the high, prestigious status of Bangla by associating educational, social, economic, and

national values to the language, thereby establishing the domination of Bangla inside and outside

school.

20 The public examination results show that every year the Chittagong Hill Tracts of Bangladesh, an area with the highest concentration of the Adibashis, consistently have the lowest passing rate (Manik, 2019).

124

Bangla has a high significance in education that leaves no choice for Adibashi students

but to rely on the language. Neither classroom instructions nor textbooks incorporate Adibashi

languages. So, learning Bangla appears to them more important than knowing their mother

tongues, which do not have any place in schools. According to a Chakma teacher:

Our Chakma students struggle with language and fail to

understand what we teach in class. Most Adibashi parents are not

educated and do not know Bangla well, so they depend

completely on us to make their children pass. Sometimes we

have to teach basic linguistic knowledge of Bangla even at class

six. We mostly end up following some strategies to make them

pass, like using some short-cut practices and syllabi for test

preparations; however, many students fail to follow. (Chakma

participant 14, personal communication, June 29, 2019)

As a result, both Adibashi parents and students prefer Bangla to their community languages. Such

emphasis on Bangla also imprints a high significance of the language on Adibashi students’

psyches.

The hegemony of Bangla is, further, reinstated in the standardized, high-stakes testing

environment as Bangla functions as the only language to ensure test success. In this system,

Adibashis internalize the idea that Bangla is the only language that can provide them with a good

position in school, good command over the curriculum, and good performance in the tests.

Language that brings academic success establishes its strong and superior image among students.

In the high-stakes test environment, Adibashi students internalize the idea that all rewards,

“good” identities, and appreciations, as well as good scores and high position inside and outside

school, are connected to Bangla, and place the opposite connotations on Adibashi languages

(Skutnabb-Kangas, 1981). This hierarchy between dominant and non-dominant languages

reproduces the high prestige21 status of Bangla (Shohamy, 2006) while degrading Adibashi

21 Sociolinguistics holds that there are different varieties of languages in a society. The high-status variety

refers to the language which is used for education, employment, and official purposes. The low-status variety refers to the languages which are used for cultural and familial purposes.

125

languages; it eventually influences minority people to prefer the prestigious form of language

over their mother tongues (Lewis, 1982, as cited in Phillipson, 1992).

Therefore, many Adibashis are skeptical about the mother tongue-based education policy

as they think a one-year, pre-primary lesson on mother tongues will not benefit them in any way,

for the subsequent or higher education is in Bangla. Rather, they find this new policy to be

useless and ineffective, delaying their learning of Bangla more. A Bishnupriya Manipuri

participant said:

Bangla is a modern and standard language, and we should learn

it. I am happy with the modernization and development process

of education since because of this I am educated today and have

a successful career. I am lucky that I went through that process. I

do not think equality is ever possible; some differences will

always exist in the world. It is normal that everybody in the class

will not perform well. So, it is better to follow what we have

today. (Manipuri participant 5, personal communication, August

18, 2019)

This statement clarifies how the linguistic insecurity of their own languages have made Adibashis

accept the domination of Bangla.

Also, Adibashi communities consider the economic benefit of learning Bangla that can

help these children in life outside or after school. In Bangladesh, no employment opportunities,

business sectors, or agricultural conditions flourish in any other languages except for Bangla, and

in some cases, English.22 Many Adibashis have accepted the mainstream education system

without question as they know Bangla is the only language that can mobilize their life in

Bangladesh. Specifically, Manipuri and Chakma communities are the most educated among all

the Adibashis as they are more accepting of the mainstream education system; they have

considered the benefits it provides and brought a change to their economic infrastructure through

22 The agriculture based social structure of the Adibashis in Bangladesh has been switching to an employment-based structure rather than business based in which they have considerably less freedom in

decision-making, profit management, and law enforcement. Business requires them to have some power over a few issues, which they lack.

126

their academic success. However, this change has come at the expense of their linguistic and

cultural singularities. A Bishnupriya Manipuri doctor whose children are doing well in school

pointed out:

It is important to learn our language, but it is more important to

learn Bangla. It is impractical to consider education in Manipuri

languages because there are no higher educational opportunities

and job market in these languages. I think students should learn

Bangla in school and Manipuri at home. I think Bishnupriya

Manipuri students are doing well here. (Manipuri participant 16,

personal communication, August 17, 2019)

This statement represents the thinking process of many Adibashi parents who want their ch ildren

to be educated and pursue an affluent life; they have realized that education is one of the most

significant determinants of one’s social status and achievement (Reichelt et al., 2019) in

Bangladesh. As a result, many Adibashi parents and teachers promote the learning of Bangla at

an early age to prepare them for school success. Accordingly, a Chakma teacher said,

We can use Chakma only in these three districts,23 not

everywhere. What will I do with this language in other places in

Bangladesh? For jobs, people need to leave CHT. Then, they

must need Bangla. (Chakma participant 14, personal

communication, June 29, 2019)

Knowing the possibility of further marginalization without Bangla, many Adibashis do not want

to compromise the learning of Bangla with their mother tongues; many now think they should

learn Bangla as they need it the most (Khokon, 2019).

In addition, the position of Bangla, as a state and national language, adds more prestige

and glory to its superior status. The education system reproduces this superior image through the

glorification of national history and culture in the curriculum (Ghosh, 2012). School and

classroom practices also evoke national feelings among students and attach prestige and

patriotism to the language. The historical emphasis on the achievement of Bangla24 also

23 Rangamati, Bandarban, and Khagrachari are three Chittagong Hill Tract (CHT) districts. 24 Language movement in 1952.

127

establishes the prestigious image of the language, with which all students may want to connect.

The form of nationalism that is based on linguistic identity in Bangladesh determines “who [is]

‘in’ and who [is] ‘out’” in the state membership (Shohamy, 2006, p. 26). Promoting the

monolingual education policy is a method of shaping this state membership; it prepares Adibashi

students through linguistic and cultural training so that they can conform to the national identity

(Bhuiyan & Khan, 2009). While conceiving the national status of Bangla, Adibashi students also

submit themselves to its high status and accept the subordinated position of their languages.

4.4.4 Generating a Sense of Shame and Embarrassment about Adibashi Languages

In this section, I want to argue that the monolingual education policy creates a sense of

shame and embarrassment about their languages among the Adibashis, which persuades many of

them to reduce the use of their languages for various purposes and to prefer Bangla instead.

Given the discussion on the high status of Bangla, the absence of Adibashi languages in

education generates a cultural shame and sense of inferiority about their languages among

Adibashi students; this linguistic insecurity is produced by the presence of a “superior” language

at school (Labov, 2006). School practices entrench the binary conceptualization of dominant and

non-dominant languages and develop a derogatory and stigmatized image of Adibashi languages

among all students. Adibashi students cannot benefit from their mother tongues in classroom

interactions and assessments; they identify their languages as “inadequate,” “deficient,” and

“insignificant” in comparison to Bangla. In fact, these languages hardly have any other usage in

Bangladesh, except for their community purposes. Such absence and “valuelessness” of Adibashi

languages also produce a feeling of inferiority among the students. They eventually internalize

this inferior status and develop a sense of shame and guilt about the “imperfections” in their

linguistic background. Such negative feelings often influence Adibashi students to align

themselves more with Bangla language, denying their cultural or community languages.

128

The sense of embarrassment and shame of Adibashi students is also caused by their low

proficiency, limited knowledge (Abtahian & Quinn, 2017), and “inappropriate” accent in Bangla.

They are often criticized and mocked because of their “poor” accent by their Bengali peers and

teachers. A Meitei Manipuri student said,

I have to know Bangla very well because if I do not speak it

well, my friends will laugh at me. When I wear my traditional

dress at school, I hear sarcastic comments. When I speak Meitei

Manipuri, I also receive similar attitudes. I feel extremely

uncomfortable. I consciously avoid speaking my language in

front of my Bengali friends. (Manipuri participant 24, personal

communication, August 19, 2019)

This statement indicates how a lack of linguistic proficiency in Bangla generates negative and

embarrassing experiences for Adibashi students. This embarrassment motivates Adibashi students

to develop their proficiency in Bangla and continue their never-ending efforts to sound like a

native Bengali speaker. Extra effort for adapting to the “correctness” of Bangla embeds a process

of removing the “differences” and “foreignness” (Phillipson, 1992, p. 132) among the Adibashis

and creates a false sense of linguistic solidarity with the dominant students. The consequence is

devastating; the process leads to a loss of diversity, an adjustment in Adibashi identity, the

establishment of Bengali supremacy, and the peripheralization of Adibashis in the long run

(Mohsin, 2003, 2010).

In addition, the high-stakes testing culture successfully legitimizes the psychological

sanctions of “shame and guilt” for Adibashi students through its reward and punishment

structure25 (Skutnabb-Kangas, 1981). Although this testing system fails to provide assessments in

the first languages of Adibashi students, it strictly sanctions penalty and shame for their test

failures or poor performances. Rather, the testing system exercises a hidden discipline

25 In the standardized, high-stakes testing system, students who pass are rewarded with promotion and good grades, and the failed ones are penalized by having to continue the same class.

129

(Mathiesen, 1983) that assigns school practices,26 such as categorization, certification, and more

test preparation, which further reinforce the sense of shame and guilt among these students. Such

practices translate their lack of linguistic proficiency in Bangla as a “deficiency” (Morcom, 2017)

and establish the idea that they do not deserve better as they do not speak Bangla well. In other

words, the test results translate the linguistic struggle as their “fault” as they often fail to

understand test contents and meet test expectations (see chapter 6). This “blame the victim”

technique justifies the “failure” of Adibashi students with the syndrome of “we-made-it-and-they-

can-do-it-too-if-they-work-hard-enough” (Skutnabb-Kangas, 1981, p. 127). Internalizing the idea

of their “linguistic deficiency,” Adibashi students often view their linguistic background as a

hindrance to their academic success. A Chakma teacher said,

We do not have any other options, except for learning Bangla

because we cannot survive if we know Chakma only. We need

Bangla and English more than we need Chakma. If students need

to do well in education, they need to start learning Bangla even

before they come to school. This is what parents are trying to do

now. Those who do not know Bangla well do not survive in

school for long. We think this is the only thing we should do

now; but yes, in this way our language will disappear. (Chakma

participant 14, personal communication, June 29, 2019)

So, instead of comprehending the discriminatory education language policy, the testing system

identifies Adibashi students’ linguistic struggle as their “lacking” or “gap.”

In this process, the standardized, high-stakes tests operationalize the blame game by

reproducing a sense of subjugation among Adibashi students and their communities. This process

transmits a message to leave their language and culture by deprecating the position of non-

Bengali languages as “ineffectual” and “non-communicable” in the testing system. As a result,

both parents and students find their language less significant and feel “low” about this. Their state

of subjugation persists further when Adibashi students no longer learn their languages and parents

26 Test preparation, punishment for low scorers, failure, categorization of students, certification, and standardization of knowledge.

130

do not feel the necessity to pass on their languages to their children. In this process, the forceful

imposition of dominant language on Adibashi students in education not only discloses their

helplessness in school but also replicates their parents’ socio-political “powerlessness” in the

country. This process ensures the perpetuation of the feeling of inferiority among Adibashi

communities about their languages (Skutnabb-Kangas, 1981, p. 308).

4.4.5 A Shift in Adibashi Identity

I illustrate in this section how the language shift in an individual student due to

educational imposition may affect the ways that person perceives their identity, thereby affecting

community identities as well as endangering the language in the long run.

Given the discussion on linguistic insecurity, the process of language shift for the

Adibashis starts in school which in turn influences home practices, thereby affecting the decision

on linguistic choice for further practices. The following story shows how Adibashi parents often

feel forced to prefer Bangla over their community languages for their children:

My daughter who is four years old has speech delay and is

diagnosed with autism. She is having speech conflict and

confused by many languages she hears every day; the doctor has

suggested that she needs to be exposed to only one language

because of her limited cognitive ability. So, considering the

education system in Bangladesh, we have decided to give her

Bangla; we could not decide on our mother tongue because she

won’t be able to study and survive with that in Bangladesh.

(Manipuri participant 8, personal communication, August 19,

2019)

This is an extreme situation where the parents did not have any other option except choosing

Bangla. The choice could have been different if the school language was Bishnupriya Manipuri.

This story reveals the powerlessness of minority language speakers.

The language of education and tests has the power to influence home culture and

community practices. Academic success that is defined through test success—a determinant of

social success in Bangladesh—provides one access to social and economic benefits and

131

resources. Adibashi parents feel obligated to provide the environment that their children need to

attain this form of “success.” Creating a home environment that requires changing their home

language and culture necessitates a subtle maneuver of shifting linguistic and cultu ral choice from

Indigeneity to Bengaliness (see chapter 5). The belief is: the better children’s linguistic and

cultural preparation is, the better their school performance will be. The goal is to provide their

children with the “discourse patterns, interaction styles, and spoken and written language codes”

that schools use and understand (Delpit, 1988, p. 283). Thus, the education system, especially the

testing system, has the power to influence home practices (Delpit, 1988). Such a decision on

language and culture may look like an individual choice made by an Adibashi but this decision is

actually shaped by the larger socio-political structure of the country. Thereby, Adibashi young

generations are not learning their ancestral languages and cultures. This replacement is not less

than a “cultural genocide” (Delpit, 1988, p. 286) taking place silently in Adibashi communities

without “killing the speakers” but gradually reducing the number of users.

This shift in linguistic preference and the diminished use of mother tongues also affect

the linguistic proficiency in the first language of many Adibashi students. The young generations

who have less chance of practicing their first language inside and outside school often lose their

L1 skills, such as missing many vocabularies, accents, and contextual uses. The L1 linguistic

skills of most Adibashi students are limited to spoken or communicative forms as they hardly

receive opportunities to learn writing and to practice. They are unaware of many vocabularies and

expressions of their mother tongues, too; for instance, both Chakma and Manipuri participants

have alleged that spoken versions, which the Chakma and Manipuri young generations use, are

highly Bengalicized as many Bengali words, expressions, and accents have invaded their

languages. Although this linguistic change may sound natural to many linguists (Lyons, 1968),

132

such an influence of dominant language is threatening to the existence of many minority

languages with few speakers left.27 One of the Chakma teachers said,

Many Chakma students do not understand the version of

Chakma language that we older generation speak; they find it

difficult to understand many words. I remember one experience

when we went to enjoy a boat journey with our students. When I

was talking about the “paddle” which we call phangi in Chakma

language, nobody understood it. Then, I had to say boitha in

Bangla to make them understand. I really felt bad that day. A lot

of words and structures in Chakma have been lost; I do not think

our next generation would make it to acquire the language

anymore. This way our language will disappear. (Chakma

participant 14, personal communication, June 29, 2019)

So, this situation indicates that the Chakma language is getting Bengalicized now; many call it

corrupted Bangla (Mohsin, 1997), a mixture of two languages, which is also not accepted in the

dominant context (Shohamy, 2006). A Meitei Manipuri student further confirmed:

I do not understand the original Meitei Manipuri language that is

spoken in Manipur India. Ours is a lot Bengalicized. When I

spoke to a Manipur girl from India, I needed to combine Bangla,

Meitei, and English to continue the conversation as I could not

speak Meitei the way she spoke. (Manipuri participant 18,

personal communication, August 19, 2019)

Such Bengalicization of languages is more threatening to the existence of many endangered

languages, especially Bishnupriya Manipuri. Many community elders, teachers, and parents share

this common worry of losing their languages and cultures due to the dominance of Bangla.

Consequently, Adibashi students who are bound to follow “the natural flow of the

educational system” (Nguyen & Hamid, 2017, p. 142) go through a new process of identity

formation. Since a language manifests many cultural practices, traditions, and rituals that

determine one’s identity, adapting to and learning new languages also include adapting to new

perspectives and cultures. Such a process may change social relationship and shape new social

27 Bishnupriya Manipuri is one of the most endangered languages in Bangladesh (Endangered Language Alliance, 2012).

133

identities. Adibashi participants perceived such a linguistic shift as a change in their Adibashi

identities, too. Thus, the language of education possesses a “powerful assimilating force”

(Skutnabb-Kangas, 2000, p. 202) via the elimination of other languages and cultures.28 One

Bishnupriya Manipuri poet framed the language shift nicely:

The way I think is influenced by my own culture and

imagination in my language; my whole world is expressed

through my language; when I go to study and work, the language

I use does not give that scope. When the medium changes, I

think gradually the connection I have with my own culture, root,

and origin gets disconnected. I have to adapt to a new language

instead of growing in my own language. When I think, I think in

my own language but when I have to express that in the second

language, I lose many ideas and thoughts. When I accept a

language, I also get in touch with a new culture. I am a writer

and I feel I lose a lot of originality when I write and express in

Bangla. Similar to that, when a child uses a second language in

its education, s/he sees things from different perspective, not

from its own cultural perspective. This adaptation starts at school

at the very beginning; our education is completely monocentric

and bookish. (Manipuri participant 8, personal communication,

August 20, 2019)

This narrative clearly states the connection between language and identity.

Given this discussion, many Adibashi elders believe in the essence of this statement and

are worried about losing their identity and culture. Nguyen and Hamid (2017) indicate two ways

this happens in the process of identity shifting due to language change: first, replacement of the

mother tongue with the dominant language, linguistic practices, and cultural identity; and second,

separation of an individual from their own language, identity, and culture. The process of

linguistic shift dissociates young community members from their own cultural practices and

identities (Abtahian & Quinn, 2017) by replacing their mother tongues with the dominant

language, thereby initiating a sense of cultural alienation from their own language and cultural

identity (Nguyen & Hamid, 2017). At the same time, this sense of cultural alienation as well as

28 See also Phillipson, 1992.

134

identity crisis also generates a ground for linguistic subjugation of their own linguistic identity.

However, they have very little scope and power to resist this system; rather, they submit

themselves to it. It is a cycle of three steps, reproducing the socially constructed subordinated

position of Adibashi languages and identities: stigmatization, glorification, and normalization 29

(1988), and the testing system lubricates this cycle to run successfully. Thus, schools play a big

role to create a legitimacy for minority children to follow the school’s linguistic norms to shape

their identity (Nguyen & Hamid, 2017).

In addition, if a community loses it speakers, it loses many of its practices and cultural

attributes. Many Adibashi elders expressed their concerns regarding the loss of their languages

and cultural practices. A “cultural dislocation” is taking place silently due to limited rights and

scope for practicing their languages (Phillipson, 1992, p. 189). Accordingly, a Chakma elder said,

Chakma language has gone through a huge change and has been

influenced by Bengali language. So, Chakma culture is also

losing lots of its essence; lots of songs are lost. Now the Bizhu30

festival is not like the way it used to be once; lots of dances in

Bizhu are not seen anymore. (Chakma participant 9, personal

communication, June 27, 2019)

In addition, many community members leave their villages and communities to seek “quality”

education. While pursuing education, career, and a “better” life, these members eventually detach

from the community and cultural practices, thereby failing to pass this to the next generations. In

this process, the young children first lose the language, which impedes their understanding of

their traditional practices (Chakma participant 9, personal communication, June 27, 2019).

Eventually, they no longer feel their belongingness to the community ident ity.

29 Skutnabb-Kangas (1988) explains this cycle of rationalizing the denigrated position of the minority language, which is spinning within the stigmatization of the language. This is unlikely to produce any glorified cultural capital in education. Thus, the glorification of the dominant language normalizes the lower status of the dominated languages. 30 Bizhu is the main cultural festival of the Chakmas (see chapter 1).

135

Given these circumstances, most Adibashi or Indigenous languages are highly

endangered today as these languages are losing their speakers gradually. The world loses one

Indigenous language every two weeks (UN, 2018). Almost twelve to eighteen (50%) languages

among 35+ Indigenous languages in Bangladesh are endangered now and four out of five are

severely endangered (Endangered Language Alliance, 2012). Similar scenarios are observed in

many North American countries as well; for example, in Canada only 20% of the Indigenous

population speak their mother tongues as their first languages while the rest speak English or

French as their first languages (Census Canada, 2001, as cited in Babaee, 2011). Moreover, in

1951, 87.4% of Indigenous people spoke their own language in Canada, and this number was

reduced to 29.3% in 1981 and 21% in 2001 (Burnaby, 2008). Although Canada promotes

multiculturalism, the socio-political structure offers very few opportunities31 for Indigenous

communities to use their first languages. This means that Indigenous languages in Canada

continue to lose speakers every year (Statistics Canada, 2008). As a result, Indigenous languages

in the world are at the brink of extinction as they fail to compete with the national or dominant

languages in the nation-states.

4.5 Conclusion

The research in this chapter has demonstrated that a monolingual education policy results

in a nationalist approach of exclusion and subjugation for Adibashi students, thereby generating

discriminatory practices against them. Despite a mother tongue education policy for Adibashi

children, the dominance of Bangla in educational practices has not declined; rather, the political

procrastination in implementing the policy as well as existing test pressure and competition, in

fact, burdens Adibashi students. It is evident from the interview narratives that Adibashi

communities prefer Bangla to their mother tongue languages due to educational expectations,

31 Multiculturalism policies have never been associated with fiscal support.

136

which leads to a linguistic, cultural, and identity shift. What is clear, therefore, is that, although

all Adibashi members want to protect their language and culture, because of performance

pressure and structural impediments these communities are bound to accept the dominance of

Bangla. Apart from the linguistic imposition, the education system, including its standardized

tests, also coerces Adibashi students into accepting Bengalicized knowledge and culture. The next

chapter will further illustrate how the Bengalicization process works.

137

Chapter 5

The Bengalicization Project: The Education System and the Politics of

Homogenization

5.1 Introduction

During my fieldwork in Khagrachari,1 Bangladesh in summer 2019, I came across

Jogen,2 an Adibashi/Indigenous teacher from the Chakma community, who expressed his

frustration over the fact that Chakma students learn more about Bengali culture than their

Chakma culture. While sharing the experiences of his students, Jogen said that his Chakma

students wrote about a Bengali festival—Pohela Baishakh3—in a test that asked them to write

about one of their cultural festivals. He was upset because nobody wrote about any Chakma

cultural festivals. He blamed the curriculum—especially textbooks and public examinations—that

hardly addressed Adibashi cultural practices and contents (Chakma participant 4, personal

communication, June 28, 2019). Like Jogen, many Adibashi participants from Chakma and

Manipuri4 communities were concerned about the absence of their languages, knowledge

systems, and cultures from the education system, and the impact of the dominance of Bengali

culture and knowledge on their cultural practices. Therefore, in this chapter, I explore the national

curriculum in Bangladesh with a special focus on the standardized, high-stakes testing system,

and illustrate how the national curriculum, which is impregnated with Bangla language and

culture, has been distancing Adibashi students from their cultural and community identity.

1 A hill tracts district in Bangladesh 2 Pseudo name 3 This is the first day of the Bengali year, a day of new year celebration, which has historical connection

with Bengali identity and culture. 4 Another Adibashi group in Bangladesh

138

This chapter examines the ways in which the mainstream education system promotes

dominant Bengali identity and marginalizes Adibashi cultural identities in the national

curriculum. While considering the standardized, high-stakes testing system as a part of the

national curriculum, I also illustrate how this testing system endorses the homogenous textbook

contents and classroom practices, and disregards Adibashi knowledge systems. While continuing

to rely on the interview narratives of Adibashi participants, I examine the national curriculum

(from class one to ten)—especially textbooks, syllabi, pedagogies, and assessment strategies—to

identify how Bengalicized the curriculum is. To be specific, I argue that the national curriculum,

including its assessment system, promotes a Bengalicization process, as well as the nationalist

ideologies of the Bengali elites, by normalizing and valorizing Bangla language and culture and

marginalizing Adibashi cultural attributes.

This chapter first provides a theoretical discussion on what I mean by Bengaliness and

Bengalicization through a historical, defined curriculum, and then gives an overview of the

national curriculum in Bangladesh. Then, while explicating how Bengaliness and Bengalicization

have affected the design and delivery of the country’s educational practices, the next three

sections discuss how this centralized curriculum is built on the politics of homogenization in three

ways. First, it normalizes Bengaliness through various educational practices; second, it limits and

racializes Adibashi representations in textbooks; and third, it upholds a “modernity/tradition”

dichotomy to coerce the Adibashis to accept the “modern” Bengali identity.

5.2 Defining Bengaliness and the Bengalicization Process

5.2.1 Bengaliness and Its Contested Meanings

Although Bengaliness appears to be simply a cultural notion, defining it requires an

understanding of its contested meanings through its historical evolution of political upheavals and

colonial experiences. Given the discussion of Bengali/Bangladeshi nationalism in chapters 1 and

3, I view Bengaliness in this chapter through its “modern” perspectives that indicate a fabricated

139

and standardized notion of Bengaliness5 which has lost its original syncretistic meaning and

developed into a convoluted form of Bengali identity today.

The concept of Bengaliness has evolved from a syncretistic, “complex psyche” (Osmany,

1992, p. 34) and transformed into a separatist consciousness (Tharoor, 2017) over thousands of

years of historical interactions among different groups and events. Bengali identity was originally

connected to the land—Banga—and the shift in its emphasis from land to language and culture

was a colonial development (Rafi, 2017). Instead of emerging from any monocultural and

monolingual ethnic groups, it developed through the synthesis of multicultural, multilingual, and

multireligious peoples who lived in this land (Osmany, 1992; Rafi, 2017). While the Bengalis

evolved as a new mixed race (Mohsin, 1997) through the miscegenation of pre-Aryan and Aryan

peoples (Rafi, 2017), Bangla language developed as a pidgin language influenced by Sanskrit6

and cultures that evolved through the Aryanization of Austric and Dravidian languages and

societies (Rafi, 2017). Later, the growth of Bengali identity after Aryanization incorporated the

synthesis of Brahmanical beliefs and cultures, and Islamic values and practices of the Muslim

invaders who arrived later (Rafi, 2017). While destroying the tolerant coexistence of distinct

groups in the same territory, the formation of “modern” Bengaliness developed its linguistic,

class, religious, historical, and—most importantly—political dimensions to construct cultural

separatism during the colonial period.

Inventing and constructing the “modern” Bengaliness or Bengali identity was a

“powerful, creative and historically significant project” of the nation-building process; this

process aimed to fashion an imagined identity that was “modern” but non -Western (Chatterjee,

1993, p. 6). This romantic imagination of “modern” Bengali identity necessitated the

5 Partha Chatterjee (1993) has explained the process of how Bengali identity was modernized during the British period by following the Western model of “modernity” and traditions. Moreover, Ahmed Sofa (1981) has illustrated how the present notion of Bengali identity is a political fabrication, which does not

represent the cultures of rural and local Bengalis. 6 Classical language of India.

140

secularization and urbanization of Bengali traditions and cultures (Chatterjee, 1993; Uddin,

2006). Modernizing Bengaliness, indeed, became a cultural project of furnishing the Bangla

language with appropriate “linguistic equipments” and creating institutional networks, which

started during the late 1800s and early 1900s in Bengal (Chatterjee, 1993, p. 7). They aimed for

an “aesthetic” form of arts that was “modern and national, and yet recognizably different from the

West”; however, the process followed European “modular forms” that were urban and

homogenous in nature (Chatterjee, 1993, p. 8). Although the Hindu Bengali elites in West Bengal

predominated this process, which later incorporated the Hindus in East Bengal, the Muslim

Bengalis also constructed a Muslim Bengali identity, emphasizing the contributions of Muslim

history, culture, and literatures (Chowdhury, 2020).

Later, during the Pakistan regime (1947–1971), Bengaliness was redefined in a new

socio-political sense through secularism and monoculturalism to exclusively identify the majority

people of East Bengal or East Pakistan. The then Bengali elites further modified Bengaliness and

fabricated a romantic notion by emphasizing selected shared memories and events, and specific

cultural aspects such as Bengali language, culture, literature, and custom. This newly invented

tradition eventually constructed a political consciousness of a new nation-state for the Bengalis in

the East. In particular, Bengaliness highlighted the collective memory of the tragic experiences

and various commemorative events that occurred during the Pakistan regime (1947–1971). It

evoked pride in many newly conceived cultural aspects, such as a rich collection of celebratory

literatures as cultural resources; Shahid Minar as a cultural centre; Bangla Academy as a source

of Bengali cultural inspiration; the national anthem and ekushe7 song as an expression of

patriotism; Rabindra Nath Tagore8 as a Bengali poet of inspiration; speeches of Bengali leaders

and intellectuals as guidelines; and national symbols, flags, and language as an identity (Uddin,

7 The song was dedicated to the language movement in 1952 and its martyrs; it has become a song of

ekushe (on the 21st) or 21 February language day in Bangladesh. 8 Rabindra Nath Tagore was the first Bengali poet who received a Nobel Prize in literature in 1921.

141

2006). The eventual nationalization of these festivals, events, peoples, food, cultural practices,

and symbols have become part of today’s Bengaliness, as well as Bengali national unity (Uddin,

2006). The “modern” notion of Bengaliness thus is an invented tradition that focuses more on the

unifying aspects of a nation by generating a false pride among the Bengalis rather than

encompassing facets of cultural pluralism or syncretism of Bengal.

Paradoxically, after the independence of Bangladesh, Bengaliness has also been

conceived through various contested notions of the national identity, mounting political turmoil,

several upheavals, and mass dissatisfaction (see chapters 1 and 3). Since this “modern” and

secular notion was more about the imagination of the elites and intelligentsia (Khondker, 2016), it

could never represent the ordinary population of Bangladesh, especially a vast majority group

from rural areas, with a folk culture and low socio-economic backgrounds (Sofa, 1981), as well as

ethnic minority groups. As a result, Bengaliness has been a subject to disputes among different

political groups. It also is a source of growing tension between the people’s religious sentiments

and the imposed notion of secular identity.

While considering all of these discussions, for the purpose of this dissertation I define

Bengaliness as the “modern” and newly invented Bengali cultural attributes that integrate Bangla

language and Bengali identity, culture, history, and traditions which were selected, revived, and

transformed during the nation-building process.

5.2.2 The Bengalicization Project

The Bengalicization project, though not officially coined and applied, has been a

significant political tool of the political parties in Bangladesh. Given the discussion of the

homogenized and exclusionary national identity and the politics of nationalism in Bangladesh

(see chapter 3), defining the Bengalicization project requires understanding the nat ional

integration process of Bengali political elites. Since independence, Bengalicization has been an

142

ongoing colonial strategy of the elites to integrate the diverse Adibashis into the Bengali identity

explicitly and implicitly.

For the purpose of this chapter, I view the Bengalicization process as an ethno-political

project of Bengali elites to institutionalize Bengaliness across the country and deliberately

marginalize the Adibashis. The Bengalicization process indicates a cultural homogenization

process that is maneuvered through various socio-economic and political strategies and practices

to impose invented Bengali traditions or Bengaliness, especially on the Adibashi population. The

country did not promote any Bengalicization project explicitly the way Americanization9 and

Norwegianization were promoted as an official policy in the USA and Norway respectively.

However, Sheikh Mujib’s invitation in 1973 to all Adibashis to become Bengali immediately

(Mohsin, 1997; Abdullah, 2009) embedded the Bengalicization process that still is being used by

different political groups to advance their political goals.

The Bengalicization project progresses through coercive and non-coercive measures.

Cultural homogenization stipulates the destruction of minorities either by assimilation or by

coercion—forceful removal, mass murders, and elimination (Conversi, 2010). The politics of

denial and degradation of Indigenous identity and knowledge systems (see chapter 3) is in the

roots of this project. The Adibashis have never found themselves represented in the national

identity. Nor have they received acknowledgement of their Indigenous identity and rights. Rather,

the Bengalicization project often appears as a civilizing mission of the elites, which perceive the

Adibashi identity as “uncivilized” and “primitive” as opposed to the “modern” identity of the

Bengalis (Khatun & Sumon, 2017). By institutionalizing Bengaliness, this mission entails the

transformation of the Adibashis and their social structures into a “modern” system that manifests

9 Although the Americanization process is based on the theory of two-way assimilation where a new multicultural identity will be established by taking attributes from both American and immigrant cultures, due to the dominant and superior presence of white culture and language, the two-way assimilation is not a

success; rather American culture becomes white-centric and transforms the immigrant into an inferior other (Lash, 2018).

143

Bengali identity, cultures, and tradition. The objective of such a project is to persuade the

Adibashis to accept Bengaliness and destroy their distinct nationhood consciousness. In addition,

some explicit coercive measures taken by the government in the name of national security and

unity can easily complement the understanding of the forced assimilation process; these measures

refer to a part of the nation-building process that does not promote non-repressive inclusivity. It

becomes more discernable when the forced implantation of Bengali settlers, land grabbing,

militarization, restrictions on Indigenous cultures, murders, rape, and vandalization are taken into

consideration (see chapter 3). Thereby, Adibashis have either migrated to India or other parts of

Bangladesh or changed their ancestral lifestyles to fit themselves into the dominant traditions and

cultures (Adnan, 2007). In brief, nationalism, homogenization, assimilation , and coercion

intersect in the Bengalicization project.

Drawing on this discussion, I define the Bengalicization project as a nationalist goal of

the education system in Bangladesh, which intends to institutionalize and entrench Bengaliness

among the Adibashis. This process demonstrates the colonial project of disseminating dominant

discourses and values among the Adibashis, and annihilating their knowledge systems and

identities. In this chapter, I illustrate how the curriculum, especially textbooks, pedagogies, and

the standardized, high-stakes testing system, entrenches Bengaliness and applies various coercive

and non-coercive educational measures to Bengalicize Adibashi students.

5.3 Bangladesh’s National Curriculum

Curriculum encompasses a trilogy of three things: the knowledge contents of a subject,

the structure or form of that knowledge and pedagogy, and the instructional strategies and

practices of the knowledge (Au, 2007). For the purpose of this chapter, I apply the broader

definition of curriculum that includes not only the textbooks, syllabi, pedagogies, and learning

processes but also the evaluation process that effectuates the others. This chapter considers the

144

national curriculum of Bangladesh—primary, junior, and secondary levels10—to identify the

Bengali and non-Bengali representations, and illustrate how much the syllabi, textbooks,

pedagogies, and assessments address Adibashi cultural attributes and knowledge systems.

The objective of the national curriculum in Bangladesh is to provide a homogenous and

centralized education (NCTB, 2012). The school curriculum and the learning/teaching pedagogies

are determined centrally by the curriculum planners (NCTB).11 This prescriptive syllabus

expounds a unified pattern of classroom activities, pedagogies, and textbooks; it stipulates the use

of a fixed set of instructions, contents, and formats. For example, the national curriculum in

Bangladesh determines textbooks and test contents, objectives, pedagogies, activities, duration of

lessons, mode of teaching, language of instruction and assessment, as well as the evaluation

strategies, rubrics, and formats (NCTB, 2012). Further, the curriculum emphasizes the

significance of the tests, and designs the syllabi and instructions accordingly to address the public

examinations as a major goal. Given the heavy stakes of the tests and the centralization of the

curriculum, this system leaves no options for schools and teachers to customize their syllabi

contextually. Students from different backgrounds and contexts learn the same contents,

experience the same classroom practices, and face the identical evaluation system.

Therefore, the education system in Bangladesh does not have any separate provisions for

Adibashi students. They do not have any other options but to accept the dominant knowledge

system. Despite the relentless demand of Adibashi leaders for a regional provision of the

education of CHT Adibashis, the government did not pay any attention. A Bangladeshi scholar

(8) framed this situation thus:

If an education system follows a curriculum that glorifies one

particular nation and language, then it is an alienating experience

for Adibashi communities. An Adibashi student is absent here.

How can students identify themselves with an educational

10 Primary refers to the first five years of education, the junior level includes the next three years, and the

secondary education comprises classes nine and ten. 11 National Curriculum and Textbook Board (NCTB).

145

system that does not talk about them? How can they find it

interesting? (Personal communication, August 20, 2019)

More specifically, the CHT Peace Treaty12 in 1997 provided an option for a regional education

system for the Adibashis (CHT Treaty, 1997). The government, however, has not implemented

this provision yet. Instead, some so-called regional administrative sections with some local

representatives have been established to appease the local demand. This system fails to offer any

alternative education system or regional curriculum for the Adibashis. Such a system supports the

centralized operation of the education ministry more, rather than addressing local demands. The

local representatives are more partisan to the political power than to their local issues (Chakma

participant 2, personal communication, June 28, 2019). So, a demand for a curriculum that is

designed for Adibashi students is still unaddressed. As a result, Adibashi students are bound to

follow the Bengalicized curriculum, which is dissociated from their cultural attributes.

5.4 Bengalicization and the Country’s Education System

Education, like the institutions and societies it derived from, is

neither culturally neutral nor fair. Rather, education is a

culturally and socially constructed institution for an imagined

context with purposes defined by those who are privileged to be

the deciders, and their work has not always been for the benefit

of the masses. (Battiste, 2013, p. 159)

In this section, I illustrate how the curriculum, including its standardized, high-stakes testing

system, endorses Bengaliness by normalizing Bengali values, knowledge, and identities,

restricting and racializing Adibashi representations, and disseminating the “modernity/tradition”

dichotomy to reject Adibashi knowledge systems. Thereby, this section shows how the education

and testing system augments the Bengalicization process by reproducing Bengaliness,

12 A peace treaty signed between the armed wings of the political party in the hill tracts and government.

The government felt forced to sign the treaty to maintain national sovereignty and peace in the hill tracts though none of the clauses have been implemented yet.

146

disadvantaging Adibashi students’ learning and, eventually, diminishing Adibashi cultures as well

as their knowledge systems.

5.4.1 Normalizing Bengaliness

The national curriculum in Bangladesh clearly manifests a national goal of representing

Bengali identity and culture in all educational practices (NCTB, 2012). The curriculum is built on

Bangla language and Bengali cultural attributes; it predominantly reflects Bengalicized

knowledge, classroom culture, pedagogies, and practices. Most importantly, the textbook

narratives prioritize Bengali identity, culture, traditions, and history. For example, in primary and

secondary education two mandatory textbooks, Bangla and Bangladesh and Global Studies13 (see

Table 1), which present Bangladeshi culture and history illustrate only the history and culture of

the Bengalis. In particular, while presenting the history and culture of Bangladesh, the chapter

“Our History and Culture” in the class four textbook Bangladesh and Global Studies only focuses

on the Bengalis’ history and cultural attributes, ignoring that of other nations (Nasreen et al.,

2013)14; they are presented in such a way that it seems that other groups do not exist in

Bangladesh. Such narratives exclude not only the existence of Adibashi identities from the

Bangladeshi identity, but also the contribution of Adibashi cultures and their historical evolution

into the collective history and culture of Bangladesh (see Table 1). In a way, the curriculum

represents this nationalist idea that Bangladesh is the land of the Bengalis only.

Adibashi students find such a curriculum alienating and irrelevant to their cultural

identity. A Chakma teacher (5) said, “We teach what a Bengali does and follows. We do not get

to teach what a Chakma does” (personal communication, June 28, 2019). Similarly, a Chakma

scholar and activist said,

I remember the moment when I read a poem about a train in the

textbook; I was clueless about how a train looked like and

13 These are two mandatory textbooks from class one to ten (see Table 3). 14 The Bangladesh and Global Studies textbook in class four is written by these authors.

147

moved. We never saw a train in our hill tracts. In books, we

never could read anything about ourselves. We only read and

learned about the Bengalis. (Scholar participant 4, personal

communication, June 10, 2019)

These statements illustrate how the Bengalicized education system is fraught with foreign and

extraneous contents for Adibashis. Adibashi knowledges and their local contexts are absent from

the curriculum, which negatively affects the educational experiences of Adibashi students. Most

students fail to follow the curriculum and school practices as they hardly find any connection

between their knowledges and cultural attributes and the knowledges that schools offer. They can

neither add any knowledge from their local contexts to the school curriculum nor apply the

curriculum contents in their community practices. Given this “foreign -ness” of the curriculum

and “voicelessness” of Adibashis, the education system creates a linguistically and culturally

alienated learning environment for them. In this context, Adibashi students fail to reflect on their

lived experiences and nurture their creativity and critical thinking skills (Kanu, 1993, as cited in

Kanu 2003, p. 72). Such education is meaningless and contradictory to their community identity

and practices.

The existing curriculum promotes Bengaliness not only through the knowledge contents

it promotes but also through the learning styles and socio-cultural skills that the curriculum

endorses. In this system, the standardized curriculum and school practices glorify Bengaliness;

practice Bengalicized pedagogies, behaviours, and interaction skills; and identify Adibashi

lifestyles and socialization skills as “not acceptable” in schools. Many Adibashi participants

shared their experiences of embarrassment and humiliation by their peers and teachers, which

they faced if they exhibited non-Bengali cultural attributes in schools. In this system, speaking an

Adibashi language in schools is unacceptable; similarly, wearing an Adibashi costume or

maintaining any Adibashi cultural practices is prohibited and considered to be below the

“standard” practice (Manipuri participant 12, personal communication, August 20, 2019). In fact,

Adibashi students whose socio-cultural values and norms are different from those of Bengalis are

148

often considered “jangly” (wild) who need Bengalicized training in schools (Manipuri participant

12, personal communication, August 20, 2019). Students from the dominant group usually have

the “expected” social skills (Brown & Lee, 2005), whereas Adibashi students lack such a socio-

cultural knowledge. This cultural humiliation is damaging for these students’ learning since this

process stigmatizes Adibashi identities and coerces them to adapt to the Bengalicized behaviours,

social skills, and learning styles in the classroom. In this process, the national curriculum

gradually instills Bengalicized forms of “social interactions,” and “moral, normative, and

dispositional values” (Apple, 1993, pp. 42–50) in all educational and non-educational practices.

Given the presence of Bengaliness in the national curriculum, Bengaliness is established

as a “norm” and “standard” in the education system, and Adibashi knowledge systems are

disregarded and stigmatized. When schools and curriculum promote the dominant knowledge and

cultural attributes as a designated tradition and culture in education (Freeman et al., 2012), they

identify the dominant knowledge system as the “standard” or “norm” of education—“ways of

knowing and predicting human behaviour and development” (Baker, 2002, p. 93). In this process

of standardizing Bengaliness in the curriculum, Adibashi cultural attributes and knowledge

systems are left behind. The curriculum does not offer any opportunities to nurture or respect

Adibashi knowledge systems; rather, the educational practices devalue and barbarize them. While

establishing the hegemony of Bengaliness and valuelessness of Adibashi knowledge systems and

cultural attributes, the curriculum sets an educational goal for all students that Adibashi students

feel forced to achieve too. This “hidden curriculum” (Apple, 1993, p. 46) creates a pressure over

the Adibashis not only to learn the Bengalicized knowledge but also to change their socio-cultural

behaviours and attitudes. This process distorts their learning experiences and disturbs the

connection that Adibashi students have with their cultural identities.

What adds more obstacles to the learning experience of Adibashi students in this

Bengalicized curriculum are the heavy stakes of the standardized testing system. While the

149

national- or the state-prescribed curriculum mandates the specification of contents and

pedagogies, the high-stakes testing system standardizes the knowledges, pedagogies, and learning

styles based on the dominant culture (Sparapani & Perez, 2015). Wayne Au (2010) shows that the

heavy stakes of the standardized tests have the power to shape the curriculum, pedagogies, and

learning process in schools according to the state criteria by forcing teachers to prepare students

for the tests. Also, the testing system determines the “quality tags” of education and knowledge

(Apple, 1993, p. 231) by adding “score” value as well as more socio-economic standards to

students’ acquisition of the prescribed knowledge. Many Adibashi students and teachers

expressed how they were bound to follow the prescribed knowledge as they had to learn for tests.

While shaping and reshaping the knowledge for them, the tests also invalidate their cultural

knowledges. Adibashi learners, parents, and teacher are thus helpless. A Chakma schoolteacher

expressed how the tests’ weight determined knowledge for Adibashi students,

Once I penalized a boy for writing a “wrong” answer in his

paper. The question was based on the language movement in

195215; it asked, “The Pakistanis did not let us speak our mother-

tongue. What is our mother tongue [emphasis added]?” When

the student wrote, “It is ‘Chakma,’” I had to deduct his score and

rebuke him for not knowing the answer. It reminded me of my

own sufferings too when I was a student. I was deeply sad inside

for not being able to explain that “our” in the question does not

include the Chakmas; it only refers to the Bengalis. We all have

to accept what the books say. It is all about the Bengalis.

(Chakma participant 1, personal communication, June 27, 2019)

In this framework of education, knowledge comes in the form of compromises to Adibashi

students as they have to accept the dominant knowledge as the “truth,” rejecting their own

cultural identities. In a way, the testing system has the power to nullify the knowledges that

Adibashi students bring to schools, which the state does not want to incorporate either. This

process reduces the “worth” of Adibashi knowledges in the curriculum and “establish[es]

15 In 1952, a language movement led by Bengalis happened in the then-East Pakistan or East Bengal at the protest of Pakistani elites’ declaration of Urdu as an official state language in Pakistan (see chapter 1 & 3).

150

deviancy, backwardness, and forwardness” of these knowledge systems (Baker, 2002, p. 93).

Knowing what would bring test success, Adibashi students are bound to unlearn their cultural

knowledges. This process gradually develops a “form of consciousness” about the legitimacy and

hegemony of Bengaliness or Bengalicized knowledge and annihilates Adibashi students’ cultural

perspectives (Apple, 1993, p. 222).

Given the high stakes of tests, this standardized testing system assigns various coercive

measures to the curriculum to establish Bengaliness as a “standard” or an “official knowledge.”

In particular, it categorizes students and sanctions reward and punishment for their test

performances, which generates a force in the education system to effectuate the learning of the

prescribed curriculum. In this process, the testing system perceives Bengaliness as “the point of

references” (Goodman, 2001, and Jones, 1999, as cited in Vanhouwe, 2007, p. 38) and marks the

cultural differences that Adibashis possess as an opposite or “deviance” to the “standard.” When

Bengaliness becomes “the determiner of competence,” Adibashi participants have found that they

are “differentiated as inadequate, abnormal, [and] behind” (Baker, 2002, p. 100). Adibashi

students are thus identified as “deviant” and penalized in this system. A Chakma participant (20)

confirmed this claim:

Our students cannot survive in the competition of the exams with

the mainstream students because their base is very weak. They

have to struggle with language, and they do not have enough

facilities and good teachers. They also do not perform well

because of their lack of linguistic and cultural competency in

Bangla. (Personal communication, June 31, 2019)

In this system, the curriculum or test “standards” have built-in biases (Reaser & Adger, 2008),

which measure the “deficiency” of the “other”” (Urrieta, 2004); therefore, Adibashi students’

linguistic and cultural backgrounds are identified as “lacking” or a “gap” that the curriculum

intends to fill. Identifying this “gap” is crucial in this education system as this evaluation process

also determines students’ “academic success” and future educational path. Given the need to

achieve “academic success,” these standardized curriculum and tests coerce the students

151

identified as “weak” to follow the test-prescribed knowledge or the national curriculum (Bourdieu

& Passeron, 1990, as cited in Ayre, 2012, p. 5). In this way, the testing system provides the

curriculum with the “disciplinary power” to enforce the dissemination of Bengaliness as a “norm”

and “standard” among Adibashi students, the “colonized other” (London, 2001, as cited in Kanu,

2003, p. 72). Thus, schools appear as training centres, curriculum as a module, and tests as

reproductive machines to “appropriate” Adibashi students.

5.4.2 The Racialized and Limited Presentation of the Adibashis in Textbooks

Textbooks, as a significant part of the national curriculum, incorporate limited, partial,

stigmatized, romanticized, racialized, and marginalized images of the Adibashis while glorifying

and magnifying Bengaliness. The textbooks do not portray any positive cultural representations

of Adibashis. Nor do they indicate the Adibashis’ contribution to the national history and culture.

In this section, first I illustrate how the textbooks generate a marginalized and stigmatized image

of the Adibashis by presenting an offensive and limited representation of the Adibashis in

Bangladeshi culture and history. Then, I show how such representations affect the Adibashis’

learning experiences as well as their social relationship, while persuading them to accept

Bengaliness.

5.4.2.1 Offensive Representations in Textbooks

Textbooks have very limited representation of Adibashis, providing fragmented and partial

information on their cultures and identities. In this chapter, I consider the textbooks from class

one to ten, especially Bangla and Bangladesh and Global Studies, to identify the representation of

the Adibashis (see Appendix F). Except for a few mentions in Bangladesh and Global Studies

textbooks (see Table 1), other textbooks make almost no mention of the Adibashis. Moreover,

only the textbook Bangla in class seven has a chapter on Adibashis titled “Bangladesher khudro

jatishotta” (“The Small Nations of Bangladesh”). Although a separate textbook titled khudro nri

152

gosthir bhasha o shonskriti (Languages and Cultures of Small Ethnic Minority Groups) is

included in the class six and seven syllabi, the use of the book is optional and depends on

schools’ choices.

Table 1

Representation of Adibashis in Bangladesh and Global Studies

Note. The table was prepared through a careful review of textbooks.

Table 1 indicates a clear absence of Adibashi representation in textbooks. The absence is

also specifically noticed in some textbook chapters which discuss various cultural and historical

issues of Bangladesh, but they only refer to the Bengalis. For example, there are many chapters in

different grades, for example, “amader shomaj o poribesh” (“Our Society and Environment”) and

“amader itihash o shonskriti” (“Our History and Culture”) in class three (Nasreen, et al. 2013);

“amader muktijuddho” (“Our Liberation War”) and “amader shonskriti” (“Our Culture”) in class

four (Nasreen, et al. 2013); “Bangladesher orthoniti: krishi o shilpo” (“The Economics of

Bangladesh: Agriculture and Industry”) and “manobadhikar” (“Human Rights”) in class five

(Chakraborty, 2013); and “Bangladesher shomaj” (“The Society of Bangladesh”) in class six

(Patwari, et al. 2013). As mentioned before, while illustrating the culture, tradition, and history of

153

Bangladesh at different grades, these chapters present the Bengalis as the sole possessors of all

Bangladeshi cultural attributes. These chapters do not mention anything substantive about the role

of Adibashis in Bangladeshi culture and history. Accordingly, a Chakma teacher said,

There was a time when the textbooks made no mention of the

Adibashis. Although the current textbooks have included some

information about Adibashis, the representations are still

inadequate, offensive, and often incorrect. Those who have

written the books do not have enough knowledge about

the Adibashis. Adibashi writers or scholars should have been

consulted. (Chakma participant 1, personal communication, June

28, 2019)

Such an absence of Adibashi voices in the curriculum emphasizes Bengaliness as a “norm” and

establishes Adibashis as the “other.” This overemphasis on Bengaliness does not offer any

positive reinforcement for Adibashi students’ learning.

The careful crafting of the textbooks not only presents some secluded and isolated

information on the Adibashis but also exoticizes their distinct and diverse lifestyles. Instead of

presenting Adibashis’ lifestyles as integrated with the Bengalis or the cultural coexistence of

Bengalis and Adibashis for thousands of years in Bengal, the textbooks emphasize the Adibashis’

isolated and geographically and culturally distanced lifestyles. The books generate the idea that

Adibashis are “the individuals [who] never seem to leave the hilly areas” and interact with any

other groups in Bangladesh (Abdullah, 2009, p. 87). In addition, the limited representation of

Adibashis found in the textbooks mostly focuses on the distinctive features they possess or how

different they are from the Bengalis. For example, the textbooks find it important to provide

information on how the Adibashis live, what they eat, and where they live. This functions like a

tourist brochure (Abdullah, 2009) that displays information on “cultural artifact[s]” (Schick & St.

Denis, 2005, as cited in Vanhouwe, 2007, p. 6), as if they are the exotic other who are an object

of entertainment for the outsiders or the Bengalis as their lifestyles are exciting and interesting.

154

They are presented as a “tourist attraction”16 (Nasreen et al., 2013, p. 105) that one can go see and

enjoy. Some examples from the textbooks can clarify this idea. The textbooks mention, “Viewing

the life of small ethnic minority groups, fishing in the lake, having a speedboat ride, swimming,

and skiing are tourist attractions in Rangamati”; or “One can see the interesting and diverse

lifestyle of Khasia if one takes a tour to Jaflong”17 (Nasreen et al., 2013, p. 105). Such

illustrations reduce the Adibashis to an object and their lifestyles to museum exhibits, providing a

spectacular image for the amusement of the colonial gaze. The Adibashis’ segregated existence

and exoticized lifestyles in a confined and detached place that the textbooks demonstrate reflect

the Eurocentric attitude of Bengali elites, which tends to “tribalize” them, exclude them from the

dominant culture, and emphasize their distinctions from the dominant group.

This dehumanizing approach to the Adibashis is also reinstated through wrong, incomplete,

and overgeneralized information about Adibashi communities in textbooks. A Meitei Manipuri

teacher said,

Shinjinda has been mentioned in the book as the favourite food

of the Manipuris; the information is partial as shinjinda is the

favourite food of the Bishnupriya Manipuris and shinju is the

food of Meitei Manipuris. It has become very difficult for the

teachers to teach the correct information only because the book

does not say that. (Manipuri participant 2, personal

communication, August 16, 2019)

These mistakes in the textbooks imply the lack of appropriate research and community

representation in curriculum design. The books were written based on some overgeneralized

assumptions about the communities. These mistakes indicate a biased process of collecting

information on the Manipuri communities, which failed to engage representatives from each

segment of the community.18 The process did not include the verification of the collected

information, nor did it address the diversity that exists within the community.

16 In the class four Bangladesh and Global Studies book. 17 Khasia is a plain land Adibashi group who live in the Sylhet division of Bangladesh. 18 The Manipuris have three different groups who speak two different languages.

155

This “othering” or the marginalized image of the Adibashis persists through “us and them”

discourses when the textbooks describe the Bengalis and Adibashis simultaneously. When

delineating the Bengalis, the use of “we,” “our,” and “us” is practiced ubiquitously whereas

Adibashi representations are accomplished through “them” and “their.” The “us” discourses in

textbooks still cannot incorporate “them” while referring to the Bangladeshis; it only indicates the

Bengalis as Bangladeshis. It seems the Bengalis as “us” need to introduce the Adibashis as

“them.” For example, the textbook titled Bangladesh and Global Studies in class four

incorporates the following narrative that instills an “othering” image of the Adibashis in

education:

Bangla is our main language. But there are many non-

Bengali small ethnic minorities in Bangladesh apart from the

Bengalis. They [non-Bengalis] have separate languages

of their own, which are their mother-tongues [emphasis added].

(Nasreen et al., 2013, p. 93)

This “us/them” discourse indicates two things. First, it indicates the power relationship between

the Adibashis and Bengalis; the “us” or Bengalis have the power or voice to speak in the text

whereas the Adibashis are introduced as “them” and have no voice in the narrative. Second, it

explains the binary conceptualization of the Bengali/non-Bengali relationship. This colonial

approach considers the dominant group as a model while categorizing the non-dominant groups

as the binary opposite. The idea is that Adibashis are non-Bengalis who are less desirable than the

Bengalis as the non-Bengalis do not represent the “ideal” of Bengaliness (Adbullah, 2009).

Most importantly, the textbooks clearly manifest such binary demarcation between Bengalis

and Adibashis while they elaborate the Adibashis’ physical descriptions. Bengalis in the texts do

not require any physical descriptions of their height, colour, face, and nose whereas these

identifications are required to describe Adibashis in textbooks. The textbooks mandate the

inclusion of their physical descriptions to show how different they look from the dominant

156

Bengalis. For instance, the textbook titled Bangladesh and Global Studies in class eight includes

the following descriptions of some Adibashi groups:

Their [Chakma] face is round; nose is flat; and hair is straight

and black. Their body colour is yellowish. (Patwari et al., 2013,

p. 92)

Their [Santal] colour is black; height is medium; and hair is

black and wavy. (Patwari et al., 2013, p. 95)

They [Rakhine] have round face, fair complexion, and straight

hair. (Patwari et al., 2013, p. 99)

Such physical and biological descriptions of Adibashis are needed in the dominant context to

emphasize the “real and imaginary differences between the body of the racist and the victim”

(Memmi, 1969, as cited in Battiste, 2013, p. 133). These Eurocentric and racist ideologies have

evolved in Western countries based on the idea that skin colour or biological features are the

inherent criteria to assign superiority to a group and legitimize power (Battiste, 2013). In

particular, despite multiple revisions and changes that were brought to the curriculum of British

Columbia, Canada, there are still some racialized, essentialized, and marginalized images of

Indigenous groups in textbooks, which reproduce the superior image of the white dominant group

(Shui, 2008). According to Battiste (2013),

It[racism] is an ideology about essentializing people to groups

based on phenotype, ancestry and/or culture, and creating

differences between groups that are embodied in attitudes,

beliefs, behaviours, laws, norms, and practices. This cognitive

process is called racialization, and covers unconscious systemic

forms, and intentional acts. (p. 134)

So, racializing Adibashi bodies in the textbooks manifests the colonial and racist approach of the

Bengali elites who consider themselves “superior” to the Adibashis.

Although the inclusion of two separate textbooks titled khudro nri gosthir bhasha o

shonskriti (Languages and Cultures of Small Ethnic Minority Groups) in class six and seven

syllabi (optional) is an attempt to provide detailed illustrations on Adibashi cultures, knowledges

systems, and history, the Adibashi representations in these books rely on the colonial lens of the

157

Bengalis that exotify, racialize, categorize, and stereotype Adibashi identities.19 Except for

presenting more detailed information on Adibashi communities, these textbooks reproduce the

same stereotypical images of Adibashis. The textbooks primarily present an anthropological study

of Adibashi communities in Bangladesh from the lens of the Bengalis. The textbooks include

multiple narratives that present questions from a Bengali individual’s perspective without

incorporating any Adibashis’ narratives or perspectives into the description. For example, in the

textbook of class six, Rita, a Bengali girl, went to Bandarban and became very excited to see the

Marma communities. The textbooks explain how amazed and mesmerized Rita became after

observing the different lifestyles of Marmas. Similarly, in the same textbook, Antara, another

Bengali girl, went to visit her two Adibashi friends’ houses and observed the differences that

existed between the two communities. Such narratives not only emphasize the notion of

“difference” to understand the relationship between Bengalis and Adibashis but also reproduce

the hegemony of Bengaliness. While presenting Bengalis’ perception about Adibashi

communities, these narratives portray Adibashi cultural practices and values as “exceptional,” if

not “abnormal.” For example, the narrator in a chapter of class six book asks, “Have you ever

heard of anyone who colours their teeth black?” (Sikder et al., 2013, p. 9). While introducing the

sense of beauty of Mro communities, the textbook starts the narration with a question of surprise

and indicates how Mros or Adibashis are different from Bengalis. The question itself evokes a

sense of surprise and shock for Bengali students. Further, the textbooks reproduce the notion of

“simple” and “ancient” lifestyles of Adibashis and emphasizes the same exotifying idea that how

amazing and interesting it is for someone to observe their diverse and distinct lifestyles (Sikder et

al., 2013). In addition, the us/them discourse are clearly presented in all the illustrations. In brief,

19 These textbooks belong to a group of textbooks which are optional and offered, mostly depending on

schools’ curriculum and preferences. Students can choose only one book from these groups; however, they have to study what schools offer.

158

despite the addition of two new textbooks, the curriculum could not remove the imbued message

on the Bengali hegemony and stereotyping representations of Adibashis.

In brief, textbooks play a major role in reproducing offensive and stigmatized discourses

about the Indigenous or Adibashi communities in Bangladesh, which not only establishes the

superior image of the dominant group but also reinforces the subjugated status of the Adibashis.

5.4.2.2 Nationalizing History and Glorifying Bengaliness

Apart from generating derogatory messages about the Adibashis, the textbooks attach all

forms of glory, celebration, and honour to the Bengali national identity, history, and traditions in

order to reinforce the nationalist ideologies of the Bengali elites. The present curriculum

emphasizes the narration of near history, glorification of the liberation war, and contributions of

the great Bengalis (see Figure 4). Shaping history and glorifying war and sacrifices function as a

means to inform the national identity and evoke patriotic feelings among the citizens; the

textbooks are a great way to accomplish these goals effectively (Ghosh, 2012, p. 132). Besides,

the romanticization of history, the liberation war, national heroes, and victory aims to magnify the

glory attached to Bengaliness, which contributes to a shared feeling of national ethos among

students (Ljunggren, 2014). The inclusion of the national anthem, flag, and symbols also increase

the patriotic feeling of the citizens, and entrench the designated form of national identity among

the people.

Figure 4

Presentation of History in Textbooks

159

Note. This figure was created from the textbook analysis done for the purpose of this study.

Adibashis are also absent from these glorified narratives of national history in the

textbooks, which further reinforces their stigmatized image in the textbooks. Historically, the

national history of Bangladesh has been fabricated according to the political ideologies of the

ruling party and their nationalist agenda; the textbook narratives change accordingly (Ghosh,

2012). Thus, history has been perceived through a telescopic lens that only views the narrowed

history (Ghosh, 2012), and only focuses on the contributions of the Bengalis in the nation-

building process. It manifests the exclusionary approaches of the nationalist politics of Bengali

elites, which disavows the contributions of any other groups in the independence movement.

Although many Adibashis fought for the independence of Bangladesh, the role of Adibashis in

the liberation war is hardly acknowledged. If they are acknowledged anywhere, the narratives

present them as collaborators or helpers, not as partners or equal shareholders of the country’s

history (Abdullah, 2009). In addition, the textbooks do not incorporate any history or cultural

evolution of the Adibashis, which in effect reproduces the “static” image of their cultural identity

and knowledge. According to a Chakma participant (5),

In books, we have no place. The history has been distorted. We

need a separate system. This standardized system cannot help us.

0.00%

5.00%

10.00%

15.00%

20.00%

25.00%

30.00%

35.00%

Class 1 Class 2 Class 3 Class 4 Class 5 Class 6 Class 7 Class 8

Presentation of History of Nation-Building Process in

Textbooks

Bangla Bangladesh & Global Studies

160

Rather, we will be destroyed in this way. (Personal

communication, June 28, 2019)

So, the content analysis of the textbooks indicates the Bengali elites’ power to decide which parts

of history should be esteemed and which ones should be buried (Davis, 1997, as cited in Tormey,

2006). In this way, the textbooks play a major role in shaping the national identity that the elites

want to promote. This process keeps the Adibashis further marginalized and excluded.

5.4.2.3 How Do Adibashis Perceive and Experience These Offensive Representations?

Such offensive and incorrect representations of Adibashis in textbooks generate a

damaging learning environment for Adibashi students. Both teachers and parents are unable to

“fix” the information that the curriculum presents, as well as the damages it causes. A Manipuri

teacher said,

In textbooks, every year there are some mistakes about the

Adibashis. I am a teacher; I see my children and students

learning the information that is given in the book. I have to teach

what the books say. (Manipur participant 6, personal

communication, August 18, 2019)

Given the narrative, teachers and parents cannot control the “correctness” of knowledge as it is

determined by the curriculum board. The Manipuri participant (2) said that the board had no

interest in correcting the information or changing the presentation even though the community

leaders requested it (personal communication, August 19, 2019). In addition, in the high-stakes

testing environment teachers and parents have less influence as the tests confirm the contents that

the textbooks present. Therefore, Adibashi students are bound to learn this distorted information

about their communities. Their learning experiences comprise this process of internalizing wrong,

derogatory, and stigmatized information about their cultural identities, which eventually distorts

their enthusiasm and interest in education. As a result, Adibashi students are often identified as

silent, non-participatory, and less interactive students in schools. Many students fail or drop out.

161

While internalizing wrong and distorted information about the Adibashis, these students

also develop a negative image of their identity and cultural practices. This sort of learning affects

their perspectives and understanding of their community knowledge systems. The continual

presentation of such information that reproduces their marginalized and derogatory image

eventually develops a sense of inferiority about their cultural identity. They fail to recognize the

richness, variability, and evolution of their cultures and history and develop a cultural distrust

among themselves. Such a sense of inferiority and doubt about cultural practices changes their

relationship with their communities and identities. In fact, the miscommunication that is created

due to the incorrect information in the textbooks affects the relationship between teachers and

students, as well as parents and their children. Adibashi teachers and parents fail to provide the

cultural information that is needed to develop the students’ identity, nor can they fix the

information that is given in the books. This process also reinforces students’ distrust of their

communities and elders, which often persuades them to rely more on the mainstream education

system and accept the Bengalicized knowledge and culture. In this process, they gradually lose

their community practices. Thereby, Adibashi cultures and identities are threatened and

Bengalicized.20

In addition, such offensive illustrations of the Adibashis in the textbooks generate many

myths about Adibashi lifestyles and knowledge among the Bengalis as well, which in effect

disturbs the relationship between Bengalis and Adibashis. Many Manipuri and Chakma students

expressed how often they were ridiculed because of their non-Bengali physical traits. A Chakma

student stated how often she had to address derogatory questions like, “How do your houses look

like?” “What do you eat?” “Do you live on trees?” “Do you eat snakes and frogs?” (Chakma

participant 11, personal communication, June 29, 2019). Another Chakma student added that they

20 See the next section and chapter 6 for more details.

162

often received racist gazes or comments on the streets of Dhaka as if they were “strange” and

“weird” people walking (Chakma participant 22, personal communication, August 25, 2019). The

racialized and derogatory representations are responsible to a great extent in generating such

racist perspectives among the Bengalis and shaping the relationship between the two groups.

Such a distorted conceptualization of Adibashis in Bangladesh not only disturbs the respectful

coexistence among the groups but also hinders Adibashi students’ positive attitude and

motivation towards education, and impedes their learning and educational achievement. An

inclusive and holistic representation of the Adibashis as well as a critical discussion on the

Adibashi-Bengali relationships are yet to be developed in the curriculum.

The above discussion on textbook representations and their impact on the Adibashis

highlights three things. First, the textbooks are a significant tool of Bengali elites to disseminate

the superior image of the Bengalis and Bengalicized culture and identity. Second, textbooks

incorporate Adibashi representations that are controlled, “mastered,” and “reshaped,” which

neither challenge the dominant or “master” narratives nor create any positive image for the

Adibashis (Swarts, 1992, as cited in Ladson-Billing, 1998, p. 18). Rather, their “insignificant”

and “different” but “exotic” culture, music, lifestyles, food, and identities further intensify the

hegemony of Bengaliness. Third, while creating a negative learning environment for Adibashi

students, such a curriculum disturbs Adibashi students’ understanding of their knowledge systems

and forces them to accept the Bengalicized knowledge and culture.

5.4.2.4 Bengalicized Curriculum, the Modern/Traditional Dichotomy, and the Loss of

Adibashi Knowledge Systems

I want to argue in this section that the existing curriculum manifests the

“modern/traditional”21 dichotomy by presenting a “backward” and “pre-modern” image of

21 The “modernity/tradition” dichotomy explains the historical narratives that identify tradition as a symbol

of pre-change, conservatism, static, and cultural continuity whereas modernity is perceived as a break with the tradition or an end to tradition that brings cultural changes (Anttonen, 2005; Dube, 2011).

163

Adibashi identities, lifestyles, behaviours, and knowledge systems. It not only reproduces the

“modern” identity of the Bengalis but also generates a need for “modernizing” the Adibashis,

which delegitimizes Adibashi knowledge systems. This section also shows how such dichotomy

influences Adibashis to accept the superior, dominant cultural attributes, diminishing their

cultural practices.

While establishing the hegemony of Bengali identity as a “modern,” the national

curriculum, especially the textbooks, depicts a “pre-modern” and “ancient” image of Adibashis

and denies the socio-cultural, spiritual, and ethical values of Adibashi knowledge systems (Barua,

2004, p. 11). This system also indicates the colonial conceptualization of “civilized vs

uncivilized” or “modern vs tradition” dichotomy. The Bengalicized curriculum promotes

“modern” education that manifests economic growth, technological command, urbanization,

materialism, and westernization. It also exhibits the colonial understanding of Adibashi

knowledge systems as a “timeless traditional culture: a harmonious, internally homogeneous, and

unchanging culture” (Battiste, 2013, p. 31); such a perception disseminates the message of these

knowledges’ “inadequacies” that are “insufficient, inferior, and an obstacle to development”

(Agarwal, 1995, as cited in Barua, 2010, p. 66). A Buddhist scholar participant (7) added to this

binary understanding of the identities during his interview, and said that in the mainstream

education, Indigenous/Adibashi knowledge meant going back to the pre-modern era. It failed to

understand the change and evolution of Indigenous knowledge system over the years (personal

communication, August 27, 2019). To be specific, the textbooks in the national curriculum

represent such deprecating messages by illustrating the “ancient” lifestyle of the Adibashis and

indicating a sharp distinction they possess from the “modern” Bengalis. For example, the

following statements about the Adibashis in the textbook titled Bangladesh and Global Studies in

class four and five respectively reflects the dichotomy:

The Marmas now take modern treatment and wear modern

clothes [emphasis added]. (Nasreen et al., 2013, p. 14)

164

The Garos now eat normal food like the Bengalis [emphasis

added]. (Chakraborty et al., 2013, p. 6)

The Santals are getting modern education now [emphasis added].

(Chakraborty et al., 2013, p. 6)

These narratives represent the binary relationship between the “modern” Bengali identity and

“ancient” Adibashis by indicating the “modernization” of Adibashi identities that is achieved

through the Bengalicization of their cultural attributes. In other words, the “pre-modern” lifestyle

of the Adibashis has been experiencing some “modern” changes through their assimilation into

Bengaliness (Abdullah, 2009). In fact, the terms “normal,” “Bengaliness,” and “modern” are used

interchangeably in textbooks, especially in the case of Adibashis. Thus, textbooks play a

significant role in distributing the “modern” values of the Bengali identity, persuading Adibashis

to “upgrade” or “modernize” themselves through Bengaliness (Shahadatullah, 1988, as cited in

Barua, 2004).

Teachers’ attitudes towards Adibashi students and school practices also manifest the

“modernity vs tradition” dichotomy while disseminating a message of Bengalicizing Adibashi

students and their learning practices. Schools and curriculum appear as a means to forcefully

change their behaviours. In schools, Adibashi students are under constant pressure to display their

acculturation with Bengaliness. Failing to do so is considered a “deficiency” and “incapability” of

Adibashi students; as a result, they face humiliation from teachers and peers. A Chakma student

said,

After my SSC, I studied in Chittagong22 and then in Dhaka; I

faced a lot of humiliation and was often branded as

“uncivilized.” The teacher’s attitude was very negative. He

thought that as we were paharis (high landers), what we were

doing in the cities. In Chittagong, when I did not do well in the

test, one of my teachers told me why I was not changing my

behaviour and habit. He meant if I could not change myself, then

why I went to study there. He did not like us; such experiences

killed my enthusiasm and I felt inferior all the time. I did very

22 The second capital of Bangladesh, the biggest port city.

165

bad in the course. (Chakma participant 21, personal

communication, August 28, 2019)

In this scenario, the Chakma student was identified and assessed by his/her ethnic or racial

identity, which was not held in esteem by the Bengali teacher. While considering their ethnic

identity as “backdated” and “pre-modern,” the teacher comprehended their educational

performances and behaviours through their cultural “inadequacies.” Schools, agents of the state’s

assimilation process, are the places where the students go through the change, and curriculum is

the tool to disburse the targeted language and cultural values. Education, the pedagogical mission

of modernization projects, thus plays the most significant role in materializing “modernity” by

institutionalizing the knowledge production and transmission through schooling and curriculum

as these penetrate the daily activities and maneuver the national integration effectively (Bénéï,

2005).

The Bengalicized curriculum emphasizes global knowledge and economy but provides no

space and respect for local or Adibashi knowledge systems, which in effect has a damaging

impact on community-based practices, the agricultural system, and traditional customs.

Indigenous populations have different education systems that engage the community elders and

parents, and integrate Indigenous knowledges, cultures, heritages, customs, practices, and

lifestyles (Battiste, 2013). Despite these distinct systems, the national curriculum does not

incorporate any Adibashi practices or knowledges. Rather, it disseminates a derogatory message

for their local and traditional praxis. In this context where Adibashis do not have the opportunity

to practice their local systems, their community practices, education, values and beliefs, and

traditions are at stake. For example, the Adibashis are struggling to protect their traditional land

rights or the notion of land-people relationship. This traditional system does not require any

documentation; rather, it automatically passes the properties, which belong to the community, to

the next generations (Chakma participant 2, personal communication, June 28, 2019). Instead of

acknowledging many traditional practices like land-people relationship, the Bengalicized

166

knowledge system that manifests Eurocentric values imposes a “modern” process of

documentation on the Adibashis. In this process, school-going Adibashi students fail to

understand and appreciate their traditions, and eventually “distrust their Indigenous knowledge

systems, their elder’s wisdom, and their own inner learning spirit” (Battiste, 2013, p. 24). Elders

find it difficult to continue their practices and pass them on to next generations without any

educational reinforcement. Thus, oral tradition has been replaced by the documentation process,

land-people relationship by the property law or ownership system, Jumm cultivation by the

plough cultivation, and community-based practices by the “modern” notions of nuclear family

and individualism.

More specifically, the “modernity vs tradition” dichotomy is observed when considering

the condition of Jumm cultivation23 in Bangladesh, the centre of many Adibashi communities and

their knowledge systems, especially the CHT Adibashis. The British government denounced this

system as an “ancient” and “barbaric” practice that they presumed caused environmental damage

as they failed to understand the ecofriendly practices of Jumm cultivation, which in contrast,

preserves the fertility of the land (Tripura, 2015). In order to serve their colonial purposes, the

British labelled the cultivation method as a waste of the CHT land, natural resources, and raw

materials (Tripura, 2015) and discouraged it. They also introduced the plough cultivation—a less

laborious and economic method—and allowed the free entry of the Bengalis as plough cultivators

into the CHT land (Chowdhury, 2016). Inheriting the similar colonial ignorance and exploitative

nature as well as the civilizing mission, the Bengali elites have also promoted the destructive

discourses on Jumm cultivation (Tripura, 2015). Such colonial ideologies enabled the Bengali

elites to preserve the dominant class interest and benefits, and to continue their exploitation of

Adibashi lands (Tripura, 2015). Even education and its curriculum focus on the negative sides of

23 Swidden cultivation.

167

Jumm cultivation rather than presenting it as an alternative method of cultivation 24 (Tripura,

2015). What has added more negativity to this traditional system is the illusionary message of

economic growth and high profit that can be only achieved through the “modern” modes of

agriculture, industrialization, and urbanization, which the “modern” curriculum promotes. While

pursuing the economic benefits and “modern” education (Barua, 2004), many educated Adibashis

have lost their traditional perspectives, and have also developed doubt and distrust of their

community practices, especially Jumm cultivation. Many Adibashis find this system to be

“ancient” and “barbaric” now. For example, a Chakma teacher disclosed his “distrust” of Jumm

cultivation:

We are idle and do not follow the “modern” system. If we follow

the primitive system (Jumm cultivation), we will lag behind.

Although we call ourselves Jumma in present political context, I

think this system (Jumm cultivation) is bad for us as it destroys

the hills and forests, and we cannot produce a lot. It’s a curse for

us. If we had enough plain land, we would have been able to

grow more. It is true, Jumm is the base of our culture but we

need “modern” system today. Because of this plough cultivation

system, we have become economically solvent now. (Chakma

participant 1, personal communication, June 28, 2019)

Adibashis are thus gradually developing a distrust of their own practices and losing their Adibashi

perspectives due to their inclination towards the “modern” and Bengalicized knowledge system.

Like the CHT communities, the Manipuris are also losing their traditional kirton,

handloom practices, and their traditional education system. Instead of recognizing the value of

these traditional knowledges, the curriculum perceives them as “exotic” cultural traditions of

Adibashis. Like other Adibashis, Manipuris are struggling to protect their traditional knowledges.

For example, the only person who inherited the core knowledge of Rasleela kirton25 is a 100-

year-old man today; he failed to bequeath that knowledge to anybody else as he found no

24 For example, in an exam of the Biology Department in Jahangir Nagar University, there was this question: “Describe the demerits of Jumm cultivation” (Tripura, 2015). 25 Traditional songs of Manipuri communities (see chapter 1).

168

inquisitive young disciples (Manipuri participant 11, personal communication, August 20, 2019).

Accordingly, a Bishnupriya Manipuri elderly participant expressed his concern:

We are losing our cultures day by day. As kids go to school now,

they do not have time for learning our traditional knowledge.

There was a time when every woman used to learn “handloom”

and “sewing” at home; they used to sew and weave clothes for

themselves. Women carried their clothes to their husbands’

house after they were married so that they did not become

dependent on their husbands. Now, the school-going girls do not

have chance to learn this knowledge and forward that culture to

their children as it does not have any educational values. Thus,

our handloom tradition is disappearing. Similar to that, our

traditional Kirton that we cherish during different festivals like

Rasleela, and many other religious rituals are disappearing too.

Young generations are not interested to learn these cultural

practices as they do not have time. We do not have the

generation any more whom we can pass on that knowledge.

(Manipuri participant 7, personal communication, August 20,

2019)

While the Bengalicized education offers a dream of a “modern” and urbanized life, the Adibashis

feel compelled to leave their Indigenous culture and knowledge (Barua, 2004). This system is

thus slowly pulling Adibashi students away from their Adibashi knowledge systems by both

ignoring traditional knowledges and keeping their educational learning limited to the

Bengalicized knowledge only.

The mainstream education not only excludes Adibashi knowledge systems but also fails

to present any understanding of or respect for their lifestyles and traditional practices. Although

the number of government schools have increased during the last few years, the education system

does not extend its scope to address their Indigenous lifestyles. School routines, holiday

calendars, school cultures, and exam schedules are not synchronized with the Adibashi lifestyle in

their regions. If they want to attend their cultural and traditional practices, they have to miss

classes and exams. Although some schools in Adibashi regions allow unofficial leaves for

Adibashi students to attend their religious festivals, schools cannot offer any make-up lessons or

exams for them (Manipuri participant 12, personal communication, August 20, 2019). In this

169

process, the Bizhu celebration in Chakma communities is also losing its attraction to many

school-going children (Chakma participants 23, personal communication, August 25, 2019). A

Chakma teacher added,

Jumm cultivation schedule is not synchronize with the school

calendars. Many students have to stay away from schools for

long as the cultivation is practiced in remote, hilly areas. The

community people are asking for residential schools for these

students, especially during the Jumm cultivation time. Also,

students who attend schools cannot continue Jumm cultivation

and help their parents. We also requested for a separate school

calendar for the hill tracts, but there is no result. Many parents

are leaving the practice in order to send their kids to schools.

(Chakma participant 2, personal communication, June 28, 2019)

This education system that does not acknowledge the traditional practices of Adibashi students

forces students to leave their practices, which causes severe damage to the culture.

Finally, this discussion shows that, instead of acknowledging “the local specificities” of

“modernity” (Dei 2000, as cited in Barua, 2004, p. 14), the “modern” education in Bangladesh

embeds the idea of educational inadequacy of local traditions and knowledge systems as the

“civilization and racial deficits” (Kapoor, 2016, p. 1). The centralized curriculum pushes the

Adibashis to adapt to this modern education. The cultural and educational preparations that this

education system requires for Adibashi students to achieve this “modern” identity come at the

cost of Adibashi cultural practices and knowledge systems. Although the fabricated “modern”

notion of Bengaliness is alienating for many rural and disadvantaged Bengali students, Adibashi

students’ conditions are dire as the cultural and linguistic differences are more acute for them.

This process dissociates Adibashi students from their cultural roots and identities. Both Chakma

and Manipuri communities find it difficult to continue their community practices, losing their

new generations of learners. Thus, schools become a colonial space for the Adibashis while they

are internalizing the “expected” social knowledge and skills, and transforming their own “cultural

reality” (Kanu, 1993, as cited in Kanu, 2003, p. 73) and becoming Bengalicized.

170

5.5 Conclusion

This chapter has shown that the national curriculum and the standardized, high-stakes

testing system promote a homogenization process, which I have identified as a Bengalicization

project, in two major ways. First , the chapter explains that the curriculum is full of “superior,”

“glorified,” and “modern” Bengali representations and, in contrast, some offensive and denigrated

illustrations of the Adibashis. Such illustrations clearly indicate a demarcation between the

dominant “superior” and dominated “inferior” identity and slowly create a psychological shift

among the Adibashis towards the dominant, Bengali cultural attributes and knowledge. Second,

the centralized curriculum that neither recognizes Adibashi traditions and practices nor offers any

educational alternatives for Adibashis disadvantages Adibashi students in schools by creating a

distorted learning experience for them. Due to the pressure of educational achievement, the

Adibashis are bound to accept the Bengalicized knowledge system, which eventually deviates

them from their cultural practices and causes a devastating impact on Adibashi knowledge

systems. The interviews and textbook analyses evidence these nationalist and hegemonic

approaches of the Bengali elites to the national curriculum that establishes Bengaliness as an

educational standard and Bengalicizes Adibashi students’ learning, practices, and perspectives.

While getting Bengalicized, the Adibashis’ learning experiences, identities, and social

relationship are also shaped according to the standardized, high-stakes testing system, which the

next chapter will illustrate.

171

Chapter 6

Reproducing Colonial Consciousness: Control of the Standardized,

High-Stakes Testing System

6.1 Introduction

Ashish Chakma,1 an Adibashi teacher at a residential school for Adibashi students in the

Chittagong Hill Tracts, has expressed the struggles of teachers and students in the school

residence. The main objective of the school is to provide Adibashi students with the residential

support, as well as cultural settings, pedagogies, and learning styles while meeting academic

goals. However, Ashish mentioned that maintaining an Adibashi cultural environment and

pedagogies had been a great challenge; they failed to follow these cultural practices with the

students who had imminent public examinations. With the pressure of test preparations both

teachers and students had to follow the typical methods and strategies that the tests endorsed. He

added that teachers also received pressure from parents and students to address the tests more

than their cultural activities; when the test was the main target of education, cultural and linguistic

goals became meaningless to those students (Chakma participant 15, personal communication,

June 31, 2019). Given the circumstances of the test-driven education system, I want to explore the

level of control that the standardized, high-stakes testing system operates over the Adibashis’

educational experiences, as well as their cultural and social lives, which, in effect, reproduce their

sense of subjugation.

This chapter investigates whether and how the standardized, high-stakes testing system

plays a controlling role over educational and non-educational practices and reproduces a colonial

1 Pseudo-name.

172

consciousness in the Adibashi population. Therefore, I argue in this chapter that the testing

system disadvantages Adibashi students more and perpetuates their state of subjugation by

shaping their learning experiences, identities, and social relations. At the same time, this chapter

contributes to the main investigation of this dissertation that inquires how the standardized, high -

stakes testing system reproduces the colonial approach to education—a structure of domination

and exploitation—for Adibashi communities.

The first section of the chapter provides a theoretical discussion on the notion of

“colonial consciousness” and develops an operational definition that explains the transformed and

subjugated state of mind of the Adibashis, which is a consequence of the imposed dominant

knowledge system. Here I consider the standardized, high-stakes testing system as a pedagogic

device (Bernstein, 1996) to explain the ways in which this system has the power to control

activities inside and outside the classroom. Then, the following three sections show how the

testing system functions as a pedagogic device to reproduce the colonial consciousness among the

Adibashis by controlling their learning conditions, identities, and social roles. First, it explicates

how this testing system creates various learning barriers for Adibashi students to impede their

educational achievements. Then, the chapter illustrates how the system reproduces a stigmatized

identity for these marginalized students through its ranking and categorization strategies. The

final section shows how the system perpetuates the asymmetrical social relationship between the

Bengali elites and the Adibashis by disfavouring Adibashi students and benefitting Bengali

pupils. While addressing these issues, it uses the narratives of Adibashi participants to examine

what and how they learned in their elementary and high schools, and presents some statistics to

support the analyses made through the narratives.

6.2 Understanding the Notion of Colonial Consciousness

The notion of “colonial consciousness” is a significant concept of many postcolonial

authors who have used the term to indicate the psychological state of submission to the dominant

173

culture, and the identity crisis and self-assertion of non-dominant peoples (Dadas, 2014). While

explaining the effects or consequences of colonization in the postcolonial society, Franz Fanon

(2008), Edward Said (1979), Homi Bhabha (1994), and Gayatri Spivak (2003) have indicated

how colonialism persists through the colonized perspectives or behaviours of the colonial subjects

or population. Therefore, colonial consciousness is crucial to expound how the colonial

experiences have shaped various socio-political policies and structures in postcolonial countries

while marring the colonized’s views and understandings of their cultures.

S.N. Balagangadhara (2012) uses the term “colonial consciousness” in the Indian context

to illustrate how colonialism has affected Indian perspectives of morality, culture, and knowledge

by generating a sense of inferiority, dependency, and imitation among the population. He defines

the notion as an implicit consensus about “the civilizational superiority of one particular

civilization” that works at the cognitive, analytical, and behavioural level of the colonized (p. 24).

In other words, it is manifested in the ways in which the colonized population think, act,

comprehend, and behave. It is a process of trivialization and denial of one’s cultural experiences

(Said, 1979), and mimicry of the superior culture (Bhaba, 1994). This process annihilates the

colonized’s perspectives of their own cultural world and manipulates them to view their culture as

a variant of the “superior” culture (Balagangadhara, 2012). The colonized mind not only develops

an inferior consciousness about the non-dominant cultures but also deters the colonized from

living through and valuing their cultural experiences (Balagangadhara, 2012). In addition, this

attitude creates a habit of dependency (Fanon, 2008) on the superior or dominant culture,

disseminating the stigmatized image of the non-dominant or colonized and the glory and glitter of

the dominant one. This dependency eventually creates feelings of passivity, helplessness, and

alienation among the dominated population. Such a feeling of insecurity and non-significance

persuades non-dominant people to seek a new belongingness to the dominant group—a new,

mimic identity (Balagangadhara, 2012). To be specific, the colonized wants to imitate the

174

colonizer and feels forced to accept the colonizer’s cultures and values, which causes a silent

cultural transformation among the colonized (Balagangadhara, 2012). Thus, colonial

consciousness among the non-dominant groups establishes the hegemony of the dominant group

or the colonizers more legitimately and strongly.

While explaining the role of education in the process of developing a colonized mind,

Marie Battiste, an Indigenous scholar in Canada, uses the term “cognitive imperialism” to explain

the transformation of consciousness from Indigenous identity into a dominant one (2013, p. 21).

This transformation in understanding one’s cultural identity and knowledge system is a form of

manipulation that is a result of colonial dominance of the monocultural foundation of knowledge,

curriculum, and pedagogy in the imperialist education system in Canada (Battiste, 2013). While

demonstrating the impact of the Eurocentric education system on Indigenous cultures and

knowledge systems, Marie Battiste (2013) defines cognitive imperialism as a symbolic, cultural

assimilation, and cognitive “whitewashing” that clouds Indigenous peoples’ own perspectives and

values, as well as develops self-doubt, insecurity, and a sense of the inferiority of their culture (p.

26). Cognitive imperialism then “generates knowledge legitimation, production, and diffusion,

thus positioning some knowledge connected to power, and others marginalized, dismissed, or

lying in wait until they are found useful to the outcomes needed in the mainstream society”

(2013, p. 160). This notion thus also explains the colonial consciousness that the non-dominant

people develop about their identity, culture, and knowledge due to the influence of mainstream

education.

In an effort to investigate the colonial consciousness or cognitive imperialism that the

standardized, high-stakes testing system produces, I also draw from Wayne Au (2008) to present

the testing system in Bangladesh as a hegemonic “pedagogic device”—“a symbolic regulator of

consciousness” (Bernstein, 1996, p. 53). Part of my goal is to ascertain a connection between the

social inequalities and subjugation and the discriminatory educational practices. By using

175

Bernstein’s pedagogic device (1996), Au illustrates how the testing mechanism can establish a

connection between the dominant pedagogic discourses inside the classroom and the unequal

socio-economic power relations outside the classroom (2008). The pedagogic device is a process

that is built on three sets of rules—distributive, recontextualizing, and evaluative2; this process

directs the acquisition and communication of school knowledge that regulates consciousness

within classrooms, which eventually constructs pedagogic discourses and identities for students

(Au, 2008). This device also constructs knowledge (i.e., pedagogic discourse) by exerting control

not only over the social symbols, codes, and signs but also over the comprehension process of

these codes and symbols (Au, 2008). So, defining the standardized, high-stakes testing system as

a pedagogic device can provide the lens to understanding how the social power that exists outside

the classroom can influence classroom practices and construct a consciousness of submission

among Adibashi students.

In this chapter, I use both cognitive imperialism and colonial consciousness alternatively

to explain the colonial role of the dominant education system in reproducing the subjugation and

subordination of the Adibashis by shaping curriculum, pedagogies, and school practices. Here, I

define both notions as a transformed and subjugated state of mind of the Adibashis, which sets

the conditions for accepting the superiority and dominance of Bengali culture and identity and the

marginalized status of their own identities. Similarly, I view the standardized, high-stakes testing

system as a pedagogic device that reproduces these forms of subjugated consciousness among the

Adibashis.

Therefore, I elucidate in this chapter how the standardized, high-stakes testing system

functions as a pedagogic device and generates conditions for the internalization of colonial

2 The distributive rules determine the level and contents of knowledge, the distributors and receivers of the knowledge, and the settings or contexts of knowledge. Recontextualizing the rules refers to the process in which pedagogic discourse selectively appropriates, relocates, refocuses, and relates other discourses to

constitute. Evaluative rules assess the process of knowledge selection, knowledge transmission, and knowledge distribution, as well as different contexts and students (Bernstein 1996, p. 46–118).

176

consciousness for Adibashi students. I explain the role of the tests as a pedagogic device in

shaping the learning experience, identity, and social relations of Adibashis in Bangladesh and

perpetuating the domination-exploitation structure for them.

6.3 Test Control: Testing as a Pedagogic Device

6.3.1 Teaching to Test: Control over Learning

This section illustrates how the standardized, high-stakes testing system controls the

learning experiences of Adibashi students by changing Adibashi meanings of learning and

creating learning barriers. It also elucidates how this control over learning experiences impacts

Adibashi knowledge systems and cultures, and instills a consciousness of subjugation and

domination among Adibashi students. Given the discussion on the exclusion of Adibashi

knowledge and culture from the curriculum (see chapter 5), this section here extends the dialogue

by explicating the regulatory role of the testing system that creates a disadvantaged learning

environment for Adibashi students.

6.3.1.1 Exclusion of the Indigenous Meaning of Learning

The standardized, high-stakes testing system fails to address the diverse ways of learning

and teaching of Adibashi knowledge systems. Adibashi participants perceive the notions of

learning and teaching differently from those in the mainstream education system in Bangladesh.

Indigenous knowledge is informal in nature and is acquired in a natural environment through

community activity3 (Barua, 2010, p. 65). Similarly, learning in Adibashi communities, especially

in Chakma and Manipuri communities, is a community-based process that focuses on their

peoples, cultures, rituals, and customs. For them, learning is an experiential process of knowing

and understanding their practices through active community involvement (Chakma participant 13,

3 See Barua (2010).

177

personal communication, June 29, 2019; Manipuri participant 7, personal communication, August

20, 2019). A Chakma elderly teacher made the following comment:

Our culture was completely community-based. Before Kaptai

dam,4 the whole Chakma community was structured in forty-five

goutro (groups) that had a separate name for each. Every

community was centred on a communal system that had a

community forest, land, graveyard, food reservoir, and resource.

All were used for the community purposes. Education was about

experiencing and participating in these community activities.

This system is broken now, so we cannot follow many customs

and rituals. People [Adibashis] also do not care about it anymore.

(Chaka participant 13, personal communication, June 29, 2019)

This community-based learning and knowledge system is facing an uncertain future due to the

limited scope of practicing and maintaining Adibashi cultures. This sub-section focuses on how

the test-driven education system discredits Adibashi ways of learning and enforces a Bengalicized

education system (see chapter 5) that distorts the traditional meaning of learning and teaching.

The Bangla medium education system does not offer any scope for representing

community-based learning; rather, it promotes the “learning” that the tests recognize and

measure. “Learning” in this test-based system is “the acquisition of a series of right answers” (Al

Amin & Greenwood, 2018, p. 10), not acquiring the contextual application of the culture-oriented

knowledges and skills. Indigenous knowledges, indeed, are different from the conventional

knowledge and learning system (Dei et al., 2000, as cited in Barua, 2010). For example, the oral

tradition of storytelling and sharing the knowledge is at the heart of Adibashi knowledge systems

(Manipuri participant 7, personal communication, August 20, 2019), which the mainstream

education system does not incorporate; nor do the tests have any rubrics to recognize it. The state-

led curriculum is homogenous and follows a fixed set of syllabi and test structures, which are

unable to offer any flexibility to address Indigenous ways of knowing and learning and ensure an

access to learning that reflects their cultural priorities (Klenowski, 2009). Nor does it

4 Kaptai dam was constructed in the 1960s and has displaced millions of Adibashis (mostly Chakmas) from their homes and arable lands.

178

acknowledge the idea of how Adibashi students’ learning experiences differ from that of

mainstream students (Klenowski, 2009). In this process, the tests have the power to invalidate

Indigenous ways of knowing as “illegitimate” as they do not have any place in class and tests

(Klenowski, 2009). In addition, the high dependency of the curriculum on the tests produces a

huge pressure on classroom practices to meet the test expectations (Al Amin & Greenwood,

2018). Such reliance on the tests only emphasizes test preparations and further narrows the scope

of practicing any other methods or ways. So, Adibashi students find it very difficult to follow the

classroom and test practices and need years to accommodate such an alien learning process.

Apart from the tests’ focus on a specific form of learning, the standardized, high -stakes

testing system also endorses the pedagogies that do not recognize the value of community-based

practices. The high significance of test results directs classroom pedagogies mostly towards the

test preparations that focus on effective and efficient strategies and methods to secure better test

scores (Au, 2010; Al Amin & Greenwood, 2018). Given the discussion on how Adibashi students

are pushed to learn the test items in the testing environment, they are further alienated by the test -

driven pedagogies, which have no connection to their community-based practices. The test

preparations mostly emphasize the recurrent practices that include lecture-based instructions,

drills of test answers, timed mock-tests,5 commercial examination guidebook practices, and test-

acknowledged writing styles (Al Amin & Greenwood, 2018). As the system mandates that

students follow these test practices persistently inside and outside the classroom, it usurps the

time, opportunities, and energy of Adibashi students that they could invest in their community-

based practices. In contrast, Adibashi knowledge systems and pedagogies are not institutional and

test-driven; they are mostly “guru” oriented, which incorporates experiential practices and

5 Simulation of test environment and contents.

179

focuses on knowing and learning, not evaluation. Accordingly, a Bishnupriya Manipuri elderly

person said,

Bangla education means institutional knowledge or education,

but we have a separate knowledge system that is not

institutionalized. Our education was based on a guru.6 While

turning five as a kid, we used to choose a “guru” from the

Brahmin goutro (group), get connected to that “guru,” and

receive dikkha7 (lesson) from them. They gave us the lesson

about our social structure, culture, and customs that would help

us to experience our knowledge system and maintain our society.

(Manipuri participant 7, personal communication, August 20,

2019)

The guru-oriented education system that existed in many Adibashi cultures is no longer in

practice. The role of a teacher who teaches the test skills in classroom-based, formal education

has replaced the position of a guru—a learned and elderly community person who taught life-

skills and community values. Adibashis are afraid they will lose many of their traditional

practices and cultural knowledge with the demise of these gurus (Manipuri participant 7, personal

communication, August 20, 2019). In this process, the value of test scores and test pressure

gradually diminishes the worth of their local knowledge to them and lessens community

interactions by slowly drawing them away from participation in their community and traditional

practices.

While distorting the learning styles and pedagogies of Adibashi knowledge systems, the

standardized, high-stakes testing system eventually develops cultural dissociation and distrust of

their community practices among the Adibashis. This process of developing a new perspective

functions in two steps. First, the traditional Adibashi education system loses its learners and

followers as the mainstream education system does not give any value to them; the communities,

therefore, struggle to continue their practices. For example, Manipuri children no longer learn

6 Educator. 7 Initiation.

180

Rasleela Kirton,8 Manipuri dance,9 and handloom lessons that once were a must-know for all.

Similarly, school-going Chakma students hardly know about their Jumm10 cultivation. Nor can

they develop their community-based skills (see chapter 5). Those who go to school do not have

scope to follow their traditional methods of learning; they gradually adapt to the dominant

system. Accordingly, a Bishnupriya Manipuri participant said,

My father was the most venerated guru of Rasleela Kirton.

There is no one in this country like him. Unfortunately, he could

not pass his knowledge on to anyone else. Younger generations

in the Manipuri community have no interest and scope to learn it

as they are very much occupied with their school education.

Even I could not learn it as I had to go to school. (Manipuri

participant 11, personal communication, August 20, 2019)

Given the structure of mainstream education and the pressure it creates, Adibashi elders find it

challenging to pass on their cultural values and practices to the new generations. Second, this

cultural dissociation that the mainstream curriculum creates also develops a distrust among the

Adibashis about their knowledge systems. Many believe that their community practices are

“backward,” “superstitious,” and “ancient,” as well as an obstacle to their socio-economic

progress as they cannot help them in education (Manipuri participant 17, personal

communication, August 17, 2019). For example, instead of accepting the land-people relationship

and value of Jumm cultivation, many participants find their traditional system to be an ancient,

“cursed” system (Chakma participant 1, personal communication, June 29, 2019). Accordingly,

another Chakma participant (2) said,

Our connection with land cannot be explained by the concept of

ownership. We do not own land, rather we have a relationship

with land. However, the existing education system teaches the

concept of landownership that devalues our system. Our school

8 Rasleela is a traditional Manipuri dance which is highly embedded in Manipuri culture and religion. Manipuri Rasleela is unique in terms of its traits and costumes, which have religious essences. Kirton is the religious sermon that is presented in Rasleela. 9 Manipuri dance is a cultural attribute of the Manipuri culture and identity, which is intermingled with their religious practices (Manipuri participant 11, personal communication, August 20, 2019). 10 A form of swidden cultivation that is the centre of many hill tracts Adibashi cultures and traditional lifestyles.

181

going generations do not understand this connection and our

community-based practices. This school knowledge cannot save

our land. (Personal communication, June 27, 2019)

The distrust and skepticism that Adibashis have developed due to their acculturation with the

dominant knowledge system is hostile to Adibashi knowledge systems and traditions. Marie

Battiste (2013) identifies such a transformation as a form of “cognitive imperialism” that

reproduces a sense of inferiority and subjugation among the Adibashis due to the overvaluation of

the Bengalicized knowledge system in education.

6.3.1.2 Creating Learning Barriers

The standardized, high-stakes testing system’s mono-linguistic emphasis functions as a

major barrier to Adibashi students’ academic success (see chapter 4). Neither classroom

instructions and textbooks nor the tests incorporate Adibashi languages. The students have no

choice but to rely on Bangla as the medium of instruction. The question is how an Adibashi

student who struggles to understand Bangla can perform well in tests. A Chakma teacher said,

Our students lag behind in test competition because of the

language issue mostly. As they are not learning in their own

language, they struggle more. First, they have to learn Bangla

and then they can start their education. (Chakma participant 1,

personal communication, June 29, 2019)

Most interviews indicated how Adibashi children struggle in their schools to understand the

textbook contents, teachers’ instructions, and test questions. They can neither communicate in the

classroom effectively nor produce correct test responses. Moreover, test competition aggravates

their sufferings as linguistic struggles usurp most of their learning efforts and test preparations.

However, their educational struggles are not limited to linguistic barriers only.

The standardized, high-stakes testing system also does not take into consideration the

unique political situation of Adibashi students and its effect on the hill tracts students. The

standardized tests emphasize producing “correct answers” within a given time frame, in a fixed

place, and in a full-proof surveillance system (see chapter 1). This system requires all the students

182

to be fit physically, mentally, socially, and economically, and ready for writing the test at the

same time as the students from other regions (Lorenzo, 2018), which disadvantages Adibashi

students. There is no recognition of the effects of the CHT’s unstable political situation on

students’ ability to write the test. The three hill districts are highly militarized and politically

unsettled (see chapter 2); communal fights between the armies and local peoples are a regular

feature of life in the CHT. The situation is so unstable that no one knows if they can attend the

school the next day or stay in the school until the end of the school period (Chakma participant 6,

personal communication, July 28, 2019). A Chakma student’s story captured their daily struggles:

I remember during my SSC exam there was a huge communal

fight in Rangamati town. The situation was highly tensed; houses

were burned and people were killed. Most of the Chakma people

ran away to save their lives. We were so scared that we took

shelter in our relative’s house. Our house was close to a Bengali

area that was dangerous that time. The night before my exam,

there was a curfew; armies and Bengalis were everywhere,

guarding many places. The next day, I had to sit for my exam

though the situation was very unsettled. My father and I took the

risk to go out for school as I did not want to waste one year of

education. I do not know how I managed to write. (Chakma

participant 22, personal communication, August 25, 2019)

Adibashi students in the CHT zone grow up seeing these communal fights. They know when

people say “ujo ... ujo” (run away… run away), they have to leave their homes and hide

somewhere safe (Chakma participant 23, personal communication, August 25, 2019). In this

political context, Adibashi students can hardly attend schools regularly and receive a positive

educational environment. In many cases, they miss exams or fail to perform well. What worsens

their conditions further is that they are not even indemnified with alternatives in case of missed

exams. These scenarios often force many students to repeat the same class (Heubert & Hauser,

2001).

Similarly, the unique geographical features of some Adibashi regions, especially the three

CHT districts, make it difficult for Adibashi children to have equal access to learning and to

perform well in the tests. The extremely hilly region—full of steep slopes and deep forests—is

183

not easy for the young children to cross every day. While walking is the main option for many

students, it is dangerous and difficult for them to walk through the forests and hills to attend the

class. Although in some areas during the rainy season, using boats is an option, in other areas it

becomes extremely dangerous to walk far to attend the school. Many even miss a test for these

reasons.

Besides, there are no schools in many Adibashi areas in both plain land and hill tracts.11

In Deopara union of Rajshahi12 (plain land), for instance, there are no high schools in its twenty-

four villages where one-third of the population are Adibashis (Shaha, 2015). Similarly, the

Nolkha village of Mirshorai13 (hill tracts) union, which is a Tripura community-based village,

does not have any school within its four-kilometer range (scholar participant 1, personal

communication, June 30, 2019). So, attending classes regularly or considering school as a basic

need is not an option for many. Many students have to stop studying as they cannot afford to stay

in a hostel or rent a place near school (Chakma participant 15, personal communication, July 2,

2019). In fact, hostel arrangements are not available in most places. When finding a school

nearby is a problem for Adibashi children, how will they have access to education?

Other socio-economic factors, including extreme poverty, also create learning obstacles

for Adibashi students. Most statistical data suggest that the Adibashis are the most vulnerable

group in Bangladesh. According to the World Bank Group Household Income and Expenditure

Survey from 2016–2017, 80% of plain land Adibashis and 65% of CHT Adibashis live below the

poverty line in Bangladesh whereas only 23% of Bengali people live under that line (BBS, 2016–

11 The average travel time to a nearby school is a 27-minute walk, and to a far-away school, it is usually a 70- to 80-minutes walk (Barkat et al., 2009). In some areas, people need to walk for two days across the hills to get to the market to buy their food (Chakma participant 20, personal communication, June 31, 2019). 12 A mid-western district of Bangladesh. 13 A union in Chittagong district.

184

2017). Also, the poverty ratio between the Bengali settlers and Adibashis in the CHT is 55:65%

(Barkat, 2008, as cited in Dhamai, 2014). An Adibashi scholar and social worker said,

Most of the Adibashis are extremely poor; many starve. Most

students do not have breakfast every day and work in the field

for half of the day before they attend schools. There is a place

named Jadu Rampara here; children do not get to eat their

breakfast as their parents can only earn enough to provide one

meal a day. Their parents go to forest early in the morning. They

collect some raw materials from the forest, sell those in the

bazar, buy food in evening, and cook at night; they eat once in a

day. How can students like them concentrate on study and do

well in the exam? (Scholar participant 1, personal

communication, June 30, 2019)

For most Adibashis, survival is the fundamental goal of life. When most of them struggle to meet

their basic needs of life, education becomes a secondary or non-significant option. Those who go

to schools can hardly afford the necessary conditions that are needed for “good” education and

test scores. Good test performances rely on how well other basic needs are met.

Besides, most of the remotely located schools in these Adibashi regions, in both plain and

hill tracts, do not receive adequate government funding to facilitate students’ learning properly.

However, schools in these underprivileged locations need more government supports to operate

well, such as funds for buying books and food for Adibashi students (scholar participant 1,

personal communication, June 30, 2019). Moreover, many schools are shut down due to lack of

funding, which is a common scenario (Kapaeeng Foundation, 2015). Many schools do not even

have enough classrooms or appropriate seating arrangements for students. In addition, schools

have to worry about losing their Monthly Payment Order (MPO)14 benefits as this aid is highly

connected to the test performance of their students. To be specific, if the schools do not have a

70% passing rate every year, then they may lose their MPO benefits for their teachers15 (Chakma

14 The Monthly Payment Order (MPO) is the government's share in the payroll of non-government educational institutions. Under the scheme, the government gives 100% of basic salaries to the teachers of non-government schools. The teachers also get a small amount per month as allowances. 15 According to beshorkari shikha protishthaner (school o college) jonobolkathamo o M.P.O. nitimala-2021 (The manpower infrastructure and M.P.O. policies of non-government educational institutions (school

185

participant 1, personal communication, June 29, 2019). Many schools in the regions still do not

have the MPO benefits due to their high rate of test failure. So, it is not difficult to assume how

much test pressure these schools, teachers, and students endure in this system and what impact it

may have on students’ learning. Scholar participant (1) added,

There are many villages where there are no schools. The few

schools they have do not have quality education. There is even

corruption involved in teacher recruitment process. Some

teachers are on deputation that means they are affiliated with

some schools, but do not practice teaching there in real. The

proxy teachers16 run the schools. There is a school I know where

the relative of a political leader is employed who never visits the

school but collects the salary regularly. Such schools do not

attract Adibashi students. They do not have qualified teachers,

attractive lessons, and their languages. As a result, many stop

going to schools. Those who continue hardly survive in the test.

(Personal communication, June 30, 2019)

Given this narrative, what adds to the complexity is that schools in the CHT remote areas do not

have adequate qualified teachers. Politics and corruption often drive the teacher recruitment

process, which affects schools’ ability to recruit qualified teachers locally (Chakma participant

15, personal communication, July 2, 2019). Therefore, many remotely located schools are run by

one or two proxy teachers—substitute teachers who perform duties on behalf of the absent,

recruited teachers in schools. These proxy teachers do not have any qualifications and training to

teach in class. Further, a Chakma teacher (15) said,

We are supposed to have sixteen teachers in this school but now

we have only seven or eight teachers. Soon many teachers will

retire and the problem will become even more acute. (Personal

communication, July 2, 2019).

and college), students’ passing rate in public examination is one of the criteria of approving M.P.O benefits for an institution. 16 Proxy teachers are those who attend the school on behalf of the recruited teachers. Teachers who are

recruited in remote schools are mostly from outside the locality and do not reside there. So many of them hire unqualified proxy teachers who attend the school on their behalf at a small percentage of their salary (Scholar participant 1, personal communication, June 30, 2019).

186

Teachers who are not from the locality do not want to continue their jobs in these schools and

leave within a short period of time or hire proxy teachers. In other words, the conditions are less

than ideal for students to learn and perform well in the exams. Instead of reducing their

vulnerabilities and ensuring their academic successes, the testing-based educational system

continues to disadvantage the Adibashis, perpetuating a crisis of marginalization and subjugation.

6.3.2 Control over Identity

This section explores how the standardized, high-stakes testing system constructs the

marginalized and stigmatized identity of Adibashi students while establishing the hegemony of

dominant discourses, as well as reproducing the colonial consciousness of Adibashis. Therefore,

it specifically explicates how the testing system generates a “deficit” discourse about Adibashi

students, which identifies them as “weak” and “unsuccessful.” While doing so, such a discourse

establishes a “test-winner” identity that represents the accomplishment of the “expected”

knowledge and cultural attributes of the dominant knowledge system. In particular, this section

first presents a partial analysis of Adibashi students’ test performances, and then illustrates how

these stigmatized identities are shaped through the articulation of the test categorization and

elimination processes.

6.3.2.1 Test Performance of Adibashi Students

The collected statistics on the test results of some CHT schools17 show that Adibashi

students fail to perform well in the public examinations. The following tables are prepared based

on my own collected data and present a partial picture of the test performances of Adibashi

students.

17 During my fieldwork, I visited some schools and was able to collect some data on their test results of the

last few years. However, Table 4 is prepared based on the information gathered from different online newspapers and websites.

187

Table 2

Passing Rate in Primary Education Certificate Examination (P.E.C.E) in Two Remote Primary

Schools in Rangamati

Note. This table was created based on my personal data collection during my fieldwork.

Table 2 presents the test results of the P.E.C.E.18 of two rural schools in Rangamati where all the

students were from different Adibashi communities. Although the table does not show how many

students were prevented from taking the test,19 it indicates that all the students who sat for the

exam did not pass. So, this test at such an early stage of education eliminates many students and

prevents them from going further.

Table 3

Passing Rate in Junior School Certificate (J.S.C.) and Secondary School Certificate (S.S.C.) in

Two High Schools in Remote Areas of Khagrachari

Note. This table was created based on my collected data during my fieldwork.

18 Primary Education Certificate Examination. 19 Students who do not perform well in pre-test exams in school are not allowed to sit for the final test.

188

Similarly, table 3 presents the test results of J.S.C. and S.S.C. of two rural schools in Khagrachari

where all students were Adibashis. It indicates the low passing rates of Adibashi students in these

tests. Neither school had a highest-grade or GPA 520 achiever (see Appendix G). Table 3 also

shows the difference between the passing rates of J.S.C. and S.S.C. tests, which clarifies the

increasing rate of failure among the Adibashis with the rise of stakes, competition, and barriers.

The layers of tests gradually narrow their path to academic success.

Table 4

Comparative Data on the Test Results (J.S.C., S.S.C., and H.S.C.21) of Three CHT Districts

Note. This table was prepared based on the data collected from various online newspapers and

websites in Bangladesh.22

Finally, table 4 illustrates a comparative picture of the three hill tract districts’ test results with the

average of the Chottogram/Chittagong Education Board and the national average. As shown in

table 4, the overall test performance of three public exams (J.S.C., S.S.C., and H.S.C.) in three

districts was worse than that of the Chittagong Education Board—the board which controls the

tests in these three districts—and the whole country in the years of 2018 and 2019. For example,

in 2018 when the national passing rate was 82.28% in the S.S.C. exam, the ratio was much lower

in the three hill districts: 68.75% in Rangamati, 65.46% in Khagrachari, and 65.36% in

20 80% score achiever (see Appendix G). 21 Higher Secondary Certificate. 22 Shohopathi, 2014–2021; Ara, 2018; Al-Mamun, 2019; Ullah, 2018; Rahman, 2019; SSC Pass Rate Falls, 2018.

189

Bandarban. The difference was higher in the case of GPA 5 scorers; while the national average

was 4.97%, Rangamati, Khagrachari, and Bandarban had only 1.52%, 0.7%, and 1.43%

respectively. So, these three hill districts had not only low passing rates but also very few top-

scorers.

6.3.2.2 Categorizing Students as “Passed” and “Failed”

The standardized, high-stakes testing system not only sorts out the “passed” and “failed”

students but also ranks them according to their test scores. Accordingly, the test scores shape their

academic identity as “good” or “bad” (Au, 2010). Although this categorization is applicable to all

students, Adibashi students who are the most marginalized struggle in this system more than any

other group in Bangladesh. Although the test results do not publish test performance based on

ethnicity, Adibashi students are typically identified as “weak” due to their struggles in classes and

tests. A Chakma teacher (14) narrated,

Adibashi children are usually “weak” students. We struggle to

teach these students and make them understand the contents. Our

main objective is to make them pass. (Personal communication,

June 29, 2019)

Adibashi students who do not get to use their languages or see their cultures at school are likely to

perform poorly; however, the testing system does not recognize that. A Chakma teacher (15)

asked a rhetorical question during his interview: “We do not use our language and culture at

school. When the education system is not designed for us, how will we have ‘meritorious’/ ‘good’

students?” (personal communication , June 29, 2019). In this section, I argue that instead of

considering the obstacles these Adibashi students face, this testing system generates a deficit

discourse regarding Adibashi students and their academic identity inside and outside schools.

Given the continuous low passing rate of Adibashi students, the standardized, high-stakes

tests promote a deficit discourse regarding Adibashi students’ academic performances. These

tests operationalize a “blame the victim” approach, highlighting the persistent “poor” academic

190

standing of these Adibashi children instead of explaining the reasons behind such performances.

The high failure rate of Adibashi students is not a concern of the policy-makers. Nor does the

education system provide any explanation of their poor performance. Instead, their failure is

perceived as a product of their “deficiency” and “incompetence” (see chapter 4). The Deputy

Commissioner of Khagrachari District, for instance, expressed, “If these students were more

attentive to their studies, the district could have achieved better passing rates”23 (Al-Mamun,

2019). This common narrative that is reproduced every year indicates that the low passing rate of

the Chittagong Education Board is a result of the poor performances of Adibashi students in hill

tract districts. In fact, teachers and parents also reflect a similar perspective regarding Adibashi

students’ “weakness” and “poor” test performances. Thereby, Adibashi students’ academic

experiences are fraught with such “deficit discourses” that are reproduced inside and outside

schools by the test results every year.

These “deficit discourses” are also reinstated by the notion of “good” that is determined

by “Bengaliness” (see chapter 5), which, in effect, establishes the “superior” image of the Bengali

identity. In other words, Adibashi students and their performances are usually compared with

their Bengali peers and their performances. It is not that all Bengali students perform very well in

the tests but, due to the sheer number of Bengali students and the fact that all the best performers

who are nationally promoted and rewarded are usually Bengali students, Adibashi students

remain excluded from the scenario. While rural Bengali students also fail more than the

privileged Bengali students, Adibashi students are the ones who struggle most to survive. Kabir

and Nath (2005) show in their study based on their collected narratives that in the hill tract

districts, Adibashi students are perceived as “weaker,” “less attentive,” “less capable,” “less

motivated,” and “unskilled” in comparison to their Bengali peers in class (see chapter 4). Even in

23 gonews24.com, July 17, 2019.

191

school examinations, Adibashi students lag behind their Bengali peers as they mostly fail to

receive good scores24 (2005). Similarly, a Chakma teacher (20) expressed,

Our students [Adibashi] cannot survive the test competition and

compete with the Bengali students as their educational

foundation is very weak. They have to struggle with language

and cultural differences in school. They do not have good

teachers at schools. Neither do they have money for buying

books and food at home. (Personal communication, June 30,

2019)

Another Chakma participant (10) said,

“Good” education means “good” schools and “good” school

means “good” results. But, “good” schools take “good” students

who usually perform well. Most Adibashi students do not even

know how to read and write correctly in Bangla. How will they

pass in the exam and how will they get into a “good” school?

(Personal communication, June 29, 2019)

These narratives disclose that the test-categorization strategy of classifying students as “passed”

and “failed,” or “winners” and “losers” usually disadvantages Adibashi students, as everything

that is “good” in this education system is determined based on Bengaliness (see chapter 5). It fails

to comprehend the learning skills and background knowledges of Adibashi students (Lorenzo,

2018, p. 101). Instead, it categorizes schools, students, and teachers through these binary terms

while identifying Adibashi identities as “weak” and “poor” in opposition to a “strong” and

“meritorious” identity of Bengali students. The test results every year reinstate this binary

categorization as this testing system specifically fails these Adibashi students in great numbers.

Most importantly, this binary categorization is also conceived by the binary colonial relationship

between the “inferior” Adibashis and “superior” Bengalis. Such a categorization and

24 Kabir and Nath (2005) present the average of school examinations from 2001 to 2004 based on their personal data and show that the Adibashi students’ failing rate was 72%, while for Bengali students it was 67.7% in one school in Khagrachari.

192

identification strategy further establishes the high value of Bengali identity and the inferiority of

Adibashi cultures, which constructs a stigmatized identity for the Adibashis.

In addition, this test categorization is reinforced by the reward and punishment structure

of the standardized, high-stakes testing system, which generates a feeling of “shame and guilt” for

the Adibashis’ poor test performance. In this testing system, “reward” is reserved for the “passed”

students and “punishment” for the “failed” ones. As discussed before (see chapter 4), Adibashi

students who mostly fail to perform well in the tests develop a stigmatized identity, as their test

“failure” is mostly comprehended through their “deviance,” “cultural gap,” “unfit” behaviours,

and “wrong” performances. While schools’ supportive and appreciative attitudes can create

“positive identity formation,” negative test results can establish a negative social identity by

attesting “degradation, shame, humiliation, self-doubt, and the issues of self-esteem” with the

students (Kearns, 2011, pp.120–123). The stigmatized identity that Adibashi students receive

from schools also affects their self-identity; this process persuades them to question themselves

and their abilities and experiences (Kearns, 2011), which gradually diminishes their self-

confidence. They end up feeling “low” and internalize the idea of their “ineptness” and

“inability” to perform well or pass the tests (Fforde et al., 2013). This process further affects their

identity consciousness and shapes their actions and behaviours accordingly. It is termed as a

“stigma consciousness”—an induced mindfulness and awareness of stereotyping that guides their

“perception, judgement, and behaviour” (Brown & Pinel, 2003, as cited in Brown & Lee, 2005, p.

150). By forming a sense of “shame” for their Adibashi identities, the tests develop a sense of

inferiority and subjugation among themselves (Kearns, 2011), as well as reproducing a colonial

consciousness. A Bishnupriya Manipuri teacher (13) said,

In schools, two Manipuri kids never talk in their mother tongues

with each other when there are Bengali students around. They

think they will be ridiculed if they speak Manipuri. Our language

and culture are considered “backdated,” “primitive,” and

“unsmart.” We feel embarrassed to show what we have.

Education has been promoting this distorted image about

193

Adibashi communities and is responsible for developing an

inferiority complex among the students. Now this misconception

has become our identity. (Personal communication, August 26,

2019)

This process works as a cycle in which Adibashi students start school with a stigmatized identity;

this identity gets reinforced through their school performances that push them towards failure at

the end. Thus, Adibashi students absorb the idea of their own cultural inferiority and look for an

escape from that by hiding their ethnic identity.

6.3.2.3 Eliminating the Non-dominant Identity

Given the discussion on the various levels of obstacles that Adibashi students experience

in the education system, this section explains the ways in which the standardized, high-stakes

testing system operates various elimination strategies that specifically exclude Adibashi identities

legitimately. It shows that while predicting the test failure of Adibashi students, this testing

mechanism eliminates Adibashi students by applying some academic and non-academic

strategies; either schools or families remove them or they remove themselves.

The standardized, high-stakes testing system screens out the “weak” students from the

system, even before they sit for the exams. The testing system not only emphasizes the test

preparations of the students but also applies different methods to ensure “good” score boards.

Apart from teaching how to write the tests, it pushes schools to set different “pre-tests” or “mock-

tests” that predict the test results of different students. These tests are helpful for the schools to

identify the “weak” students who have less probability of passing the test beforehand. Preventing

the low scorers from writing the tests, schools try to maintain their expected passing rate. That

means, these standardized tests fail a lot more students than the number the test results disclose.

This pressure is huge on the CHT schools, especially those with a large number of Adibashi

students, as they struggle to maintain the government provided MPOs due to the low passing rate

of Adibashi students (Chakma participant 3, personal communication, June 27, 2019). Schools

194

have little scope to help these students get through the system and care more about the schools’

image and benefits. A Chakma teacher (3) said,

We cannot allow the students who fail the pre-tests to sit for the

final exam. This will harm the school and teachers. If the school

cannot meet the bar of maintaining 70% passing rate, then all the

benefits and MPOs of the teachers will stop. (Personal

communication, June 27, 2019)

These layers of elimination strategies of the standardized tests work against Adibashi students

because of their disadvantaged backgrounds and further contributes to the deficit discourses that

exist in education.

The elimination process of the standardized, high-stakes testing system does not always

work by removing the non-dominant students directly; it also removes the non-dominant

attributes. While the testing system screens out the “unexpected” and “deviant” candidates

(Loflin, 2013), as well as the “unwanted racial or ethnic groups or their characteristics” (Apple,

1993, p. 49), it creates forms of coercion on non-dominant students. It forces these test-takers to

transform their cultural deviancy into the prescribed “individual behaviour and intelligence”

(Lorenzo, 2018, p. 72) and develop the expected knowledge, languages, and cultural and social

skills (McCarty, 2009; Rudolph, 2013). Given this process of elimination, critics identify the

eugenic ideology of the high-stakes testing system that removes the undesirable traits and

improves the qualities of the “deficit” people (Loflin, 2013; Au, 2013). The “interventions”25 that

the testing system makes in Adibashi students’ lives to adjust their “deficiencies” and “lesser-

ness,” “enable a sort of neo-eugenics stigma placed on some students as lacking and being

“unfit”’ (Loflin, 2013, para. 24). Also, drilling of answers, timed test practices, memorization,

and other efforts for better scores shape Adibashi students’ behaviour to fit into the mainstream

education system. In this process, the “good” test scores explain their successful attainment of the

25 Tutoring, longer school days, teacher incentives, more and constant testing, mentoring, more test preparations, separate and extra classes, and many other strategies (Loflin, 2013).

195

dominant knowledge and cultural attributes, which indicate their readiness for the dominant

society. Wayne Au (2013) identifies such a process of shaping and reshaping students’

behaviours and identities through education and tests as a “racial project”; this method of tracking

and sorting out the “deficiency” of minority students to increase the “social efficiency” (Au,

2013, p. 46) manifests nothing but the eugenic ideology of the dominant elites. A Chakma teacher

and writer (4) said,

I do not believe this existing education system can help us. We

are getting Bengalicized day by day. Education is a system to

implement the ways that the government wants us to develop.

The so-called benefits that the government mentions do not

reach here. Do you think this education system is meant for

helping us when we are the ones who mostly fail? (Personal

communication, June 28, 2019)

The test pressure and stakes are so high that Adibashi students are bound to follow the system,

unlearning their own cultural perspectives and identities.

In fact, the standardized, high-stakes testing system that activates the mental stigma or the

stigma consciousness often coerces Adibashi students to remove themselves from the system.

Many students develop a “defeatist mentality”26—a reasoning that they have not tried enough to

succeed—and self-remove themselves from the system (Lorenzo, 2018, p. 81). Because of the

social stigma associated with failure, high test competition and a series of examples of previous

failure are responsible for creating this mentality among Adibashi students. In addition, the

culturally dissociated education system kills students’ enthusiasm and interest. As a result, many

lose interest in classroom learning and simply avoid the task of working hard to prepare for the

test or even writing the test. This mentality eventually contributes to the stigma consciousness of

Adibashi students, leading towards their self-removal from the education system either through

not appearing at the tests or not putting in adequate effort to ensure their success in the tests. So,

26 Not studying for the test and not showing up for the test are coping mechanisms for some students to avoid suffering the severe consequence of bad performances in tests (Lorenzo, 2018).

196

while framing Adibashi students through the “deficit” narratives constructed in the education

system, this testing system has been reproducing their state of subjugation as well.

6.3.3 Control over Social Relations and Roles

This section illustrates how this testing system reproduces the hierarchical social

relationship between the Bengali elites and marginalized Adibashis by determining their access to

benefits, resources, and successes. It explains the ways in which the disadvantaged socio-cultural

and economic backgrounds of Adibashi students negatively affect their test performances and

further marginalize them in society.

The standardized, high-stakes testing system has not been effective in providing fair

assessment of marginalized students. Studies show that students’ ethnic or racial identities,

parental education/backgrounds, and socio-economic statuses have a huge impact on their test

performances (Roscigno & Ainsworth-Darnell, 1999; Amrein & Berliner, 2002; Baker &

Johnston, 2010). While investigating the outcomes of the high-stakes testing system, these studies

find that students from racial, cultural, and linguistic minorities and low socio-economic

backgrounds perform poorly in tests compared to those from privileged ones. Roscigno and

Ainsworth-Darnel (1999) followed by Baker and Johnston (2010) specify that the cultural

knowledge, home environment, parental education, location, and family structure along with the

socio-economic backgrounds of students contribute to their academic success. So, minority

students participate in an unequal test environment that does not take into consideration their

disadvantaged backgrounds.

In Bangladesh, Adibashi students, the culturally and socio-economically underprivileged

group, have less social and economic support from their families to engage well in the tests.

According to a Bishnupriya Manipuri teacher (13),

These students face many problems in school. Many of their

parents do not even know Bangla well and never had any formal

education. They often wonder what topic we are teaching in

197

class. There are many topics in textbooks and many school

practices that they have no idea about as these are based on the

Bengali culture. Moreover, these students often get ridiculed by

their peers and penalized by their teachers because of their non-

Bengali behaviours and attitudes. We do not have proper training

to address these problems. Neither we nor their parents can help.

They cannot go further. (Personal communication, August 20,

2019)

This statement reveals two primary socio-cultural challenges that impact Adibashi students’ test

performance: first, absence of Adibashi cultural contents in curriculum and school practices and

second, lack of parental experience in the mainstream education system.

The story above indicates that when Adibashi students come to school, they find it a

difficult place to survive. Since schools represent dominant culture and knowledge, Adibashi

students’ cultural knowledge and experience cannot facilitate their school interactions and

advance their performances. As cultural background knowledges are crucial for generating a

positive learning environment for students (Garrison, 2019), Adibashi students are deprived of

them here. What also has a bearing on their performance is the curriculum that is grounded in the

dominant cultural practices (see chapter 5). The Adibashi knowledge system and cultural

background they acquire or inherit from their family and community are not valued in the

curriculum. This situation forces them to depend more on Bengali knowledge and culture instead

of their Adibashi knowledge systems to participate in school interactions and tests. This process

doubles their burden of doing well as they have to learn a new language and culture, and unlearn

many of their Adibashi cultural attributes. As a result, many Adibashi students fail to pass the

series of tests and accomplish academic success.

Moreover, most Adibashi parents never went to school and have very little knowledge

and experience of the mainstream education system. These parents also lack the cultural and

linguistic training to assist their children in improving their performances. While finding

connection between the “educated” parents and good test performances of their children, Gooding

indicates that parents’ educational backgrounds inform their children’s educational aspirations

198

and advance their academic achievement (2000). Given that, Adibashi parents who have little or

no formal education and cultural backgrounds can hardly become the support that these children

need. As a resort, these students solely depend on schools and teachers to assist them in learning

and test practices. However, the education system does not have adequate resources and

instructions for helping them. Nor does it have separate or alternative assessment formats for

them within the testing system. They are likely to fall behind in the learning environment.

Roscigno and Ainsworth-Darnell (1999) point out that family backgrounds, especially parental

education and their professional experience, mediate the racial/ethnic inequalities in test

achievements. The lack of formal education in the family impacts their learnings and

performances.

Besides, the standardized, high-stakes testing system is built on the assumption that each

student has a specific financial solvency to afford the conditions for “good” test performances.

This system requires a student to have “quality” education/schooling, “quality” teachers, supplies

of books and learning materials, additional practices, and supplemental teaching27 for effective

test preparations. Roscigno and Ainsworth-Darnell (1999) show that parents with high socio-

economic status (SES) can provide their children with the household educational resources, such

as books, computers, and newspapers, as well as other educational supplements, which facilitate

positive learning experience and good performance in tests. Adibashi students who are mostly

from poor socio-economic backgrounds28 can hardly afford these resources and services. They

need financial supports to avail themselves of academic assistance to perform well, but the poorly

27 Private tutors. 28 The ratio of hardcore poor and absolute poor among the Adibashi groups is 24.6% and 59.9%, whereas the national average is 17.9% and 39.5% respectively (Dhamai, 2014). In rural CHT, this ratio is 62% and 36% respectively, but among some CHT Adibashi communities, the proportion of absolute poverty ranges from 80% to 93% (Dhamai, 2014). While the per capita annual income has increased to 59.36% in the country from 2005 to 2010, it increased by only 11% for the hill tracts Adibashis from 2008 to 2013. The

per capita annual income is $1622.50 in the country, but $1049.47 for the hill tracts Adibashis (Shaha, 2015).

199

funded schools cannot help them either.29 The state also does not ensure equal access to “quality”

education and other educational amenities for all students. Neither does it provide financial

support to these marginalized students. As a result, Adibashi students face an uneven test

competition and find it challenging to pass. A Chakma participant (21) said,

My father was very poor and worked as a messenger in a school

where I used to study. It was very difficult for him to bear the

expenses of my education. Besides, I used to face many

difficulties to understand the lectures and books. Even, I could

not memorize the test topics well. Both teachers and students

criticized me for that. I needed help but I could not afford those.

I could not pass S.S.C., and my father said he would not be able

to help me with the money to bear the test fee again. So, I gave

up. My father is sick now and I work as a messenger at his place

to help my family. (Personal communication, June 31, 2019)

This story demonstrates the financial vulnerability of Adibashi students who cannot afford the

services to prepare themselves for the tests. Because of the unequal structure of the testing

system, poor Adibashi students are likely to fail, leave schools, and remain trapped in the poverty

cycle of their parents.

The standardized, high-stakes testing system also limits their access to higher education

and other opportunities in life. In Bangladesh, academic success comes through the test success or

good test scores and determines higher education and career decisions, professional progress, and,

most importantly, the social status of students to a great extent. Adibashis, especially Chakma and

Manipuri communities, hold onto the education system with the hope of changing their socio-

economic conditions as they have very few or no opportunities to explore different occupational

options. The geographical and socio-political infrastructures provide them with limited choices of

livelihood. Besides, their community-based works or cultivation can hardly feed them well for

similar reasons. A Chakma participant (1) said,

29 The previous section discusses how the schools in Adibashi regions are in wretched condition, lacking sufficient funding from the government.

200

In CHT, you will not find any Adibashi businessmen or any

shop-owners, because extreme regional restrictions,

militarization, and the over generalized laws and rules limit our

opportunities for exploring independent occupational options.

So, we think education is the only way which can give us work

and change our fortune. (Personal communication, June 28,

2019)

As a result, many of them consider these tests as a “socio-economic ladder” to get a job and

change their situation (Roos et al., 2006, as cited in Kearns, 2011, p. 114). They hope that a good

test result may end their intergenerational cycle of poverty. However, given the structural

barriers, their path to success becomes further narrowed when they fail to pass the series of tests

and reach next levels.

Although few Adibashi students can succeed in these tests and move to a better financial

status, the form of success they attain through test achievement is limited and compromised. On

the one hand, there are structural impediments that do not allow many Adibashis to achieve

higher professional positions. On the other hand, the very few who have so-called professional

achievements have gained that at the loss of their cultural practices and community ties.

“Success,” which this system endorses, is a colonial notion of achievement for the Adibashis. A

statement from a Bishnupriya Manipuri participant (27) explained the struggles of Adibashis in

their professional journeys:

You will hardly find a high official or a decision-maker who is

an Adibashi. There is a specific level up to which an Adibashi

could reach. The system makes sure that the Adibashis do not

reach up there. If there is anyone, they comply more with the

Bengali system than the Adibashis’. We follow the Bengalis to

be successful. My brother is a government employee and has

been stuck in the same position for long. We heard the

application of an Adibashi for any job positions usually is ranked

low or rejected just based on the Adibashi surname. (Personal

communication, August 10, 2019)

201

This statement indicates a systemic discrimination that curbs the progress of Adibashi students in

their academic and professional lives. The quotas30 that some universities and government jobs

reserve for Adibashi students often do not find enough “qualified” candidates for those positions

and Bengali students are recruited instead (Manipuri participant 27, personal communication,

August 10, 2019). Given the failure rates of Adibashi students, the education system is designed

in such a way that few Adibashi students can reach the tertiary level that is necessary for gaining

access to upper-level positions. Also, the recruitment and promotion processes are discriminatory

as the names of Adibashi candidates often become the criteria for devaluing them for professional

progress31 (Manipuri participant 27, personal communication, August 10, 2019). As a result,

those who can succeed find themselves confined to relatively lower-level positions. Although

some have become doctors, teachers, police officers, and, in some cases, government officials,

most Adibashis can hardly expect to occupy higher level positions in national bureaucracy, both

civil and military (Manipuri participant 27, personal communication, August 10, 2019). So, the

status of the Adibashis in the social hierarchy remains comparatively low.

Also, the few fortunate Adibashis who achieve their academic goals do so primarily

through their adjustment to the Bengalicized education system and lifestyle. Academic success

that the standardized, high-stakes testing system endorses comes through their compromises with

their learning and knowledge system, cultural practices, and community connections. Success that

is defined through the test scores does not reflect their Adibashi understanding of success; it,

rather, manifests a colonial, capitalist, and materialist sense of achievement. In the high-stakes

testing environment, educational attainment is one of the most significant determinants of one’s

social status and achievement (Reichelt et al., 2019). Such a connotation of success establishes its

30 Some government universities have reserved seats for Adibashi students. However, this quota system has been abolished in many government jobs. There is no quota system in elementary and secondary education. 31 Chakma Raja Devasish Roy mentioned in his interview with the Daily Star that Bangladesh Government

recruited only about 1% Adibashi peoples against the reserved 5% quota for government jobs (Ferdous, 2011).

202

connection with a “good life” or “happiness” that are equated with “reward,” “riches,” and one’s

continuous progress in the system (Brantlinger, 2004, p. 4; Lorenzo, 2018, p. 19). So, academic

success is often “liberating” for many socio-economically underprivileged students by reducing

their miseries and poverty. Some Adibashis have gained financial freedom and solvency through

this achievement, but this process has gradually moved them away from their cultural roots and

knowledge systems. They almost live a Bengalicized life. The Manipuri participant (27) said

accordingly, “We often identify an educated and ‘successful’ Manipuri with a Bengali by saying,

‘he talks like a Bengali or lives like a Bengali.’ We say this with a ‘superior’ meaning” (personal

communication, August 10, 2019). A Bengali scholar echoed this idea and said,

Because of the standardized and uniform education system,

Adibashis want to follow the dominant culture and language and

behave like the Bengalis. This is how they can get some

“betterment” in their lives. They want to be in the mainstream

culture too. (Scholar participant 5, personal communication, July

25, 2019)

So, their success comes on the terms and conditions set by the Bengali elites. The testing system,

in other words, reproduces the colonial sense of success in the Adibashis, marginalizing their

identities and understanding.

In this way, Adibashis are gradually drifting away from their cultural identities and

perspectives and accepting their cultural subjugation and the dominance of Bengali identity,

culture, and perspective.

6.4 Conclusion

In brief, this chapter shows that the hegemonic control of the standardized, high-stakes

testing system over the learning, identity, and social relationship of Adibashi students reproduces

their sense of subjugation—colonial consciousness. This chapter identifies that the testing system

has been structured in such a way that it distorts the learning experiences of Adibashi students by

creating various barriers. While presenting the “poor” test performances of Adibashi students, the

203

chapter further explains the role of tests in reproducing the stigmatized educational and social

identity for these students. Then, it shows how Adibashi students remain marginalized in the

standardized testing environment even if some of them can achieve academic success. The

narratives and statistics clearly indicate that Adibashi students are disadvantaged in this testing

system that does not have the structure and ways to recognize the conditions, backgrounds, and

skills of Adibashi students. Thereby, Adibashi students are compromising their knowledge

systems, ways of learning, identities, community practices, and sense of achievements. What is

clear from this discussion is the colonized position of the Adibashi in the education system and

society and their conscious or subconscious submission to this system. This chapter thus

complements the understanding of the domination-exploitation structure that is reproduced by the

testing system by explaining the sense of colonial consciousness. This discussion stipulates a

need for a system that understands the Adibashis’ knowledge system and extenuating

circumstances, which can be developed through further research. Only when these situations are

addressed in the education and testing system, will equity and equality be ensured.

204

Chapter 7

Conclusion

To colonize people, one needs to dislocate them from their roots

so that they cannot go back to their origins. Colonization does

not only mean displacing people from their lands; it also includes

cultural dislocation. Education plays a major role here. (Scholar

participant 9, personal communication, August 27, 2019)

In the view of Manosh Sinha,1 an Adibashi poet from Bishnupriya Manipuri community

(8), most Adibashi students find their educational experiences simply alienating as schools force

them to see and understand the world from a cultural and linguistic lens that does not value their

lifestyle. Their educational journey is difficult, filled with never-ending struggles for academic

success, the Manipuri poet has added (Manipuri participant 8, August 20, 2019). Suresh

Chakma,2 an Adibashi teacher and writer from Chakma community, has echoed the same

sentiment and said that Bangladesh’s education system does not represent their culture and

knowledge, which is an imposition on the Adibashis. He later said, “By losing our cultures,

languages, and identities, we have become ‘refugees’ in our own country” (Chakma participant 5,

personal communication, June 28, 2019). Based on similar experiences of Adibashi participants

from Chakma and Manipuri communities in Bangladesh,3 this study finds that Adibashi students

are marginalized, subjugated, Bengalicized, and colonized partly through the education system of

Bangladesh.

While this study investigates the role of the standardized, high-stakes testing system in

reproducing the socio-political structure of domination-exploitation by the Bengali elites of the

1 Pseudo name. 2 Pseudo name. 3 Chakmas are a Chittagong Hill Tracts Adibashi group and Manipuris are a plain land group. This study has engaged participants from these two different communities.

205

Adibashis in Bangladesh, its findings primarily contribute to two major areas. The first one is in

the politics of nationalism which uses education in general and the standardized, high-stakes

testing system as a nationalist project of Bengali elites in particular. The study finds that Bengali

elites who are primarily interested in egocentric, Bengali/Bangladeshi nationalism do not create

any space for non-Bengali groups or identities in the national discourses. It shows that the testing

system has implicit biases that are built around specific Eurocentric values of promoting

dominant and homogenous cultures, which make this system apposite to the nationalist goal of

the education system. It promotes the national language, culture, knowledge, and curriculum that

are historically shaped and reshaped by the values, principles, and practices of the political elites

in Bangladesh. The second area observed is the field of critical education or Adibashi education.

The study identifies that the standardized form of assessment knowingly or unknowingly serves

against the interest of Adibashi communities, who are already socio-politically marginalized and

excluded from the Bengali national identity. The testing system excludes the Adibashis by

removing all aspects of a positive learning environment, such as their languages, cultures, and

knowledges, from education. In fact, the standardized testing system has been designed in such a

way that it does not address the Adibashis’ cultural specificities and extenuating circumstances,

which further intensifies their educational struggles and pushes them towards both academic and

social failure. While identifying layers of barriers that impede the Adibashis’ educational

achievement, this study also implies that this process deprives them of an opportunity to pursue

their cultural knowledge and practices. Overall, the findings of this interdisciplinary study

illustrate different aspects of a national education system and its standardized, high-stakes testing

system that serve the political and cultural benefits of Bengali elites, and disadvantage and

marginalize Adibashi communities. In this concluding chapter, this dissertation presents its major

findings and demonstrates that the standardized, high-stakes testing system, as a part of a broader

206

educational project of Bengali elites, reproduces the domination-exploitation structure that aims

to marginalize the country’s Adibashi communities.

7.1 Findings of the Study

7.1.1 Education as a Nationalist Project of Homogenization and Assimilation

This study has examined various educational policies and practices and identified their

nationalist ideologies that promote Bengali identity, culture, language, and history, and

deliberately exclude any other cultural identities. It has drawn upon the understanding of the

politics of nationalism in Bangladesh that promote exclusion and assimilation (Osmany, 1992;

Kabir, 1994; Mohsin, 1997; Chowdhury, 2016), and specifically uses education as a political tool

to endorse these nationalist ideologies of Bengali elites (Hossain et al., 2002; Rahman et al.,

2010; Ghosh, 2012; Qazi & Shah, 2019). In this dissertation, the examination of the national

education policy, the national curriculum, and textbooks discloses that they are inundated with

Bengalicized knowledges and cultural attributes without creating any space for Adibashi

representation—their cultural identities and practices are absent and stigmatized. In particular, the

participants in this study complained of the dominance of Bengalicized knowledge and Bangla

language that left them culturally and linguistically alienated. I have explained throughout the

dissertation that such an education system should be understood to be a part of the politics of

nationalism that promotes homogenization and assimilation of the Adibashis into the

Bengalicized culture (Mohsin, 1997). This understanding has allowed me to trace the colonial

power relationship between the Bengalis and Adibashis (Chowdhury, 2016) which has been

established through various educational practices.

What is special about this dissertation is that this study particularly focuses on the

standardized, high-stakes testing system and finds that various testing practices and principles

further rearticulate the nationalist agenda of the education system in Bangladesh. It identifies the

political biases (Sacks, 2000; Nichols & Berliner, 2007; Moses & Nanna, 2007; Au, 2009;

207

Koyama & Cofield, 2013) and cultural biases (Kim & Choy, 2017; Hart & Kempf, 2018;

McCarty, 2018; Mullen, 2020) of the testing system which represent the dominant cultural and

political views of Bengali elites. For instance, chapter 4 shows that Adibashi participants, both

Chakma and Manipuri, do not get to study in their mother tongues. This chapter presents an

examination of the National Education Policy 2010, and the language policy in Bangladesh’s

constitution and shows that Bangla is imposed on culturally and linguistically diverse Adibashi

students. Based on Adibashi participants’ narratives, this chapter explains that Adibashi children

start their education with linguistic and cultural obstacles that distort their learning experiences.

The participants disclosed that they struggled to maintain effective classroom interactions,

communicate with others, and perform well in tests. Due to the dominance and glorification of

Bangla and unacceptance of Adibashi languages both in schools and tests, Adibashi languages are

stigmatized and students are marginalized. This dissertation thus shows that the overemphasis of

Bangla in all educational practices, especially in the testing system, reproduces its hegemony and

otherizes Adibashi languages. Similarly, chapter 5 presents an in-depth analysis of the national

curriculum, especially the textbooks in elementary and secondary schools, and identifies that the

national curriculum is fraught with Bengalicized knowledge, history, and cultural identity. At the

same time, the few Adibashi representations found in the textbooks are offensive, stigmatized,

racialized, and otherized illustrations of their identities and traditional practices. While reflecting

on their educational experiences, many Adibashi participants said that they learned about

Bengalis and Bengali cultures but could not find themselves in the education system. Nor could

they apply that knowledge to their traditional practices. Some Adibashi participants complained

that in this education system, they had to compromise their traditional knowledges and unlearn

them. The findings of my study thus explain that this system gradually instills the hegemony of

Bengaliness in education. In addition, chapter 6 shows that apart from the language and

curriculum of the education system, Adibashi learning styles and pedagogies, community-based

208

learning systems, and cultural and traditional practices are disregarded. In fact, all the institutional

norms, such as school calendars and holidays, and classroom practices, such as teaching

pedagogies and learning styles, follow the Bengalicized system and purposely ignore Adibashi

cultural specificities. The testing system only values the Bengalicized knowledge and benefits

those who represent that. In other words, its primary goal is to promote the nationalist values of

Bengali elites by imposing Bengalicized knowledge and values on Adibashis.

This study further identifies various strategies of the standardized, high-stakes testing

system in Bangladesh, which coerce Adibashi students to accept the state-defined knowledge. In

other words, this study illustrates how this testing system functions as a state tool of socio-

political integration by assimilating non-Bengali Adibashis into Bengali cultural attributes, which

again reinforces the nationalist ideologies of the elites. Studies in Australia and North America

(McCarty, 2009; Au, 2010; Rudolph, 2013; Kearns, 2016) identify such a form of coercion as an

assimilative force of the testing system. These studies show that the testing system homogenizes

educational practices and applies “different disciplinary strategies” (Kearns, 2016, pp. 123–125)

to force non-dominant students to acquire the linguistic and cultural knowledge that the state

wants them to achieve (McCarty, 2009; Rudolph, 2013). This process often eliminates the

“unwanted racial or ethnic groups or their characteristics” (Apple, 1993, p. 49) to achieve the

social integration process. Although completed in a different socio-political context, this

dissertation identifies that Adibashi students, teachers, and parents are under a huge pressure to

follow the linguistic and cultural norms of the testing system as the tests determine “quality”

education, “good” performances, academic success, incentives, and future decisions. Adibashi

students feel forced to prioritize national language, culture, and knowledge over their own

cultural languages, identities, and knowledges for the sake of their academic success and future

social mobility. Some participants expressed, as explained in chapter 4, that they were bound to

prioritize Bangla over their first languages for their children’s education and future. Many were

209

upset by the fact that they were losing first-language proficiency due to lack of exposure and

practice. Some also said that their languages were Bengalicized now due the over-influence of

Bangla. Similarly, in chapter 5, a lot of participants expressed that many Adibashis were inclined

or persuaded towards the Bengalicized knowledge and identity due to its educational and socio-

economic significance in Bangladesh; they were bound to learn the contents that would bring test

success as well as financial gains. This process is causing severe consequences to Adibashi

cultural practices and identities. Chapter 6 further shows that by determining students’

educational performances, identities, learning experiences, and future decisions, as well as

schools’ sanctions and benefits, the testing system controls the lives of the people in these already

marginalized communities. When students and their parents pursue educational success, teachers

and schools look for their government sanctions and funds to run their lives and schools

respectively. This linguistic and cultural imposition that comes in the form of educational

mandates and paths and guidelines to future “success” establish the hegemony of the dominant

culture while the state achieves the “social integration” of the non -dominant students (Amrein-

Berliner, 2002, p. 12). In a way, the elites are exploiting the test ing system as “the swords of

cultural transmission” (Battiste, 2013, p. 162) by entrenching Bengali identity, culture, and

language among the Adibashis through the hegemonic image of the testing system.

7.1.2 Failing the “Other”: Stories of Discrimination and Marginalization

This dissertation demonstrates that the standardized, high-stakes testing system has been

designed in such as a way that it intentionally or unintentionally discriminates against the

Adibashis and generates conditions for their “poor” performances in education. Numerous studies

that were done in Western contexts highlight that non-dominant and socio-economically

underprivileged students, especially racial and ethnic minorities and Indigenous students, fail to

perform well in the standardized, high-stakes testing system (Kohn, 2000; Maudus & Clarke,

2001; Amerein & Berliner, 2002; Nichols & Berliner, 2007; Ladson-Billing, 2006; Klenowski,

210

2009; Au, 2010; Rudolph, 2013; Dadani, 2019). Although this study is situated in a different

socio-political context and focuses on different methodological and theoretical approaches, it

presents numerous Adibashi narratives and locally collected statistics that show Adibashi

students, who are already socio-politically and economically marginalized in Bangladesh,

struggle to perform well or pass the standardized tests. Also, this study is different from the

previous studies done on Adibashis education in Bangladesh (Sarker & Davey, 2009; Kabir &

Nath, 2005; Nath, 2009; Ali, 2016) as it not only indicates the poor performances of Adibashi

students and their marginalized position, but it also identifies the socio-political constructs that

deliberately shape their experiences and cause “poor” educational performances. Studies that

have attempted to investigate the educational discrimination against the Adibashis mostly limited

their scopes to the issues of language and hardly addressed the socio-political conditions of the

Adibashis (Kabir, 2009; Chakma & Chakma, 2014). This study adds to our knowledge by

explaining the socio-cultural, economic, and political dimensions of Adibashi identities in order

to illustrate the uselessness of the existing educational supports offered by Bengali elites.

In chapters 4, 5, and 6, this study analyzes the narratives of Adibashi students and

identifies that Bangladesh’s education system and testing system do not offer any opportunities

that could bolster Adibashi students’ learning and test performances. Rather, the system embeds

multiple layers of barriers that impede Adibashi students’ learning and educational attainment.

For instance, in chapter 4, some participants explained that language had been the greatest

obstacle for most Adibashi students’ educational achievement. Language restricted their access to

educational benefits and resources as well as affecting teachers’ and schools’ positive behaviour

that could advance their learning. These participants also added that they struggled in class and

tests to communicate with their peers and teachers and comprehend the lessons, instructions, and

test contents due to the language that the education system used. The chapter also shows through

many stories that while Bengali students study in their first language, Adibashi students usually

211

spend their first few years of school learning the language that schools use. Similarly in chapter 5,

this study shows that many participants found the curriculum alienating as it did not reflect their

knowledge systems, cultural practices, and identities, which not only impeded their learning and

performance but also demotivated them. What further reinforced their negative experiences were

the stigmatized and offensive illustrations of Adibashis and their cultures in textbooks. This

chapter clarifies how the inclusion of Adibashis in the curriculum has been used to highlight the

stigmatized and marginalized image of the Adibashis more and represent their diverse cultures

less, which, indeed, distorts their learning experiences too. In addition, chapter 6 shows that apart

from linguistic and curricular discriminations, the entire education system does not address

Adibashi lifestyles, pedagogies, and learning systems, which creates another level of educational

barriers for them. The chapter explains that the current education system does not present much

about the lives, livelihoods, and cultures of common populations in Bangladesh and that the

Adibashis are the most excluded. The standardized structure of the testing system is unable to

acknowledge Adibashi students’ socio-cultural backgrounds, low socio-economic status, lack of

educational amenities and “quality” education, unstable political conditions, and geographical

structure, which disadvantages Adibashi students to a greater extent. In particular, some

participants said that Adibashi students often missed classes and tests due to the political conflicts

in the Chittagong Hill Tracts (CHT) districts. Also, the adverse geographical conditions deterred

many students from attending schools and tests, or continuing education. Schools’ inflexible

structure which prevented the addressing of Adibashi traditional practices, the prevalence of

proxy teachers, and the lack of qualified teachers as well as the lack of financial and educational

amenities for their special needs hindered many students’ educational journeys. Adibashi students

face obstacles, feel alienated, and struggle to survive their educational journeys, so many students

leave or drop out, and those who continue struggle to survive the test competitions. This study,

212

therefore, finds that local Adibashi schools are struggling to reduce the high dropout and failure

rates of these demotivated and disengaged students.

While identifying multiple barriers that hinder the Adibashis’ academic achievements,

this study also illustrates the contradictory principles—such as meritocracy, objectivity, and

accountability, and the categorization and ranking strategies of the standardized, high-stakes

testing system—which specifically disadvantage Adibashi students. Many Western scholars

criticize the use of the testing system in promoting a fair and meritocratic system that reduces the

achievement gap among the racial minorities as it functions more to create a political spectacle

than address their specific circumstances and backgrounds (Sacks, 2000; Au, 2010; Koyama &

Cofield, 2013). In this system, this study finds, merit is Bengalicized, objectivity fails to

recognize Adibashis’ cultural specificities and extenuating circumstances, and accountability

measures saturate Bengali elites’ control over educational practices. Adibashi participants have

specifically disclosed their experiences of being penalized for bringing their cultural knowledge

to classes and tests (see chapter 5). While invalidating Adibashi knowledges, the testing system

blames and penalizes Adibashi students for lacking “merit” or “talent” and the “hard work”

necessary for student success in tests. This system does not understand the “merit” and

knowledges that these Adibashi students possess and fails them in tests. Chapter 6, therefore,

explains that in this system, Adibashi students are the ones who are often identified as “weak”

and “inefficient” due to their “poor” educational performances. The chapter also presents some

statistics from local Adibashi schools and illustrates that Adibashi students fail to perform well or

succeed in the standardized tests. Given the statistics and narratives, this study discloses that in

this testing environment, Adibashi participants often internalize the idea of their “weakness,”

“inadequacy,” and “inability” in education, which often prevents them from making a serious

effort to both attend the tests and perform well (chapter 6). In addition, this system incorporates

various educational practices, such as pre-tests, that identify the students who will likely fail and

213

prevent them from appearing at the final tests (see chapter 6). In a way, these various practices

function against Adibashi identities and eliminate them from the system. While referring to the

eugenic roots of the testing system (Loflin, 2013; Au, 2016; Singer, 2016), this study explains

that the testing mechanism is understood as a cautious and deliberate but hegemonic ploy of the

Bengali elites to eliminate the “other.”

7.1.3 The Loss of Adibashi Perspectives

Success has been closely associated with Aboriginal students’

losing their languages and cultural connections; many often do

not see the merit of holding to Aboriginal language systems,

cultures, or world views, nor understand the wealth of

knowledge within their own systems. This self-doubt, coupled

with racism, continues to sabotage their expectations for their

own futures. (Battiste, 2013, p. 162)

[Colonial or Eurocentric education] annihilate[s] a people’s

belief in their names, in their languages, in their environment, in

their heritage of struggle, in their unity, in their capacities and

ultimately in themselves. It makes them see their past as one

wasteland of non-achievement and it makes them want to

distance themselves from that wasteland. It makes them want to

identify with that which is furthest removed from themselves.

(Thiong’o, 1981, p. 3)

This study has specific findings that distinguish this dissertation from other studies done

on the standardized, high-stakes testing system. It illustrates the testing system’s grounding in

Eurocentric values that causes the loss of many Indigenous knowledge systems, cultural practices,

and identities in Bangladesh. It shows that the cultural and linguistic imposition of this testing

system on Adibashi students negatively affects many community pract ices. This study argues that

this system produces a colonial notion of educational success for Adibashis, which they achieve

by experiencing cultural transformation and subjugation. Angela Valenzuela (1999), Tove

Skutnabb-Kangas (1981, 1988), Ngũgĩ wa Thiong’o (1981), Yatta Kanu (2006), and Marie

Battiste (2013) explain the cultural distrust and displacement that colonial education causes for

non-dominant students. Bijoy Barua (2004, 2007) and Dip Kapoor (2016) express a similar

214

understanding of the Eurocentric model of a national curriculum that manifests a

“modernity/tradition” dichotomy to conceive local knowledge and praxis as “backdated” and

“ancient.” This is one of the very few studies of Bangladeshi contexts that advances an

understanding of such a Eurocentric education system that causes the cultural loss of Adibashi

communities.

Most of the collected narratives of this dissertation indicate that the Bengalicized

education system negatively impacts Adibashi students’ academic successes. In chapters 4, 5, and

6, this study shows that while participating in the dominant education system that devalues and

disregards Adibashi knowledge systems, Adibashi students develop some negative and

stigmatized perspectives about their community languages, cultural practices, traditions, and

identities. These chapters identify such perspectives as self-doubts or distrusts that generate

among the Adibashis an inferior sense of their community knowledge systems (Thiong’o, 1981;

Skutnabb-Kangas, 1981; Valenzuela, 1999; Battiste, 2013). In particular, many participants

disclosed the embarrassment and shame that they felt when they spoke their languages in front of

Bengali students in school (see chapter 4). Some expressed the same inferior feelings about their

traditional clothes, practices, and lifestyles. In fact, some Chakma participants identified their

traditional Jumm cultivation as an “ancient” and “barbaric” system while conforming to the

modern agricultural system (see chapter 5). Due to the curriculum’s negative portrayal of their

traditional practices and knowledge systems, Adibashi students develop a sense of inferiority

about their cultural practices, which persuades them to discontinue them. This process eventually

dissociates them from their traditional knowledges and practices and disconnects them from their

community identities. This study concludes that while pursuing academic success through this

testing system, many Adibashis feel forced to accept the mainstream education system, leaving

their languages, cultural practices, and knowledges behind.

215

This dissertation also identifies that the loss of Adibashi cultural perspectives is causing a

devastating impact on Adibashi community practices as well as knowledge systems. This study

incorporates many narratives of Adibashi elders and teachers that indicate the impact of the

dominant education system, as well as the testing system, on community practices and traditions.

The analytical chapters find that many linguistic structures and vocabularies of Adibashi

languages as well as cultural traditions are lost today as the current generations are under huge

pressure to achieve academic success (see chapters 4 and 5). The education system does not allow

these students to nurture their community practices and appreciate traditions. As a result, the

community-based education system is perceived to be valueless. Chakma and Manipuri

communities have experienced major changes in their education systems, occupational choices,

livelihood structures, food choices, and linguistic preferences. As a result, Jumm cultivation is

hardly practiced now, and Bizhu celebration is losing its original essence. Similarly, in Manipuri

communities, handloom traditions, Rasleela Kirton, and Manipuri dances are under threat as the

next generations are not interested in these practices (see chapters 5 and 6). In this way, Adibashi

knowledges and cultural attributes are disappearing.

7.1.4 Further Alienation and Colonization

In brief, this study identifies that education, especially the standardized, high-stakes

testing system, reproduces the state of subjugation or colonial domination and exploitation of

Adibashi communities. Numerous scholars in the West (Skutnabb-Kangas, 1981; Kanu, 2003,

2006; Battiste, 2013; Morcom, 2017) and in South Asia (Barua, 2004, 2007; Kapoor, 2016)

discuss how education has been a colonial tool of the national elites to marginalize the Indigenous

and other ethnic minorities. This study confirms that the testing system has been used as a

political tool by Bengali elites to extend their colonial domination over the Adibashis at two

levels: by marginalizing Adibashi students in the education system and by reproducing their

socio-economic deprivation in the country. First, I discussed earlier that the education system

216

does not address Adibashi languages, cultures, and knowledges, which creates negative learning

environments for Adibashi students. It also does not acknowledge these educational

discriminations against the Adibashis and fails to provide needed supports and assistances for

their academic successes. As underrepresented and unaddressed, Adibashi students are

marginalized in the education system. While leading socio-economically and politically

marginalized lives, Adibashi students feel forced to study in an alien language and knowledge

system, which creates a linguistic and culturally alienated learning environment for them. They

cannot relate their background knowledges to their learning experiences. Due to the lack of

beneficial educational environments and positive reinforcements, most Adibashi students fail to

show “acceptable” educational performances in both class and tests. The study shows that

Adibashi students fail in great numbers. Second, this study also identifies that their educational

marginalization is the result of their socio-political and economic condition in Bangladesh. As

this testing system bears heavy consequences in their lives, most Adibashi students who perform

poorly cannot continue their education further. Nor can they consider future education for the

advancement of a better career. In addition, this study shows that most Adibashi students cannot

afford to avail themselves of the positive learning environment and educational amenities that are

required for success in tests. Most do not benefit from parents and families as they lack

educational, professional, and financial backgrounds that could promote their learning. Therefore,

the students fail in tests and cannot continue their education. This study thus identifies a cycle of

subjugation and marginalization that Adibashi communities are compelled to live

intergenerationally.

7.2 Directions for Future Research

Given the evidence of nationalist ideologies in educational and testing practices that

marginalize Adibashi students, this study possesses potential directions for future research.

217

A possible extension of this critical investigation would be an examination of the impact

of the standardized, high-stakes testing system on the Adibashis from the perspective of critical

race theory (CRT) in education (Ladson-Billing & Tate IV, 1995). In other words, how do the

colonial underpinnings of nationalist ideologies in the standardized, high-stakes testing system,

which I have identified in this study, function as a source for the racist practices of the dominant

elites against the Adibashis? Although the concepts of race and racism, as well as CRT, have

been used more in Western contexts, Woodson and Du Bois have considered race as the most

significant factor in understanding the inequalities that exist in society (as cited in Ladson-Billing

& Tate IV, 1995). Moreover, Bryan McKinley Jones Brayboy (2005) theorized that tribal critical

race theory (TribalCRT) in education encompassed intertwined connections among colonialism,

Indigenous knowledge systems, and governmentality in education. While race is conceived as a

central part of CRT, TribalCRT added colonialism as a major component in understanding the

racist underpinnings of education for Indigenous communities (Brayboy, 2005). Similarly, this

new study can contextualize a new notion of TribalCRT in South Asian contexts of indigeneity to

address the racialized perspectives of colonial education in this region. It will also help

investigate the racist ideologies of the high-stakes testing system, which this current study has

explored in greater detail.

Another possible extension of this study would be to investigate the application of the

standardized, high-stakes testing system as a racial project of Bengali elites from neo-liberal

perspectives. Given the findings of this current study that show that education and assessment are

not fair and philanthropic systems in Bangladesh, the future study may identify the testing system

as a platform to provide training, “formatting,” and the measuring of students for the global

market. In other words, the future study can ask: In what specific ways do the policies and

practices of the standardized, high-stakes testing system serve as a state’s political tool to

operationalize neoliberal policies of commodification of education? This new study may help us

218

develop a deeper understanding of the use of the educational system to serve the interests of

global capitalism. This study would investigate the neoliberal rationalities that are embedded in

the promotion of Bangla and English as primary languages of education, as well as test

competition, privatization, profit-making, surveillance, objectivity, and accountability measures.

Given the discussion, this study will further ask how such neoliberal ideologies of the testing

system work as a racial project to subjugate the non-dominant groups or Adibashis in

Bangladesh. Such research projects can help us explore public-private partnerships, the education

and test business, private schools and tuitions, and the market-oriented curriculum in Bangladesh.

The study will identify how these practices will reproduce more social and economic inequalities

by making education more inaccessible to marginalized groups. Such a study may engage

Marxian-inspired theories to investigate how nation-building processes, racism, and colonial

capitalism are intersected in the articulation of the standardized, high-stakes testing system to

address the global market.

In addition, a more probable and practical future direction could be a couple of

comparative case studies that this study could not incorporate due to its limited scope. Given the

diversity within the Adibashi communities, it would be unfair to assume or generalize the

situation or impact of the testing system equally on all Adibashi students. Especially, during my

fieldwork I personally observed a difference in the level of assimilation and integration into the

education system between the plain land and the CHT Adibashis. In fact, a Bishnupriya Manipuri

participant, who is a plain land Adibashi, indicated this:

I think we [plain land Adibashis] who live in the plain land are

more assimilated with the Bengali culture. We tend to behave

more like a Bengali. Plain land Adibashis wear Bengali clothes

and follow Bengalicized lifestyles as we are in more contact with

the Bengalis than the CHT Adibashis. We think the Bengali

culture is superior. The change is obvious among the plain land

Adibashis and as a result, we are losing our cultures. (Manipuri

participant 6, personal communication, August 18, 2019)

219

So, a comparative study to investigate the differing impacts of the testing system on Adibashis

from different regions would paint a clearer picture and identify the factors affecting Adibashi

students’ learning experiences. In fact, a comparative study can be conducted within the CHT

communities, too. Although the CHT Adibashis are identified as Jumma Peoples, they are very

diverse and have distinct necessities and problems in education. While Chakma is the most

privileged among the CHT Adibashis, Mro, Khumi, Tanchangya, Khyang, and many other groups

are extremely marginalized. In addition, a comparative study between the poor Bengali and

Adibashi students should be conducted to understanding the factors that create different

experiences for these two groups. Although the socio-economic conditions would be almost

identical for both groups, a comparative study may identify the layers of factors that affect the

Adibashis more negatively than the poor Bengalis.

This is an exploratory study that opens many questions. In order to deepen our

understanding of Adibashi peoples, I recommend a future study that would be a community-

driven project or Indigenous research that would engage community researchers. Investigating

Adibashi conditions from an insider perspective or through an Indigenous lens would offer more

insight into Indigenous education and their experiences. Extensive complications within

communities regarding their greatest research interests will define and shape the study, which

would add tangible value to the community by initiating scholarly discussion in an area that has

been neglected.

220

Appendix A

List of Adibashi/Indigenous Communities in

Bangladesh1

No Name of

Indigenous

Group

Location

Chittagong Hill Tracts Adibashi Groups

1 Chakma Rangamati, Khagrachari, Bandarban, Chittagong & Cox’s Bazar

district

2 Marma Rangamati, Khagrachari & Bandarban

3 Tripura Rangamati, Khagrachari, Bandarban, Sylhet, Chittagong, Rajbari,

Chandpur & Comilla

4 Mro Rangamati & Bandarban

5 Tanchangya Rangamati & Bandarban

6 Bawm Rangamati & Bandarban

7 Pangkhua Rangamati & Bandarban

8 Chak Rangamati & Bandarban

9 Khyang Rangamati & Bandarban

10 Khumi Rangamati & Bandarban

11 Lushai Rangamati & Bandarban

12 Ghorkha* Rangamati

13 Assam* Rangamati & Sylhet

Plain Land Adibashi Groups

14 Koch Mymensingh, Tangail, Sherpur, Netrokona & Gazipur

15 Santal Dinajpur, Rajshahi, Naogaon, Bogra, Chapainawabganj, Rangpur,

Panchaghar, Natore, Thakurgaon & Sylhet Tea Garden

16 Dalu Mymensingh, Sherpur & Jamalpur

17 Rakhine Cox’s Bazar, Borguna & Patuakhali

18 Monipuri Moulvibazar, Sylhet, Habiganj & Sunamganj

1 This exhaustive list was created compiling different lists provided by B.M. Dhamai (2014) in his book ch apter. He compiled different government and non-government sources to provide an idea about many Adibashi groups.

221

19 Garo/Mandi Mymensingh, Tangail, Sherpur, Netrokona, Gazipur, Rangpur, Sylhet,

Sunamganj & Moulvibazar

20 Hajong Mymensingh, Sherpur, Netrokona, Sylhet & Sunamganj

21 Khasi Moulvibazar, Sylhet & Sunamganj

22 Oraon Dinajpur, Rajshahi, Naogaon, Bogra, Chapainawabganj, Rangpur,

Panchaghar, Natore, Thakurgaon & Pabna

23 Khotrio Barman Dinajpur, Rajshahi & Gazipur

24 Mal Pahari Dinajpur, Rajshahi, Naogaon, Bogra, Chapainawabganj, Rangpur,

Panchaghar, Natore, Thakurgaon, & Pabna

25 Munda Dinajpur, Rajshahi, Naogaon, Bogra, Chapainawabganj, Rangpur,

Panchaghar, Natore, Thakurgaon & Tea Garden of Sylhet

26 Kol Rajshahi & Sylhet

27 Mahato Dinajpur, Rajshahi, Bogura, Pabna, Sirajganj & Jaipurhat

28 Khond Sylhet

29 Gond Rajshahi & Dinajpur

30 Gorait Rajshahi, Natore & Naogaon

31 Malo Dinajpur, Rajshahi, Naogaon, Bogra, Chapainawabganj, Rangpur,

Panchaghar, Natore, Thakurgaon & Pabna

32 Turi Rajshahi & Dinajpur

33 Teli Rajshahi, Natore, Dinajpur, Sylhet & Chapainawabganj;

34 Patro Sylhet

35 Banai Mymensingh, Sherpur & Jamalpur

36 Bagdi Kustia, Natore, Jhinaidah, Khulna & Jessore

37 Bedia Sirajganj & Chapainawabganj,

38 Boraik Jhinaidah, Magura, Jessore, Sirajganj & Pabna

39 Bhumij Rajshahi

40 Musohor Rajshahi & Dinajpur

41 Mahali Rajshahi, Dinajpur & Bogra,

222

42 Rajuar Rajshahi

43 Lohar Naogaon, Rajshahi & Chapainawabganj

44 Shobor Sylhet

45 Hodi Sherpur & Mymensingh

46 Ho Sylhet

47 Korha Sylhet

49 Bhil Dinajpur

50 Bhuimali Dinajpur

51 Ghorkha Rangamati

52 Kormokar Rajshahi & Chapainawabganj

53 Kharia Sylhet

54 Pahan Rajshahi

55 Muriar Rajshahi & Dinajpur

56 Rai Rajshahi & Dinajpur

57 Singh Pabna

58 Chai Rajshahi

59 Jarhi Rajshahi & Naogaon

60 Bhuiyan Naogaon

Note: Adapted from “An overview of Indigenous Peoples in Bangladesh” by B.M. Dhamai, 2014,

Survival under threats: human right situation of Indigenous Peoples in Bangladesh, p. 15-17. Copyright

2014 by Asia Indigenous Peoples pact and Kapaeenge Foundation.

223

Appendix B

Historical Timeline

Year Period or Historical Events

Pre-colonial Period

ca. 70,000-50,000 years ago Homo sapiens migrated to South Asia

Before the Aryans The Negritos, Proto-Astroloid, Quasi

Negritos, Dravidian and Mongolian groups

arrived.

ca. 4000/3000 years back The Aryans arrived

ca. 1500 BC-500AD Vedic Period; Brahminism evolved.

ca. 500BCE Buddhism & Jainism emerged.

ca. 500 BC-1200AD Indian Kingdom Period (development of

Sanskritic culture)

ca. 711AD Arrivals of the Arabs

ca. 1200 AD-1500 Early Islamic Period

ca. 1500-1800AD The Mughal Empire

ca. 1498AD Arrival of the Portuguese traders in India

1700 European traders in India; Dutch (1609);

English (1612); French (1674)

Colonial Period

1757-1947 1757-1857 British Period East India

Company

1858-1947 British

Government

1757 Battle of Palashy (Plassey); East India

Company took control of Bengal and

expansion of British power began

1800 Political dominance of the British introduces

western culture, language, methods of gov,

224

and technology into the urban administrative

centers.

1857 Indian revolt or Sepoy Mutiny

1885 Establishment of Indian National Congress

1905 Partition of Bengal

1906 Creation of Muslim League

1947 Partition: India and Pakistan

Pakistan Period

1952 Language Movement

1958 Pakistan came under military control

1971 Liberation War and Independence of

Bangladesh

Independent Bangladesh

1971-1975 Sheikh Mujib’s Regime

1975-1981 Military era begins; Khondoker Moshtaq

Ahmed formed government (August-

November 1981)

General Ziaur Rahman’s Regime (November

1975-1981)

1982-1990 General Hussain Mohammad Ershad’s

regime

1991-1996 Parliamentary era begins: Khaleda Zia’s

cabinet (BNP Leader)

1996-2001 Sheikh Hasina’s cabinet (Awaami League

leader)

2001-2006 Khaleda Zia’s cabinet (BNP)

2006-2008 Caretaker government: Fakhruddin Ahmed

2009-Present Sheikh Hasina’s cabinet (3rd times)

Note: The data till colonial period was adapted from “History of South Asia: A Chronological outline” by

L.A.Gordon & J. Walsh, (2009-2020). http://afe.easia.columbia.edu/timelines/southasia_timeline.htm.

The data on colonial and postcolonial period were collected from “Changing faces of Nationalism: the

case of Bangladesh” by M.G. Kabir, (1994). Copyright 1994 by iAcademic books publishers. The data on

present political context was collected from Wikipedia March 27, 2021.

http://afe.easia.columbia.edu/timelines/southasia_timeline.htm

225

Appendix C

Questionnaire 1

Questionnaire 1: for Participants

Study Title: High-Stakes Testing for Adibashi Students: Colonial Approaches to Education for

Indigenous Peoples of Bangladesh

Name of Researcher: Tanzina Tahereen

No: Date:

Answer any of the questions you like, none are mandatory.

I: PERSONAL INFORMATION

Name:

Pseudonym:

Age

Under 20

21 – 25

26 – 30

31 – 35

36 – 40

Over 40

Gender (any you identify with):

Ethnic Identity:

Religion:

Level of education:

Never went to

School

Started Primary

education, but

did not finish

Finished Primary

education

Started high-

school but left

at class……

Finished Junior

secondary

education

Finished S.S.C Started college

but did not finish.

Finished H.S.C Started tertiary

education but

did not finish

Undergraduate

level….

Finished

Undergraduate

from public

university

Finished

undergraduate

from Private

university

Finished

undergraduate

from government

college

Started Masters Finished Masters

226

Are you a student?

Name of School and Location:

Do you have any siblings who are studying? If yes, what are they studying?

What is the educational background of your parents?

If you have children, how many and what ages?

Source of financial support during studies?

Family

Self

Sponsored

Other: (Specify)

After collecting the demographic information, the interviews will be directed based on a discussion issued

by the principal investigator. The researcher will start an informal conversation stating the research

problem, and initiate the discussion based on the questions mentioned below. The questions will not be

asked directly but will be discussed throughout the conversations. However, an individual will not be

asked all the questions. The questions will be chosen based on the person who is participating in the

interviews. The principal investigator will try to raise the issues need to be addressed by the participants.

If the participants want to tell any personal story, it will be highly encouraged.

The initiation of the conversation:

(I might start telling one of my personal experiences at school or in education. This might lead the

participants to be open to a conversation).

The initiation may start like this…Tell me about what it was like when you were a small child and went to

school for the first time. What was your experience? How were the schools’ days like? How did you feel

about your school or classmates and teachers? Any special experience or feelings or stories you want to

tell?

Based on their warmup stories, later questions or conversation will be directed towards the overall impact

they had or have through their experience in education. There are some sample questions. I believe the

conversation will generate most of the questions instantly. For example,

• How do you think that the education system has changed your perspective on your

Indigenous/Adibashi identity, your self-esteem, your understanding of your country and your

future?

• How has this experience changed? How do you relate to your community?

227

• How has the experience impacted on your use of your language in the home and within the

community?

• How do you think education has impacted on your cultural traditions and agricultural pattern?

• How do you feel about the education system that we have in Bangladesh?

• What are the struggles or problems you have faced when you were in school or started your

education? How do you think these problems have impacted your decision about education and

life?

• Can you tell me what kind of school or education system you are/were looking for yourself or for

your communities?

• What are the reasons that made you decide to leave school or education? Or what are the reasons

that you did not send your kids to school?

• What was the experience with textbooks or instructors? How do/did you feel about those?

• How do you feel about the pressure of the examination? How does/did it change your perspective

about your culture?

Thank you for your participation.

228

Appendix D

Questionnaire 2

Questionnaire 2: For Scholars

Study Title: High-Stakes Testing for Adibashi Students: Colonial Approaches to Education for

Indigenous Peoples of Bangladesh

Name of Researcher: Tanzina Tahereen,

No: Date:

Answer any of the questions you like, none are mandatory.

I: PERSONAL INFORMATION

Name:

Pseudonym:

Age

18-20

21 – 25

26 – 30

31 – 35

36 – 40

Over 40

Gender (any you identify with):

Marital status

Single

Married

Common-law

Divorced

Separated

Other:

Are you an Indigenous person?

Ethnic Identity:

Religion

Level of education:

229

Research Expertise:

Professional background

Affiliation with the Organization:

I will try to conduct the interview of the scholars after I collect the narratives from the Adibashi

people. So, the following questions are tentative. Most of the issues I might ask will be based on the

narratives I will collect. These interviews will also be semi-structured and conversational. The

following questions are only for the main idea of the conversation.

For Indigenous or non-Indigenous scholars:

1. What do you want to say about the condition of Adibashi communities in Bangladesh? What are

the issues you want to point out mainly?

2. Do you want to comment on the ongoing politics regarding the Adibashi communities?

3. What is your opinion regarding the education system and the testing system that we have over

all? Where is the position of Adibashi people in this system?

4. What kind of connection do you see between the ongoing politics of nationalism and the

educational policies?

5. How will you define or explain the standardized education system or testing system which treats

everybody in the same criteria? Do you think this system is equitable in Bangladeshi context?

Thank you for your participation.

230

Appendix E

GREB Clearance Letter

July 11, 2019

Ms. Tanzina Tahereen

Ph.D. Candidate

Cultural Studies Program

Queen's University

Kingston, ON, K7L 3N6

GREB Ref #: GCUL-094-19; TRAQ # 6026929 Title: "GCUL-094-19 High-Stakes Testing for Adivasi Students: Colonial Approaches to Education for Indigenous Peoples of Bangladesh"

Dear Ms. Tahereen:

The General Research Ethics Board (GREB), by means of a delegated board review, has cleared your

proposal entitled "GCUL-094-19 High-Stakes Testing for Adivasi Students: Colonial Approaches to

Education for Indigenous Peoples of Bangladesh" for ethical compliance with the Tri-Council

Guidelines (TCPS 2 (2014)) and Queen's ethics policies. In accordance with the Tri-Council Guidelines

(Article 6.14) and Standard Operating Procedures (405.001), your project has been cleared for one year.

You are reminded of your obligation to submit an annual renewal form prior to the annual renewal due

date (access this form at http://www.queensu.ca/traq/signon.html/; click on "Events;" under "Create New

Event" click on "General Research Ethics Board Annual Renewal/Closure Form for Cleared Studies").

Please note that when your research project is completed, you need to submit an Annual

Renewal/Closure Form in Romeo/traq indicating that the project is 'completed' so that the file can be

closed. This should be submitted at the time of completion; there is no need to wait until the annual

renewal due date.

You are reminded of your obligation to advise the GREB of any adverse event(s) that occur during this

one-year period (access this form at http://www.queensu.ca/traq/signon.html/; click on "Events;" under

"Create New Event" click on "General Research Ethics Board Adverse Event Form"). An adverse event

231

includes, but is not limited to, a complaint, a change or unexpected event that alters the level of risk for

the researcher or participants or situation that requires a substantial change in approach to a

participant(s). You are also advised that all adverse events must be reported to the GREB within 48

hours.

You are also reminded that all changes that might affect human participants must be cleared by the

GREB. For example, you must report changes to the level of risk, applicant characteristics, and

implementation of new procedures. To submit an amendment form, access the application by at

http://www.queensu.ca/traq/signon.html; click on "Events;" under "Create New Event" click on "General

Research Ethics Board Request for

the Amendment of Approved Studies." Once submitted, these changes will automatically be sent to

the Ethics Coordinator, Ms. Gail Irving, at University Research Services for further review and

clearance by the GREB or Chair, GREB.

On behalf of the General Research Ethics Board, I wish you continued success in your research.

Sincerely,

Chair, General Research Ethics Board

(GREB) Professor Dean A. Tripp, PhD

Departments of Psychology, Anesthesiology & Urology Queen’s University

c: Dr. H. Jill Scott, Supervisor

Dr. Dorit Naaman, Chair, Unit

REB Ms. Carrie Miles, Dept.

Admin.

232

Appendix F

List of Textbooks in Primary and Secondary

Education

Primary Education

Class One Class Two

Amar Bangla Boi (My Bangla Book) Amar Bangla Boi (My Bangla Book)

English For Today English For Today

Elementary Mathematics Elementary Mathematics

Class Three Class Four

Amar Bangla Boi (My Bangla Book) Amar Bangla Boi (My Bangla Book)

English For Today English For Today

Mathematics Mathematics

Bangladesh Global Studies Bangladesh and Global Studies

Elementary Science Elementary Science

Islam and Moral Education (for Muslim Students) Islam and Moral Education

Hindu and Moral Education (for Hindu students) Hindu and Moral Education

Buddhist and Moral Education (for Buddhist

students)

Buddhist and Moral Education

Christian and Moral Education (for Christian

students)

Christian and Moral Education

Class Five

Amar Bangla Boi

English for Today

Mathematics

Bangladesh and Global Studies

Elementary Science

Islam and Moral Education

Hindu and Moral Education

Buddhist and Moral Education

Christian and Moral Education

Secondary Education

233

Class Six Class Seven

Anondo Path (For Reading) Anondo Path (For Reading)

Bangla Byakoron (Bangla Grammar) Bangla Byakoron

Charupath (Bangla Textbook) Shoptoborna

English for Today English for Today

Agriculture Studies Agriculture Studies

Home Science Home Science

Physical Education and Health Physical Education and Health

Information and Communication Technology Information and Communication technology

Work and Life oriented Education Work and Life oriented Education

Islam and Moral Education Islam and Moral Education

Hindu and Moral Education Buddhist and Moral Education

Buddhist and Moral Education Hindu and Moral Education

Christian and Moral Education Christian and Moral Education

Science Science

Bangladesh and Global Studies Bangladesh and Global Studies

Language and Culture of Minority Ethnic Groups Language and Culture of Minority Ethnic Groups

English Grammar and Composition English Grammar and Composition

Mathematics Mathematics

Arts and Crafts Arts and Crafts

Class Eight Class Nine-Ten

Anondo Path (for reading) Bangla Shahittyo (Bangla Literature)

Bangla Byakoron o Nirmity (Bangla Grammar) Bangla shohopath (For Bangla Reading)

Agricultural Studies Bangla Bhashar Byakoron (Bangla Grammar)

Home Science English for Today

Physical Education and Health Mathematics

Information and Communication Techonology Arts and Crafts

Work and Life oriented Education Information and Communication Technology

Arts and Crafts Career Education

English for Today Rochona Shombhar

English Grammar and Composition English Grammar and Composition

Shaittyo Konika (Bangla textbook) Physics (for science group)

234

Science Chemistry (for science group)

Bangladesh and Global Studies Biology (for science group)

Islam and Moral Education Bangladesh and Global Studies (for science

group)

Hinduism and Moral Education History of Bangladesh and World Civilizations

(for humanities group)

Buddhism and Moral Education Geography and Environment (for humanities

group)

Mathematics Economics

Agricultural Studies

Home science

Civics and Citizenship (for humanities group)

Accounting (for business group)

Finance and Banking (for business group)

Business Entrepreneurship (for business group)

Islam and Moral Science

Hindu and Moral Science

Buddhist and Moral Science

Christian and Moral Science

Physical Education, Health Science, and Sports

Higher Mathematics

235

Appendix G

Academic Grading in Bangladesh

Class Interval Letter Grade Grade Point

80-100 A+ 5.0

70-79 A 4.0

60-69 A- 3.5

50-59 B 3.0

40-49 C 2.0

33-39 D 1.0

0-32 F 0.0

236

Bibliography

Abdullah, S. (2009). Whose education? Whose nation? Exploring the role of government primary school

textbooks of Bangladesh in colonialist forms of marginalization and exclusion of poor and ethnic

minority children [Master’s Thesis, University of Toronto]. TSpace Repository, University of

Toronto.

Abtahian, M. R., & Quinn, C. M. (2017). Language shift and linguistic insecurity. In K. A. Hildebrandt,

C. Jany & W. Silva (Eds.), Documenting Variation in Endangered Languages (vol. SP13, pp. 137–

151). University of Hawai'i Press.

Adnan, S. (2008). Contestations regarding identity, nationalism, and citizenship during the struggles of

the Indigenous peoples of the Chittagong Hill Tracts of Bangladesh. International Review of

Modern Sociology, 34(1), 27–45.

Adnan, S. (2007). Migration, discrimination, and land alienation: Social and historical perspectives on the

ethnic conflict in Chittagong Hill Tracts of Bangladesh. Contemporary Perspectives, 1(2), 1–28.

Ahsan, M. S. (2001). Bangladesher monipuri jonogoshthir sonskrity [The culture of the Manipuri group

in Bangladesh]. Trinomul Uddyog, 3(1), 95–132.

Ahmed, K. (2010). Defining “Indigenous” in Bangladesh: International law in domestic context.

International Journal on Minority and Group Rights, 17(2010), 47–73.

Ahmed, K. (1992). East Bengal at independence. In S. Islam & H. Rashid (Eds.), History of Bangladesh

1704 -1971 (Vol 1, pp. 407–435). Asiatic Society of Bangladesh.

Ahmed, M. (2020, November 23). Books to be changed, exams to be dropped. The Daily Prothom Alo

(English). https://en.prothomalo.com/bangladesh/books-to-be-changed-exams-to-be-dropped

Ahmmed, M.F. & Singh, L. (2006). The state of the rural Manipuris in Bangladesh. Ethnic Community

Development Organization (ECDO). Sylhet, Bangladesh. http://www.ecdo-bd.org/zz-

images/Rural_Manipuris.pdf

Alamgir, M. (2015, July 26). 228 CHT pry schools in limbo as donor funding ends. The Daily New Age.

http://www.newagebd.net/140853/228-cht-pry-schools-in-limbo-as-donor-funding-ends/

Alam, S., Hoque, M., Hoque, S. A., & Begum, N. (2013). Amar bangla boi (class 1 textbook). National

Curriculum and Textbook Board (NCTB).

Alam, S., Hoque, M., Hoque, S. A., & Begum, N. (2013). Amar bangla boi (class 2 textbook). National

Curriculum and Textbook Board (NCTB).

Alam, S., Hoque, M., Hoque, S. A., & Begum, N. (2013). Amar bangla boi (class 3 textbook). National

Curriculum and Textbook Board (NCTB).

Al Amin, M., & Greenwood, J. (2018). The examination system in Bangladesh and its impact: On

curriculum, students, teachers, and society. Language Testing in Asia, 8(1), 1–18.

237

Ali, I. (2016). BRAC roles in non-formal education: A study on BRAC education for ethnic children

program in Bangladesh [MA Thesis: BRAC University]. Institutional repository, BRAC

University.

Al-Mamun. (2019, July 17). Khagracharite HSCte pasher har 49.93 [The passing rate in HSC in

Khagrachari is 49.93]. Gonews24.com.

https://www.gonews24.com/education/news/84564/%E0%A6%96%E0%A6%BE%E0%A6%97%

E0%A7%9C%E0%A6%BE%E0%A6%9B%E0%A7%9C%E0%A6%BF%E0%A6%A4%E0%A7

%87-

%E0%A6%8F%E0%A6%87%E0%A6%9A%E0%A6%8F%E0%A6%B8%E0%A6%B8%E0%A6

%BF%E0%A6%A4%E0%A7%87%E0%A6%AA%E0%A6%BE%E0%A6%B6%E0%A7%87%E

0%A6%B0%E0%A6%B9%E0%A6%BE%E0%A6%B0%E0%A7%AA%E0%A7%AF.%E0%A7

%AF%E0%A7%A9

Amrein, A. L., & Berliner, D. C. (2002, March 28). High-stakes testing, uncertainty, and student learning.

Education Policy Analysis Archives, 10(18), 1–74. DOI:

https://doi.org/10.14507/epaa.v10n18.2002

Anderson, B. (2006). Imagined communities: Reflections on the origin and spread of nationalism. Verso

Books.

Anttonen, P. (2005). Tradition through modernity: Postmodernism and the nation-state in folklore

scholarship. Finnish Literature Society/SKS.

Apple, M. W. (1993). The politics of official knowledge: Does a national curriculum make sense?

Discourse, 14(1), 1–16.

Apple, M. W. (1993). Ideology and curriculum. Routledge.

Ara, F. (2018, May 08). Ctg lags behind for poor facilities in remote areas. Newagebd.net.

https://www.newagebd.net/print/article/40660

Au, W. (2007). High-stakes testing and curricular control: A qualitative metasynthesis. Educational

Researcher, 36(5), 258–267.

Au, W. (2008). Devising inequality: A Bernsteinian analysis of high‐stakes testing and social

reproduction in education. British Journal of Sociology of Education, 29(6), 639–651.

Au, W. (2009). High-stakes testing and discursive control: The triple bind for non-standard student

identities. Multicultural Perspectives, 11(2), 65–71. DOI: 10.1080/15210960903028727.

Au, W. (2010). Unequal by design: High-stakes testing and the standardization of inequality. Routledge.

Au, W. (2011). Teaching under the new Taylorism: High‐stakes testing and the standardization of the 21st

century curriculum. Journal of Curriculum Studies, 43(1), 25–45.

Au, W. (2013). Hiding behind high-stakes testing: Meritocracy, objectivity, and inequality in US

education. International Education Journal: Comparative Perspectives, 12(2), 7–19.

238

Au, W. (2016). Meritocracy 2.0: High-stakes, standardized testing as a racial project of neoliberal

multiculturalism. Educational Policy, 30(1), 39–62.

Ayre, J. (2012). Cultural and linguistic capital, standardized tests and the perpetuation of educational

inequities [Master’s Thesis, The University of British Columbia]. UBC Library Open Collection.

Babaee, N. (2011). Language challenges of Aboriginal students in Canadian public schools. First Nations

Perspectives, 4(1), 110–130.

Baker, M., & Johnston, P. (2010). The impact of socioeconomic status on high-stakes testing

reexamined. Journal of Instructional Psychology, 37(3), 193–199.

Baker, T. L. (1999). Doing social research (3rd ed.). McGraw-Hill College.

Baker, B. (2002). Evaluation, standards, normalization: Historico-philosophical formations and the

conditions of possibility for checklist thought. Philosophy of Music Education Review, 10(2), 92–

101.

Balagangadhara, S.N. (2012). Reconceptualizing Indian studies. Oxford University Press.

Banks-Wallace, J. (2002). Talk that talk: Storytelling and analysis rooted in African American oral

tradition. Qualitative Health Research, 12(3), 410–426.

Bangladesh Bureau of Statistics (BBS). (2012). Statistical yearbook of Bangladesh-2012 (32nd edition).

https://www.coursehero.com/file/73971849/YB-2012pdf/

Bangladesh Bureau of Statistics (BBS), (2016). Household Income and Expenditure Survey 2016–2017

[BGD_2016_HIES_v01_M]. Ministry of Planning, Government of the People’s Republic of

Bangladesh, The World Bank Group, World Food Programme.

https://catalog.ihsn.org/index.php/catalog/7399G

Bangladesh Bureau of Educational Information and Statistics (BANBEIS), 2014.

https://studylib.net/doc/9956797/1---banbeis.

Barkat, A., Halim, S., Poddar, A., Zaman, B., Khan, S., Rahman, M., Majid, M., Mahiyuddin, G.,

Chakma, S., & Bashir, S. (2009, April). Socio-economic baseline survey of Chittagong hill tracts.

Human Development Research Centre (UNDP Dhaka). http://www.hdrc-bd.com/wp-

content/uploads/2018/12/6.-Socio-economic-Baseline-Survey-of-Chittagong-Hill-Tracts.pdf

Barkat, A., Hoque, M., Halim, S., & Osman, A. (2009). Life and land of Adibashis: Land dispossession

and alienation of Adibashis in the plain districts of Bangladesh. Pathak Shamabesh.

Barker, E. (1952). Principles of social and political theory. Oxford University Press.

Barua, B. P. (2004). Western education and modernization in a Buddhist village of Bangladesh: A case

study of the Barua community [Doctoral Dissertation, University of Toronto]. TSpace Repository,

University of Toronto.

Barua, B. P. (2007). Colonialism, education, and rural Buddhist communities in Bangladesh.

International Education, 37(1), 60–76.

239

Barua, B.P. (2010). Ethnic minorities, Indigenous knowledge, and livelihoods: Struggle for survival in

southeastern Bangladesh. In D. Kapoor & E. Shizha (Eds.), Indigenous knowledge and learning in

Asia/Pacific and Africa (pp. 63–79). Palgrave Macmillan. https://doi-

org.proxy.queensu.ca/10.1057/9780230111813_5

Bashar, I. (2011). Bangladesh’s forgotten crisis: Land, ethnicity, and violence in Chittagong Hill Tracts.

Counter Terrorist Trends and Analysis, 3(4), 2–5.

Battiste, M. (2013). Decolonizing education: Nourishing the learning spirit. Purich Publishing Ltd.

Begum, M., & Farooqui, S. (2008). School based assessment: Will it really change the education scenario

in Bangladesh? International Education Studies, 1(2), 45–53.

Bénéï, V. (2005). Introduction: Manufacturing citizenship: Confronting public spheres and education in

contemporary worlds. In V. Bénéï (Ed.), Manufacturing citizenship: Education and nationalism in

Europe, South Asia and China (pp. 1–34). Routledge.

Bernstein, B. (1996). Pedagogy, symbolic control, and identity. Taylor & Francis.

Bhardwaj, S. K. (2009-2010). Contesting identities in Bangladesh: A study of secular and religious

frontiers (Working Paper no. 36). Asia Research Center.

https://r.search.yahoo.com/_ylt=AwrJ7KQ12W1hmXkAKS_rFAx.;_ylu=Y29sbwNiZjEEcG9zAzE

EdnRpZAMEc2VjA3Ny/RV=2/RE=1634617781/RO=10/RU=http%3a%2f%2feprints.lse.ac.uk%2

f38640%2f1%2fARCWP36-Bhardwaj.pdf/RK=2/RS=on7pcX_I7g2zZi4MCccEdCd5Xws-

Bhabha, H. K. (1994). The location of culture. London: Routledge.

Bhuiyan, K. R. M., & Khan, A. S. (2009). Language education policy and nationalism in Bangladesh: Do

they share responsibility for culture shock and identity crisis in the nation? Proceedings of the 8th

International Conference on Language and Development, Bangladesh.

http://www.langdevconferences.org/publications/2009-

DhakaBangladesh/09012bLanguageEducationPolicyandNationalisminBangladesh.pdf

Blackstone, A. (2012). Principles of sociological inquiry: Qualitative and quantitative methods. Saylor

Foundation.

Blake, J. E. (2008). The consequential effects of high-stakes testing on teacher pedagogy, practice and

identity: Teacher voices disrupt the priori [Doctoral dissertation: University of Tennessee].

Tennessee Research and Creative Exchange (TRACE).

Bleie, T. (2005). Tribal peoples, nationalism, and the human rights challenge: The Adivasis of

Bangladesh. Dhaka University Press Limited.

Boucher, E. (2021). Equity demerits in meritocracy education: Global pandemic, media reporting, and

stakeholder resistance to India’s high-stakes board exam stem. Comparative International

Education Society (CEIS).

240

Brantlinger, E. (2004). An application of Gramsci’ s “Who Benefits?” to high -stakes testing. Workplace:

A Journal for Academic Labor, (11), 1–40.

https://ices.library.ubc.ca/index.php/workplace/article/view/184700

Brayboy, B. M. J. (2005). Toward a tribal critical race theory in education. The Urban Review,

37(5), 425–446. DOI: 10.1007/s11256-005-0018-y

Brown, R. P. & Lee, M. N. (2005). Stigma consciousness and the race gap in college academic

achievement. Self and Identity, 4(2), 149–157.

Burnaby, B. (2008). Language policy and education in Canada. In N. H. Hornberger (Eds.), Encyclopedia

of Language and Education (pp. 331–341). Springer. DOI:10.1007/978-0-387-30424-3_24

Casanova, P.G. (1965). Internal colonialism and national development. Studies in Comparative

International Development, 1(4), 27–37.

Chakma, B. & Soren, M. (2014). Breaking the silence: Situation of Indigenous children in Bangladesh. In

M. S. Chowdhury (Ed.), Survival under threat: Human rights situation of Indigenous peoples in

Bangladesh (pp.119–132). AIPP Printing Press Co. Ltd.

Chakma, A. & Chakma, P. (2014). Present status of social, economic and cultural rights of Indigenous

Peoples. In M. S. Chowdhury (Ed.), Survival under threat: Human rights situation of Indigenous

peoples in Bangladesh (pp. 79–96). AIPP Printing Press Co. Ltd.

Chakma. S. (2015). Chakma. In M. K. Chakma, J. W. Khokshi, P. Chakma, M. Marma, & H. B. Talang

(Eds.), Bangladesher adibashi: Ethnographiyo gobeshona, prothom khondo (pp. 252–301) [The

Adibashis of Bangladesh: An ethnographic research, first volume]. Utsho Publishing.

Chakma, G. K. (2014). Land rights and alienation of Indigenous peoples. In M. S. Chowdhury (Ed.),

Survival under threat: Human rights situation of Indigenous peoples in Bangladesh (pp. 61–76).

AIPP Printing Press Co. Ltd.

Chakma, P. & Chowdhury, M. S. (Eds.) (2017). Human rights report 2017 on Indigenous people in

Bangladesh. Kapaeenge Foundation. https://iphrdefenders.net/kapaeeng-foundation-launched-

human-rights-report- 2017-indigenous-peoples-bangladesh/

Chakma, N. (2021, November 1). The Kaptai dam: A story of disfranchisement, displacement, and

destruction. International Rivers: People-Water-Life. https://www.internationalrivers.org/news/the-

kaptai-dam-a-story-of-disenfranchisement-displacement-and-destruction/

Chatterjee, P. (1993). The nation and its fragments. Princeton University Press.

Chatterjee, P. (2003). Beyond the nations? Or within? In C. M. Elliot (Ed.), Civil society and democracy:

A reader (pp. 134–144). Oxford University Press.

Chittagong Hill Tracts Treaty, (1997). http://extwprlegs1.fao.org/docs/pdf/bgd165309.pdf

Chokroborty, I. (2013). Bangladesh and global studies (class five). National Curriculum and Textbooks

Board (NCTB).

241

Chowdhury, T. M. (2016). Indigenous identity in South Asia: Making claims in the colonial Chittagong

Hill Tracts. Routledge Publications.

Chowdhury, S.J. (2020, July 10). OP-ED: Two streams of Bengali nationalism. Dhaka Tribune. Retrieved

December, 2020, from https://www.dhakatribune.com/opinion/op-ed/2020/07/10/op-ed-two-

streams-of-bengali-nationalism?fb_comment_id=1810112622445757_1860489294074756

Chowdhury, D. (2019). Map of Sylhet District [Map]. Gosylhet.wordpress.com.

https://gosylhet.wordpress.com/2019/01/30/sylhet-district-a-brief-introduction/

Chowdhury, D. (2019). Map of Moulvibazar District [Map]. Gosylhet.wordpress.com.

https://gosylhet.wordpress.com/category/about-sylhet/sylhet-division/moulvibazar/

Cizek, G. J. (2004). Achievement tests. Encyclopedia of Applied Psychology. https://www-sciencedirect-

com.proxy.queensu.ca/topics/psychology/achievement-testing

Conversi, D. (2010). Homogeneity and conflict. The Review of Politics, 72(2), pp. 337–340. Retrieved on May

8, 2021 from http://www.jstor.org/stable/20780309

Cobban, A. (1970). The Nation State and National Self-determination. Crowell.

Cohen, D. & Crabtree, B. (2006). Using qualitative methods in healthcare research: A comprehensive

guide for designing, writing, reviewing, and reporting qualitative research. Qualitative Research

Guidelines Project. http://www.qualres.org/HomeEval-3664.html.

Comaroff, J. L. (1996). Ethnicity, nationalism, and the politics of difference in an age of revolution. In E.

N. Wilmsen, & P. Mcallister (Eds.), The politics of difference: Ethnic premises in a world of power

(pp. 162–184). University of Chicago Press.

Corbin, J., & Morse, J. M. (2003). The unstructured interactive interview: Issues of reciprocity and risks

when dealing with sensitive topics. Qualitative Inquiry, 9(3), 335–354.

Corlett, S. & Mavin, S. (2018). Reflexivity and researcher positionality. In C. Cassell, A. L. Cunliffe, &

G. Grandy (Eds.), The Sage handbook of qualitative business and management research methods:

Methods and challenges (pp. 377–389). Sage Publishing.

Crenshaw, K. (2005). Mapping the margins: Intersectionality, identity politics, and violence against

women of color. In R. K. Bergen, J. L. Edleson, & C. M. Renzetti (Eds.), Violence against women:

Classic papers (pp. 282–313). Pearson Education.

Cultural Survival & American Indian Law Clinic. (2017). Observations on the state of Indigenous human

rights in Bangladesh.

https://www.culturalsurvival.org/sites/default/files/UPRBangladesh2017FINAL.pdf

Dadas, A. N. (2014). Colonial consciousness in the select novels of John Masters [Doctoral dissertation,

Shivaji University]. The Shodganga@INFLIBITNET centre, India.

Dadani, S. (2019). The politics of standardized testing in Ontario: Critically assessing the impact on

learners, teachers, and administrators [Doctoral Dissertation: University of Toronto]. TSpace

Repository, University of Toronto.

242

Darnon, C., Smeding, A., & Redersdorff, S. (2018). Belief in school meritocracy as an ideological barrier

to the promotion of equality. European Journal of Social Psychology, 48(4), 523–534.

https://doi.org/10.1002/ejsp.2347

Darling‐Hammond, L. (2007). Race, inequality, and educational accountability: The irony of “No Child

Left Behind.” Race Ethnicity and Education, 10(3), 245–260.

Das, R. J. (2020). Colonialism, Internal. International Encyclopedia of Human Geography (Second

Edition) (p. 327-334). https://doi-org.proxy.queensu.ca/10.1016/B978-0-08-102295-5.10831-5

Dearnley, C. (2005). A reflection on the use of semi-structured interviews. Nurse Researcher, 13(1), 19–

28. DOI: 10.7748/nr2005.07.13.1.19.c5997

Debnath, M. K. (2010). Living on the edge: The predicament of a rural Indigenous Santal community in

Bangladesh [Doctoral dissertation, University of Toronto]. TSpace Repository, University of

Toronto.

Delpit, L. (1988). The silenced dialogue: Power and pedagogy in educating other people’s

children. Harvard Educational Review, 58(3), 280–299.

De Silva, K. M. (2001). Ethnicity and conflict in South Asia. International Studies, 38(1), 53–77.

Dinnen, S. (2007). The twin processes of nation-building and state-building. SSGM Briefing Notes 1.

https://openresearch-repository.anu.edu.au/handle/1885/141454

Directorate of Secondary and Higher Education (DSHE). (2021). beshorkari shikha protishthaner (school o college) jonobolkathamo o M.P.O. nitimala-2021[The manpower infrastructure and M.P.O. policies of non-government educational institutions (school and college)]. http://www.dshe.gov.bd/site/notices/635005b8-a231-477f-a21e-5992b0e9713d/%E0%A6%B8%E0%A7%8D%E0%A6%95%E0%A7%81%E0%A6%B2-%E0%A6%95%E0%A6%B2%E0%A7%87%E0%A6%9C%E0%A7%87%E0%A6%B0-%E0%A6%9C%E0%A6%A8%E0%A6%AC%E0%A6%B2-

%E0%A6%95%E0%A6%BE%E0%A6%A0%E0%A6%BE%E0%A6%AE%E0%A7%8B-%E0%A6%93-%E0%A6%8F%E0%A6%AE%E0%A6%AA%E0%A6%BF%E0%A6%93-%E0%A6%A8%E0%A7%80%E0%A6%A4%E0%A6%BF%E0%A6%AE%E0%A6%BE%E0%A6%B2%E0%A6%BE-%E0%A7%A8%E0%A7%A6%E0%A7%A8%E0%A7%A7-

Doha, S. (2015). Public examination system. Banglapedia: National Encyclopedia of Bangladesh.

https://en.banglapedia.org/index.php/Public_Examination_System

Downing, K. J. (2009). Self-efficacy and metacognitive development. International Journal of Learning:

Annual Review, 16(4), 185–200. DOI:10.18848/1447-9494/CGP/v16i04/46214

Ekoh, I. (2012). High-stakes standardized testing in Nigeria and the erosion of a Critical African

Worldview [Master’s Thesis, University of Toronto]. TSpace Repository, University of Toronto.

Endangered Language Alliance. (2012). Bangladesh: Some endangered language alliance.

https://web.archive.org/web/20120306051731/http://endangeredlanguagealliance.org/main/wp-

content/uploads/2010/06/BangladeshEL.pdf

243

England, K. V. (1994). Getting personal: Reflexivity, positionality, and feminist research. The

Professional Geographer, 46(1), 80–89. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.0033-0124.1994.00080.x

Fanon, F. (2008). Black skin, white masks (R. Philcox, Trans.). Grove Press. (Original work published in

1952).

Ferdous, Z. (2011, September 24). A chat with a King: Up close and personal with Chakma Raja Barrister

Debashish Roy. The Daily Star. https://www.thedailystar.net/magazine/2011/09/03/interview.htm

Fforde, C., Bamblett, L., Lovett, R., Gorringe, S., & Fogarty, B. (2013). Discourse, deficit and identity:

Aboriginality, the race paradigm and the language of representation in contemporary

Australia. Media International Australia, 149(1), 162–173.

Flick, U., Von Kardorff, E., & Steinke, I. (2004). What is qualitative research? An introduction to the

field. In U. Flick, E. von Kardorff, and I. Steinke (Eds.), A companion to qualitative research (B.

Jenner, trans., pp. 3–11). Sage Publications. (Original work published in 2000).

Franks, M. (2002). Feminisms and cross-ideological feminist social research: Standpoint, situatedness and

positionality⸺Developing cross-ideological feminist research. Journal of International Women’s

Studies, 3(2), 38–50. http://vc.bridgew.edu/jiws/vol3/iss2/3

Freeman, M., Mathison, S., & Wilcox, K. (2012). “Critical thinking” and state mandated testing: The

collision of state rhetoric and teacher beliefs. Critical Education, 3(5), 1–18.

https://doi.org/10.14288/ce.v3i5.182342

Garcia, C. (2015, August 24). We bet you don’t know why the Indian census was created. Socialcops.

https://blog.socialcops.com/intelligence/we-bet-you-dont-know-why-indian-census-was-created/

Garrison, M. J. (2019). Standardized testing, innovation, and social reproduction. In M.A. Peters & R.

Heraud (Eds.), Encyclopedia of Educational Innovation (pp. 1–7). Springer Nature Singapore Pte.\

Ltd. DOI:10.1007/978-981-13-2262-4_118-1

Gellner, E. (2008). Nations and nationalism. Cornell University Press.

Gerharz, E. (2015). What is in a name? Indigenous identity and the politics of denial in

Bangladesh. Südasien-Chronik-South Asia Chronicle 4, 115–137.

Ghender, F. (2016). The key role of education in the formation of nations. Agora Psycho-

Pragmatica, 10(2), 132–139.

Ghosh, S. (2012). Activating citizenship-the nation? Use of education to create notions of identity and

citizenship in south Asia. International Journal of Progressive Education, 8(3), 128–139.

Giddin. A. (1985). Nation-state and violence (vol. 2). Polity Press.

Gooding, Y. (2001). The relationship between parental educational level and academic success of college

freshmen [Doctoral Dissertation, Iowa State University]. Digital Repository, Iowa State University.

244

Government of Canada, (2018). TCPS 2 (2018)—The latest edition of Tri-Council Policy Statement :

Eth ical Conduct for Research Involving Humans . Panel on Research Ethics Navigating the

Ethics of Human Research. h ttps://ethics.gc.ca/eng/policy-polit ique_tcps2-eptc2_2018.h tml

Grant, C. A. (2004). Oppression, privilege, and high-stakes testing. Multicultural Perspectives, 6(1), 3–

11. https://doi.org/10.1207/S15327892mcp0601_2

Hart, D., & Kempf, A. (2018). Public attitudes towards education in Ontario 2018: The 20th OISE survey

of educational issues. Ontario Institute for Studies in Education of the University of Toronto

(OISE).

Harvey, L. (2004-21). Analytic quality glossary. Quality Research International.

http://www.qualityresearchinternational.com/glossary/

Hayes, C. J. H. (1926). Nationalism as a religion. Panarchy.

https://www.panarchy.org/hayes/nationalism.html

Hechter, M. (1975). Internal colonialism: The Celtic fringe in British national development. University of

California Press.

Heilig, J. V. & Darling-Hammond, L. (2008). Accountability Texas-style: The progress and learning of

urban minority students in a high-stakes testing context. Educational Evaluation and Policy

Analysis, 30(2), 75–110. DOI: 10.3102/0162373708317689

Herman, J., Dreyfus, J., & Golan, S. (1990). Standards and student testing (CSE Technical report 327).

University of California, Los Angeles, National Center for Research on Evaluation, Standards, and

Student Testing (CRESST).

Heubert, J. P., & Hauser, R. M., (Eds.) (1999). High stakes: Testing for tracking, promotion, and

graduation. National Academy Press.

Heale, R., & Twycross, A. (2018). What is a case study? Evidence-Based Nursing, 21, 7–8.

Hill, G. & Chakma, K. (2007-2008). Writing post-nationalist histories within the walls of nationalism:

The case of Indigenous peoples of the Chittagong Hill Tracts of Bangladesh. Journal of the

Oriental society of Australia (JOSA), 30-40, 250–63.

Hicks, J. (2004). On the application of theories of “Internal Colonialism” to Inuit Societies. Conference

Proceeding, Canadian Political Science Association, Winnipeg, Canada, pp. 1–20.

High-stakes tests (2014, August 18). In The Glossary of Education Reform.

https://www.edglossary.org/high-stakes-testing/

Hobsbawm, E. J. (1994). Nations and nationalism since 1780: Program, myth, and reality. Cambridge

University Press.

Hodder-Williams, R. (2001). Colonialism: Political Aspects. In Neil J. Smelser and Paul B. Baltes (Eds.),

245

International Encyclopedia of the Social & Behavioral Sciences (p. 2237-2240).

https://doi.org/10.1016/B0-08-043076-7/01250-X

Hossain, A. A. (2015). Contested national identity and political crisis in Bangladesh: Historical analysis

of the dynamics of Bangladeshi society and politics. Asian Journal of Political Science, 23(3), 366–

396.

Hossain, N., Subrahmanian, R., & Kabeer, N. (2002, October). The politics of educational expansion in

Bangladesh (IDS Working Paper 167). Institute of Development Studies.

Horton, J., Macve, R., & Struyven, G. (2004). Qualitative research: Experiences in using semi-structured

interviews. In C. Humphrey and B. Lee (Eds.), The real-life guide to accounting research: A

behind-the-scene view of using qualitative research methods (pp. 339–357). Elsevier.

IWGIA (2012). Militarization in the Chittagong Hill Tracts, Bangladesh: The slow demise of the regions’

Indigenous Peoples (IWGIA report 14). IWGIA, Organizing Committee CHT Campaign, and

Shimin Gaikou Centre.

https://www.iwgia.org/images/publications/0577_Igia_report_14_optimized.pdf

Jamali, R. (2015). National identity, crises of legitimacy and penetration of social networks. Online Arab

Spring: Social Media and Fundamental Change (p. 11-20). https://doi-

org.proxy.queensu.ca/10.1016/B978-1-84334-757-6.00002-4

Jones, B. D. (2007). The unintended outcomes of high-stakes testing. Journal of Applied School

Psychology, 23(2), 65–86. https://doi.org/10.1300/J370v23n02_05

Kabir, M. G. (1994). Changing face of nationalism: The case of Bangladesh. Dhaka University Press

Limited.

Kabir, M. M. (2009). “Let’s go back to go forward”: History and practice of schooling in the Indigenous

communities in Chittagong Hill Tracts, Bangladesh [Master Thesis: University of Tromsø]. Uit

Munin, The Arctic University of Norway.

Kabir, M. M., & Nath, S. R. (2005, December). Needs of ethnic minority students for learning

improvement in secondary schools. BRAC Research and Evaluation Division (RED).

http://hdl.handle.net/10361/13233

Kamenka, E. (1973). Political nationalism⸺the Evolution of the idea. In E. Kamenka (Ed.), Nationalism:

The nature and evolution of an idea (pp. 2–22). Australian National University Press.

Kanu, Y. (2003). Curriculum as cultural practice: Postcolonial imaginations. Journal of the Canadian

Association for Curriculum Studies, 1(1), 67–81.

Kanu, Y. (2006). Getting them through the college pipeline: Critical elements of instruction influencing

school success among Native Canadian high school students. Journal of Advanced

Academics, 18(1), 116–145.

246

Kapaeenge Foundation (2015, August 21). Chittagong Hill Tracts: 228 primary schools threatened with

closure due to lack of funding. Underrepresented Nations and Peoples Organization.

https://unpo.org/article/18498

Kapoor, D. (2016). Postcolonialism, development, and education. In M. A. Peters (Ed.), Encyclopedia of

educational philosophy and theory (pp. 1–7). Springer Science+ Business Media. DOI

10.1007/978-981-287-532-7_188-1.

Kearns, L. L. (2011). High-stakes standardized testing & marginalized youth: An examination of the

impact on those who fail. Canadian Journal of Education, 34(2), 112–130.

Kearns, L.-L. (2016). The construction of “illiterate” and “literate” youth: The effects of high -stakes

standardized literacy testing. Race Ethnicity and Education, 19(1), 121–140.

https://doi.org/10.1080/13613324.2013.843520

Kellas, J. G. (1998). The politics of nationalism and ethnicity. Macmillan Education.

https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-349-26863-4

Kerstetter, K. (2012). Insider, outsider, or somewhere in between: The impact of researchers’ identities on

the community-based research process. Journal of Rural Social Sciences, 27(2), 99–117.

Khan, R., Begum, N., Akbor, S., Masuduzzaman., Shekhor, S., Jibran, S. (2013). Maddhyomik bangla

shahittyo (Class 9-10 textbook). National Curriculum & Textbook Board.

Khatun, S., & Sumon, M. (2017). Introduction. In S. Khatun & M. Sumon (Eds.), Adibashi ache?....Ache!

[Are there any Adibashis? Yes, there are.] (pp. 11–24). Sangbed Printing Publication.

Khaing, M. M. (2020, July 15). Why are Indigenous students falling behind? The Daily Star.

https://www.thedailystar.net/opinion/news/why-are-indigenous-students-falling-behind-1947109

Khondker, H. H. (2016). Nationalism and the “politics of national identity.” In B. D’Costa & M. S.

Rahman (Eds.), Routledge handbook of contemporary Bangladesh (pp. 48–59). Routledge.

Khokon, S. (2013). Adibashi myth ebong onnanyo [The Adibashi myth and others]. Bangla Bazar.

Khokon, S. (2019, August 15). Khudro nri goshthir bhashar biponnota [Extinction of languages of small

ethnic groups]. Salekkhokon.com.

https://www.salekkhokon.net/2019/08/%e0%a6%95%e0%a7%8d%e0%a6%b7%e0%a7%81%e0%

a6%a6%e0%a7%8d%e0%a6%b0-%e0%a6%a8%e0%a7%83-

%e0%a6%97%e0%a7%8b%e0%a6%b7%e0%a7%8d%e0%a6%a0%e0%a7%80%e0%a6%b0-

%e0%a6%ad%e0%a6%be%e0%a6%b7%e0%a6%be%e0%a6%b0/

Kim, J. (2016). Narrative data analysis and interpretation. In J. Kim (Ed.), Understanding narrative

inquiry (pp. 184–225). SAGE Publications. https://www.doi.org/10.4135/9781071802861

Kim, C. H., & Choi, Y. B. (2017). How meritocracy is defined today: Contemporary aspects of

meritocracy. Economics & Sociology, 10(1), 112–121.

Kingsbury, B. (1998). “Indigenous Peoples” in International Law: A constructivist approach to the Asian

controversy. American Journal of International Law, 92(3), 414–457.

247

Kiss, Z. and Park, A. (2014). National identity: Exploring Britishness. In Zsolt K. Caroline, B. and

Alison, P. (Eds.), British Social Attitudes: the 31st Report, (p. 2-3). London: NatCen Social

Research.

Klenowski, V. (2009). Australian Indigenous students: Addressing equity issues in assessment. Teaching

Education, 20(1), 77–93.

Kohn, H. (1994) Western and Eastern nationalism. In J. Hutchinson & A. D. Smith (Eds.), Nationalism

(pp. 162–165). Oxford University Press.

Kohn, A. (2000). Standardized testing and its victims. Education Week, 20(4), 46–47.

Kovach, M. (2010). Conversational method in Indigenous research. First Peoples Child & Family

Review, 5(1), 40–48.

Koyama, J. P., & Cofield, C. (2013). The theatre of competing globally: Disguising racial achievement

patterns with test-driven accountabilities. The Urban Review, 45(3), 273–289.

Labov, W. (2006). The social stratification of English in New York City. Cambridge University Press.

Ladson-Billing, G. & Tate IV, W. (1995). Towards a critical race theory of education. Teachers College

Record, 97(1), 47–68.

Ladson-Billing, G (1998). Just what is critical race theory and what’s it doing in a nice field like

education? International Journal of Qualitative Studies in Education, 11(1), 7–24. DOI:

10.1080/095183998236863.

Ladson-Billings, G. (2006). From the achievement gap to the education debt: Understanding achievement

in US schools. Educational Researcher, 35(7), 3–12.

Lan Ong, S. (2010). Assessment profile of Malaysia: high‐stakes external examinations dominate.

Assessment in Education: Principles, Policy & Practice, 17(1), 91–103.

Lash, C. L. (2018). Making Americans: Schooling, diversity, and assimilation in the twenty-first

century. The Russell Sage Foundation Journal of the Social Sciences, 4(5), 99–117.

Lattimore, R. (2001). The wrath of high-stakes tests. The Urban Review, 33(1), 57–67.

Le Pichon Vorstman, E., De Swart, H., Ceginskas, V., & Van Den Bergh, H. (2009). Language learning

experience in school context and metacognitive awareness of multilingual children. International

Journal of Multilingualism, 6(3), 258–280.

Lipsey, D. (2014). The meretriciousness of meritocracy. The Political Quarterly, 85(1), 37–42.

Ljunggren, C. (2014). Citizenship education and national identity: Teaching ambivalence. Policy Futures

in Education, 12(1), 34–47.

Lorenzo, R. (2018). “The testing served its purpose”: High-stakes testing as a method of categorization

and control in young adult dystopian novels [Master’s Thesis, Illinois State University]. ProQuest

Dissertation Publishing.

248

Loflin, J, (2013, April 9). Past and present: Eugenics, standardized tests, and the politics of school

reform—Hoosier connections and challenges. Schools Matter.

http://www.schoolsmatter.info/2013/04/past-and-present-eugenics-standardized.html

Longhurst, R. (2003). Semi-structured interviews and focus groups. Key Methods in Geography, 3(2),

143–156.

Lyons, J. (1968). Introduction to theoretical linguistics (Vol. 510). Cambridge University Press.

Madaus, G. F., & Clarke, M. (2001). The adverse impact of high stakes testing on minority students:

Evidence from 100 years of test data. In G. Orfield and M. Kornhaber (Eds.), Raising standards or

raising barriers? Inequality and high stakes testing in public education (pp. 1–50). The Century

Foundation.

Mahat-Shamir, M., Neimeyer, R. A., & Pitcho-Prelorentzos, S. (2019). Designing in-depth semi-

structured interviews for revealing meaning reconstruction after loss. Death Studies,45(2),1–8.

DOI: 10.1080/07481187.2019.1617388

Mamud, H., Hoque, M. D., & Masuduzzaman. (2013). Amar bangla boi (class 4 textbook). National

Curriculum & Textbook Board.

Mamud, H., Hoque, M. D., & Masuduzzaman, (2013). Amar bangla boi (class 5 textbook). National

Curriculum & Textbook Board.

Hoque, M., Adhikari, N., Ghosh, B., Khan, R., Hoque, S. A., Akbor, S., Shekhor, S., Mannan, S. A.,

Jibran, S., Ahsan, S. J. (2013). Charupath (class 6 textbook). National Curriculum & Textbook

Board.

Hoque, M., Adhikari, N., Ghosh, B., Khan, R., Hoque, S. A., Akbor, S., Shekhor, S., Mannan, S. A.,

Jibran, S., Ahsan, S. J. (2013). Shoptoborna (class 7 textbook). National Curriculum & Textbook

Board.

Hoque, M., Adhikari, N., Ghosh, B., Khan, R., Hoque, S. A., Akbor, S., Shekhor, S., Mannan, S. A.,

Jibran, S., Ahsan, S. J. (2013). Shahittyo konika (class 8 textbook). National Curriculum &

Textbook Board.

Manik, A. (2019). The students of Rangamati did the worst in all three hill tract districts.

CHTTimes24.com., http://www.chttimes24.com/archives/67808

Martins, P. H. (2018). Internal colonialism, postcolonial criticism, and social theory. Revue du MAUSS

permanente (online), 11. http://www.journaldumauss.net/./?Internal-Colonialism-Postcolonial-

Criticism-and-Social-Theory

Marchant, G. J. (2004). What is at stake with high stakes testing? A discussion of issues and research. The

Ohio Journal of Science, 104(2), 2–7.

Mathiesen, T. (1983). The future of control systems: The case of Norway. In D. Garland & P. Young

(Eds.), The power to punish: Contemporary penalty and social analysis (pp. 130–145). Humanities

Press.

249

McCarty, T. L. (2009). The impact of high‐stakes accountability policies on Native American learners:

Evidence from research. Teaching Education, 20(1), 7–29.

McCarty, T. L. (2018). So that any child may succeed: Indigenous pathways toward justice and the

promise of Brown. Educational Researcher, 47(5), 271–283.

McConaughey, C. (2000). Rethinking Indigenous education: Culturalism, colonialism, and the

politics of knowing. Post Pressed.

McNeil, L. M. (2005). Faking equity: High-stakes testing and the education of Latino youth. In A.

Valenzuela (Ed.), Leaving children behind: How “Texas-style” accountability fails Latino youth

(pp. 57–111). State University of New York Press.

McIntosh, M. J., & Morse, J. M. (2015). Situating and constructing diversity in semi-structured

interviews. Global Qualitative Nursing Research, 2.

https://doiorg.proxy.queensu.ca/10.1177/2333393615597674

Merriam, S. B., Johnson-Bailey, J., Lee, M. Y., Kee, Y., Ntseane, G., & Muhamad, M. (2001). Power and

positionality: Negotiating insider/outsider status within and across cultures. International Journal

of Lifelong Education, 20(5), 405–416.

Menken, K., & Kleyn, T. (2010). The long-term impact of subtractive schooling in the educational

experiences of secondary English language learners. International Journal of Bilingual Education

and Bilingualism, 13(4), 399–417.

Merga, M. K. (2020). “Fallen through the cracks”: Teachers’ perceptions of barriers faced by struggling

literacy learners in secondary school. English in Education, 54(4), 371–395.

Minkler, M. (2004). Ethical challenges for the “outside” researcher in community-based participatory

research. Health Education & Behavior, 31(6), 684–697.

Minkler, M. (2005). Community-based research partnerships: Challenges and opportunities. Journal of

Urban Health, 82(2), ii3–ii12.

Ministry of Education (Government of Bangladesh). (2010). National education policy 2010.

https://reliefweb.int/sites/reliefweb.int/files/resources/02.National-Education-Policy-2010-

English.pdf

Ministry of Education (Government of Bangladesh). (2021). Beshorkari shikha protishthaner (school o

college) jonobolkathamo o M.P.O. nitimala-2021 [The manpower infrastructure and M.P.O.

policies of non-government educational institutions (school and college)-2021]. Chrome

extension://efaidnbmnnnibpcajpcglclefindmkaj/viewer.html?pdfurl=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.shed.g

ov.bd%2Fsites%2Fdefault%2Ffiles%2Ffiles%2Fshed.portal.gov.bd%2Fnotices%2F67b594ed_b6f

6_47af_a566_3e71c11b761c%2F121.1_compressed.pdf&clen=8217356&chunk=true

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

University Press Ltd.

Mohsin, A. (2000). Identity, politics and hegemony. Identity, Culture and Politics, 1(1), 78–88.

250

Mohsin, A. (2003). Language, identity, and the state in Bangladesh. In M. E. Brown & S. Ganguly (Eds.),

Fighting words: Language policy and ethnic relations in Asia (pp.81–103). The MIT Press.

Mohsin, A. (2010). Language identity and state. In N. Mohaiemen, H. S. Ahmed, F. M. Ahmed,

J.Rahman, & T. Sajjad (Eds.), Between ashes and hopes: Chittagong Hill Tracts in the blind spot of

Bangladesh nationalism (pp.157–167). Dristipat Wirters’ Collective.

Mohsin, A. (2013). The two meanings of “Bangladeshi.” In M. Guhathakurta & W. van Schendel (Eds.),

The Bangladesh reader: History, culture, politics (pp. 332–333). Duke University Press.

Moses, S., & Nanna, M. J. (2007). The testing culture and the persistence of high stakes testing reforms.

Education and Culture, 23(1), pp. 55–72.

Moser, S. (2008). Personality: A new positionality? Area, 40(3), 383–392.

Morcom, L. A. (2017). Self-esteem and cultural identity in Aboriginal language immersion

kindergarteners. Journal of Language, Identity & Education, 16(6), 365–380.

Morcom, L. A., & Roy, S. (2017). Learning through language: Academic success in an Indigenous

language immersion kindergarten. Journal of American Indian Education, 56(2), 57–80.

Muhammad, M., Wallerstein, N., Sussman, A. L., Avila, M., Belone, L., & Duran, B. (2015). Reflections

on researcher identity and power: The impact of positionality on community based participatory

research (CBPR) processes and outcomes. Critical Sociology, 41(7–8), 1045–1063.

Mullen, C. A. (2020). De/colonization: Perspectives on/by Indigenous populations in global Canadian

contexts. International Journal of Leadership in Education, 23(6), 671–690.

Murmu, K. S. (2020, July 28). Budget allocations must target different indigenous populations

specifically. The Daily Star. https://www.thedailystar.net/opinion/news/budget-allocations-must-

target-different-indigenous-populations-specifically-1937145

Murray, A. (2020). Colonialism. International Encyclopedia of Human Geography (Second Edition) (p.

315-326). https://doi-org.proxy.queensu.ca/10.1016/B978-0-08-102295-5.10804-2

Nafsadh. (2014). Location of Sylhet District in Bangladesh [Map]. Wikimedia Commons.

https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:BD_Sylhet_District_locator_map.svg

Nafsadh. (2014). Location of Moulvibazar District in Bangladesh [Map]. Wikipedia.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moulvibazar_District

Naidoo, K. A. (2006). An Investigation into the factors exerting a subtractive influence on Telegu and its

culture [Doctoral dissertation, University of KwaZulu-Natal, Durban]. ResearchSpace, University

of KwaZulul-Natal.

Nahar, A. & Tripura, P. (2017). Khudrora nogonny thakbe, na ogrogonnyo hobe? [Should the minority

remain inconsiderable? Or should they be considered distinguished? In S. Khatun. & M. Sumon

(Eds.), Adibashi ache?....Ache! [Are there any Adibashis? Yes, there are.] (pp. 11–24). Sangbed

Printing Publication.

251

Nandy, A. (1988). The politics of secularism and recovery of religious tolerance. Alternatives, 13(2),

177–194.

Nandy, A. (2005). The idea of South Asia: A personal note on post-Banding blues. Inter-Asia Cultural

Studies, 6(4), 541–545.

Narayan, K. (1993) How native is a ‘‘native’’ anthropologist? American Anthropologist, 95, 671–686.

Nasreen, M., Maleque, A., Chakraborty, I., & Akhter, S. (2013). Bangladesh and Global Studies (class 3

textbook). National Curriculum and Textbook Board (NCTB).

Nasreen, M., Maleque, A., Chakrabarty, I., & Akhter, S. (2013). Bangladesh and Global Studies (class 4

textbook). National Curriculum and Textbook Board (NCTB).

Nasreen, M., Maleque, A., Chakrabarty, I., & Akhter, S. (2013). Bangladesh and Global Studies (class 5

textbook). National Curriculum and Textbook Board (NCTB).

National Curriculum & Textbook Board (NCTB). (2012). National curriculum (class 1–12).

http://www.nctb.gov.bd/

National Curriculum & Textbook Board (NCTB). (2020). National curriculum framework 2020.

http://www.nctb.gov.bd/site/page/2d4a5fec-c328-4314-8992-bdde78bc44c6/-

Nath, S. R. (2009). Educational marginalization in Bangladesh (2010/ED/EFA/MRT/PI/15). United

Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization.

http://unesdoc.unesco.org/images/0018/001865/186598e.pdf.

Natriello, G., & Pallas, A. (2001). The development and impact of high-stakes testing. In G. Orfield & M.

Kornhaber (Eds.), Raising standards or raising barriers? Inequality and high stakes testing in

public education (pp. 19–38). Century Foundation Press.

Nguyen, T. T. T., & Hamid, M. O. (2017). Subtractive schooling and identity: A case study of ethnic

minority students in Vietnam. Journal of Language, Identity, and Education, 16(3), 142–156.

https://doi.org/10.1080/15348458.2017.1286990.

Nichols, S. L., & Berliner, D. C. (2007). Collateral damage: How high-stakes testing corrupts America’s

schools. Harvard Education Press.

Noor, K. B. M. (2008). Case study: A strategic research methodology. American Journal of Applied

Sciences, 5(11),1602–1604.

Oomen, T. K. (1999). Conceptualizing nation and nationality in South Asia. Sociological Bulletin, 48(1–

2), 1–18. https://doi-org.proxy.queensu.ca/10.1177/0038022919990101

Osmany, H. S. (1992). Bangladeshi nationalism: History of dialectics and dimensions. Dhaka University

Press Limited.

Patwari, M., Hossain, K. M., Shahnewaz, A. K. M., Hossain, A. M. D., Akhter, S., Haq, F., Das, U. K.,

Hoque, A., & Imam, S. S. (2013). Bangladesh and global studies (class 6 textbook). National

Curriculum and Textbooks Board (NCTB).

252

Patwari, M., Hossain, K. M., Shahnewaz, A. K. M., Hossain, A. M. D., Akhter, S., Haq, F., Das, U. K.,

Hoque, A., & Imam, S. S. (2013). Bangladesh and global studies (class 7 textbook). National

Curriculum and Textbooks Board (NCTB).

Patwari, M., Hossain, K. M., Shahnewaz, A. K. M., Hossain, A. M. D., Akhter, S., Haq, F., Das, U. K.,

Hoque, A., & Imam, S. S. (2013). Bangladesh and global studies (class 8 textbook). National

Curriculum and Textbooks Board (NCTB).

Patwari, M., Husain, S. A., Begum, A., Dewan, R. Z., & Das, U. K. (2013). Bangladesh and global

studies (class 9–10 textbook). National Curriculum and Textbook Board (NCTB).

Phadnis, U. & Ganguly, R. (2001). Ethnicity and nation-building in South Asia. Sage Publications.

Phillipson, R. (1992). Linguistic imperialism. Oxford University Press.

Porsanger, J. (2004). An essay about Indigenous methodology. Nordlit, 8(1),105–120.

Porsanger, J. (2011). The problematization of the dichotomy of modernity and tradition in Indigenous and

Sami contexts. Working With Traditional Knowledge: Communities, Institutions, Information

Systems, Law and Ethics, 1(2011), 225–252.

Postma, J. (2008). Balancing power among academic and community partners: The case of el Proyecto

Bienestar. Journal of Empirical Research on Human Research Ethics, 3(2), 17–32.

Poulsen, J., & Hewson, K. (2013–2014). Standardized testing: Fair or not . EssayHub.net.

https://essayhub.net/essays/standardized-testing-fair-or-not

Preston, D. R. (2013). Linguistic insecurity forty years later. Journal of English Linguistics, 41(4), 304–

331.

Qazi, M. H., & Shah, Q. (2019). A study of Bangladesh’s secondary school curriculum textbooks in

students’ national identity construction in an overseas context. Asia Pacific Journal of Education,

39(4), 501–516. DOI: 10.1080/02188791.2019.1671806

Rafi, M., & Chowdhury, A. (2001). Counting the hills: Assessing development in Chittagong hill tracts.

Dhaka University Press Limited.

Rafi, M. (2017). Small Ethnic Groups of Bangladesh: A Mapping Exercise. Panjeree Publications Ltd.

Rahman, N. U. (2016, April 7). Bangladeshe Adibashi “ache” bonam “nai” bitorko [The debate over

whether there are any Adibashis in Bangladesh or not]. The Daily Bhorer Kagoj.

https://www.bhorerkagoj.com/print-edition/2016/04/07/83390.php

Rahman, M., Hamzah, M. I. M., Meerah, T., & Rahman, M. (2010). Historical development of secondary

education in Bangladesh: Colonial period to 21st century. International Education Studies, 3(1),

114–125.

253

Rahman, M. (2019, July 17). Panch bochore sorboccho GPA-5 chottogram shikha boarde (The highest

GPA 5 in the last five years is in the CTG education board). Banglanews24.com.

https://www.banglanews24.com/daily-chittagong/news/bd/728404.details

Reaser, J., & Adger, C. T. (2008). Vernacular language varieties in educational settings: Research and

development. In B. Spolsky & F. M. Hult (Eds.), The handbook of educational linguistics (pp. 161–

173). Blackwell Publishing.

Riessman, C. K. (2008). Narrative methods for the human sciences. Sage Publications.

Reichelt, M., Collischon, M., & Eberl, A. (2019). School tracking and its role in social reproduction:

Reinforcing educational inheritance and the direct effects of social origin. The British Journal of

Sociology, 70(4), 1323–1348.

Rejai, M., & Enloe, C. H. (1969). Nation-states and state-nations. International Studies Quarterly, 13(2),

140–158.

Ross, S. J. (2008). Language testing in Asia: Evolution, innovation, and policy challenges. Language

Testing, 25(1), 5–13.

Ross, E. W., Mathison, S., & Vinson, K. D. (2014). Social studies education and standards-based

education reform in North America: Curriculum standardization, high-stakes testing, and

resistance. Revista Latinoamericana de Estudios Educativos (Colombia), 10(1), 19–48.

Roscigno, V. J., & Ainsworth-Darnell, J. W. (1999). Race and cultural/educational resources: Inequality,

micro-political processes, and achievement returns. Sociology of Education, 72(3), 158–178.

Roy, P., & Promila, M. (2014). Quest for security, equality, equity, and integration: Locus of Indigenous

women in Bangladesh. In M. S. Chowdhury (Ed.), Survival under threat: Human rights situation of

Indigenous peoples in Bangladesh (pp. 99–117). AIPP Printing Press Co. Ltd.

Roy, R. C. K. (2000). Land rights of the Indigenous peoples of the Chittagong Hill Tracts, Bangladesh

(No. 99). IWGIA.

Roy, R. (2012). Country’s technical notes on Indigenous people’s issues: Peoples Republic of

Bangladesh. IFAD.

Rudolph, S. (2013). Whiteness in education: How are notions of educational success in Australia

influenced by images of whiteness? In C. Behar & A. Chung (Eds.), Images of Whiteness (pp. 207–

220). Inter-Disciplinary Press.

Runnel, V. & Andrew, C. (2013). Community-based research decision-making: Experiences and factors

affecting participation. International Journal of Community Research and Engagement, 6(2013),

22–37. https://doi.org/10.5130/ijcre.v6i1.3257

Rycroft, D. J., & Dasgupta, S. (2011). Introduction. In D. J. Rycroft & S. Dasgupta (Eds.), The politics of

belonging in India: Becoming Adivasi (pp. 1–13). Routledge Publishing.

Sabhlok, S. G. (2002). Nationalism and ethnicity and the nation‐state in South Asia. Nationalism and Ethnic

Politics, 8(3), 24–42.

254

Sacks, P. (2000). Standardized minds: The high price of America's testing culture and what we can do to

change it. Da Capo Press.

Said, E. (1979). Orientalism. Vintage.

Sarker, P., & Davey, G. (2009). Exclusion of indigenous children from primary education in the Rajshahi

Division of northwestern Bangladesh. International Journal of Inclusive Education, 13(1), 1–11.

DOI: 10.1080/13603110701201775

Schuler, M. E. (2012). Political judgement, freedom of thought and standardized testing: A critical

enquiry [Doctoral Dissertation: University of Missouri-St. Louis]. Institutional Repository Library,

University of Missouri-St. Louis.

Scott, Z. (2007). Literature review on state-building. R C Governance and Social Development Resource

Centre. University of Birmingham.

Seton-Watson, H. (1964). Nationalism⸺Old and new. Sydney University Press.

Shaha, P. S., (2015, August 8). Aaj antorjatik adibashi dibosh: adibashira ekhono pichiye [Today is

International Indigenous people day: Adibashis are still lagging behind]. The Daily Prothom Alo.

https://www.prothomalo.com/bangladesh/%E0%A6%86%E0%A6%A6%E0%A6%BF%E0%A6%

AC%E0%A6%BE%E0%A6%B8%E0%A7%80%E0%A6%B0%E0%A6%BE-

%E0%A6%8F%E0%A6%96%E0%A6%A8%E0%A7%87%E0%A6%BE-

%E0%A6%AA%E0%A6%BF%E0%A6%9B%E0%A6%BF%E0%A7%9F%E0%A7%87

Shin, S. J. (2010). “What about me? I’m not like Chinese but I’m not like American”: Heritage language

learning and identity of mixed heritage adults. The Journal of Language, Identity, and Education,

9(3), 203–219.

Shohamy, E. (2006). Language policy: Hidden agendas and new approaches. Routledge.

Shohopathi. (2014–2021). Result analysis (2017–2019). https://www.sohopathi.com/result-analysis/

Shoemaker, N. (2015, Oct 1). A typology of colonialism. Perspectives on History. Retrieved from:

https://www.historians.org/publications-and-directories/perspectives-on-history/october-2015/a-

typology-of-colonialism

Shourav, S., Shafi, A. H. and Chakma, S. (2013). Language and Culture of Minority Ethnic Groups (class

six textbook). National Curriculum and Textbooks Board (NCTB).

Shourav, S., Shafi, A. H. and Chakma, S. (2013). Language and Culture of Minority Ethnic Groups (class

seven textbook). National Curriculum and Textbooks Board (NCTB).

Shui, D. P. (2008). “How are we doing?” Exploring aboriginal representation in texts and aboriginal

programs in Surrey secondary schools [Doctoral Dissertation: University of British Columbia].

Library and Archives Canada.

255

Singer, S. M. (2016, March 15). Blinded by pseudoscience: Standardized testing is modern day eugenics.

Gadfly on the wall blog. https://gadflyonthewallblog.com/2016/03/15/blinded-by-pseudoscience-

standardized-testing-is-modern-day-eugenics/

Sinho, R. (2015). Manipuri. In M. K. Chakma, J. W. Khokshi, P. Chakma, M. Marma, & H. B. Talang

(Eds.), Bangladesher adibashi: ethnographiyo gobeshona, ditiyo khondo (pp. 347–404) [The

Adibashis of Bangladesh: An ethnographic research, second volume]. Utsho Publishing.

Skaria, A. (1997). Shades of wildness tribe, caste, and gender in Western India. The Journal of Asian

Studies, 56(3), 726–745. http://www.jstor.org/stable/2659607

Skutnabb-Kangas, T. (1981). Bilingualism or Not: The Education of Minorities (Vol. 7). Clevedon:

Multilingual Matters.

Skutnabb-Kangas, T., (1988). Multilingualism and education for minority children. In Skutnabb-

Kangas, T & Cummins, J. (Eds.), Minority education: From shame to struggle (vol. 40).

Multilingual Matters.

Skutnabb-Kangas, T. (2000). Linguistic genocide in education—or worldwide diversity and human

rights? Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc.

Skutnabb-Kangas, T., & Phillipson, R. (1995). Linguicide and Linguicism. In R. Phillipson & T.

Skutnabb-Kangas (Eds.), Papers in European language policy (pp. 83–91). ROLIG papir 53.

Universitetscenter, Lingvistgruppen.

Smith, L. T. (2008). Decolonizing methodologies: Research and Indigenous peoples. Zed Books Ltd.

Smith, A. D. (1991). The nation: Invented, imagined, reconstructed? Millennium, 20(3), 353–368.

https://doi.org/10.1177/03058298910200031001

Sofa, A. (1981). Bangali musolomaner mon (The Psyche of Bengali Muslims). Khan brothers and

Company.

Sparapani, E. F., & Perez, D. M. C. (2015). A perspective on the standardized curriculum and its effect on

teaching and learning. Journal of Education & Social Policy, 2(5), 78–87.

Spivak, G. C. (2003). Can the subaltern speak? Die Philosophin, 14(27), 42–58.

Statistics Canada. (2011). National Household Survey: Aboriginal Demographics, Educational

Attainment and Labour Market Outcomes. https://sac-

isc.gc.ca/eng/1376329205785/1604610645621

Statistics Canada. (2008). Aboriginal peoples in Canada in 2006: Inuit, Me´tis and First Nations, 2006

census (Catalogue no. 97-558-XIE). https://www12.statcan.gc.ca/census-recensement/2006/as-

sa/97-558/p1-eng.cfm

Stake, R. (1995). The art of case research. Sage Publications.

256

Suarez, D. (2002). The paradox of linguistic hegemony and the maintenance of Spanish as a heritage

language in the United States. Journal of Multilingual and Multicultural Development, 23(6), 512–

530

Sultana, N. (2018). Test review of the English public examination at the secondary level in Bangladesh.

Language Testing in Asia, 8(1), 1–9.

Tahereen, T. (2014). Testing based language teaching in Bangladesh: Does it promote or impede

Learning? TESOL International Journal, 9(1), 148–178.

Tajfel, H. and Turner, J. C. (2004). The social identity theory of intergroup behavior. In Jost, J.T. and

Sidanius, J. (Eds.). Key Readings in Social Psychology. Political Psychology: Key Readings (p.

267-293). Psychology Press.

Tambiah, S. J. (1996). The nation-state in crisis and the rise of ethnonationalism. In E. N. Wilmsen & P.

McAllister (Eds.), The politics of difference: Ethnic premises in a world of power (pp. 124–143).

University of Chicago Press.

Taylor-Smith, C. J. (2011). High-stakes tests: Comparative study examining the impact on the

achievement gap that causes minority students continued failure. Capella University.

Tellis, W. M. (1997). Application of a case study methodology. The Qualitative Report, 3(3), 1–19.

http://nsuworks.nova.edu/tqr/vol3/iss3/1

Tilly, C. (1994). States and nationalism in Europe, 1492–1992. Theory and Society, 23, 131–146.

Tharoor, S. (2017, August 10). The partition: The British game of “divide and rule.” Aljazeera.

https://www.aljazeera.com/opinions/2017/8/10/the-partition-the-british-game-of-divide-and-rule

The Constitution of the People’s Republic of Bangladesh, Amendment XIV. 2011.

The Daily Observer. (2018, May 9). SSC pass rate falls in CHT. The Daily Observer (online).

https://www.observerbd.com/details.php?id=136653

The Jumjournal. (2020, August 1). Parbattya chottogramer shikkha byabostha: Oteet, bortoman ebong

bhobishyoter ruprekha [The education system of the Chittagong Hill Tracts: An outline of the past,

present, and future]. The Jumjournal.

https://www.jumjournal.com/%e0%a6%b6%e0%a6%bf%e0%a6%95%e0%a7%8d%e0%a6%b7%e

0%a6%be%e0%a6%ac%e0%a7%8d%e0%a6%af%e0%a6%ac%e0%a6%b8%e0%a7%8d%e0%a6

%a5%e0%a6%be/

Thiong’o, N. wa. (1981). Decolonizing the mind: The politics of language in African literature.

Heinemann.

Tormey, R. (2006). The construction of national identity through primary school history: The Irish case.

British Journal of Sociology of Education, 27(3), 311–324.

Tripura, M. B., Tripura, A. B., & Tripura, J. P. (2013). Amader prostabona, shikkha aain khosra 2013,

[Our Proposal, Draft of education policy 2013].

257

Tripura, P. (2014). Indigenous peoples under legal and policy framework. In M. S. Chowdhury (Ed.),

Survival under threat: Human rights situation of Indigenous peoples in Bangladesh (pp. 28–38).

AIPP Printing Press Co. Ltd.

Tripura, P. (2015). Bohujatir Bangladesh: Shwarup onneshwon o oshkritir itihash [Bangladesh of many

nations: History of exploration and rejection of identity]. Sangbed Printing Publication.

Tripura, M. B. & Chakma, A. K. (2014). Grassroot Voice: The situation of primary education in the

Chittagong Hill Tracts of Bangladesh. Zabarang Kalyan Samity, OXFAM.

Uddin, S. M. (2006). Constructing Bangladesh: Religion, ethnicity, and language in an Islamic nation.

University of North Carolina Press.

Uddin, N. (2019). The local translation of global indigeneity: A case of the Chittagong Hill Tracts.

Journal of Southeast Asian Studies, 50(1), 68–85.

Ullah, S. (2018, July 20). Pass rate rises, GPA-5 declines in Ctg board. The Daily Sun. https://www.daily-

sun.com/arcprint/details/323492/Pass-rate-risesGPA5-declinesin-Ctg-board/2018-07-20

UN Department of Public Information. (2018). Indigenous Languages. The United Nations Permanent

Forum on Indigenous Issues: Together we achieve.

https://www.un.org/development/desa/indigenouspeoples/wp-

content/uploads/sites/19/2018/04/Indigenous-Languages.pdf

Upreti, B. (2006). Nationalism in South Asia: Trends and interpretations. The Indian Journal of Political

Science, 67(3), 535–544. http://www.jstor.org/stable/41856240

Urrieta, L. (2004). Assistencialism and the politics of high-stakes testing. The Urban Review, 36(3), 211–

226.

Utsumi, S., & Walker, L. J. (2018, July 31). Islamization and Bengali Muslim migration: Indigenous of

Assam, the Chittagong Hill Tracts, and Rakhine. Modern Tokyo Times.

https://moderntokyonews.com/2018/07/31/islamization-and-bengali-muslim-migration-indigenous-

of-assam-the-chittagong-hill-tracts-and-rakhine/

Valenzuela, A. (1999). Subtractive schooling: Issues of caring in education of US-Mexican youth. State

University of New York Press.

Vanhouwe, M. I. (2007). White teachers, critical race theory and aboriginal education [Master’s Thesis,

University of Saskatchewan]. HARVEST, University of Saskatchewan.

Viesca, K. M. (2013). Linguicism and racism in Massachusetts educational policy. Education Policy

Analysis Archives, 21(52), 1–37. DOI: https://doi.org/10.14507/epaa.v21n52.2013

Vinson, K. D., Gibson, R. J., & Ross, E. W. (2001). High-stakes testing and standardization: The threat

to authenticity. John Dewey Project on Progressive Education.

Yin, R. (1984). Case study research: Design and methods (1st ed.). Sage Publishing.

258

Wallerstein, N. B., & Duran, B. (2006). Using community-based participatory research to address health

disparities. Health Promotion Practice, 7(3), 312–323.

Weilbacher, G. (2012). Standardization and whiteness: One and the same? A response to “There is no

culturally responsive teaching spoken here.” Democracy and Education, 20(2), 1–6.

https://democracyeducationjournal.org/home/vol20/iss2/15

Wiborg, S. (2000). Political and cultural nationalism in education: The ideas of Rousseau and Herder

concerning national education. Comparative Education, 36(2), 235–243.

Wilson, S. (2001). What is an Indigenous research methodology? Canadian Journal of Native Education,

25(2), 175–179.

Wilson, S. (2008). Research is ceremony: Indigenous research methods. Fernwood Publishing.

Winter, R. (2004). Cultural studies. In U. Flick, E. von Kardorff and I. Steinke (Eds.), A companion to

qualitative research (B. Jenner, trans.) (pp. 118–123). Sage Publications. (Original work published

2000).

Wolpe, H. (1975). The theory of internal colonization: The South African case. Collected Seminar

Papers. Institute of Commonwealth Studies, Vol. 18, pp. 105–120. https://sas-

space.sas.ac.uk/4017/1/Harold_Wolpe_The_theory_of_internal_colonization,_the_South_African_

case.pdf