Confused. Adivasi or Upojati?

[Shubho]

Curious what the correct answer is...

In recent years, there has been a trend in Bangladesh (especially the media) to refer to ethnic minorities as "adivasi" (indigenous or aboriginal), rather than "upojati" (tribal or other ethnic minority). I'm not sure whether this trend is rooted in fact, nor do I know how it started, but I am confused nonetheless.

If "adivasis" are indeed indigenous, then what are Bangalees? Not indigenous to Bengal? How is that even possible? Do "adivasis" predate Bangalees in Bengal? Did Bangalees steal the land of the "advasis" in the same way that white Europeans took away the lands of the First Nations people in North America, the Aboriginals in Australia, the Maori in New Zealand or the Indios in South America?

Let's see if anyone can shed some light on this issue.

[iDumb]

Finally we gonna learn something in this website ..hopefully ...

This is like the perfect thread for our long lost friend, master of bangla linguistics and its rich history mr Arnob.

Let's see who among us here can step up.

I can't recall where but I think I was reading a post in lonely planet by a foreigner on bd also using the term "adivasi" and I thought to myself "wtf is that" ?

[Rifat]

Upojati implies that they are another race or another nation/outcasts of society, Adhivashi means that they belong in they country and are a fabric of society..I could be totally wrong but this is my best attempted guess.

Adhivashi would mean that the referred group has been living in the region since like forever(similar to native Americans in US).

I think Adhivashi literally translates to "Aboriginals/indegenous", while upojati literally translates to "subnationals"...the term may be derogatory since the implication is that they are not 100% Bengali or they are not considered Bangladeshi Citizen. (Similar to how Black people were seen in the US during colonial pre-Lincoln era)

[tonmoy.dhaka]

I support the term Adibashi...
Upojati is demeaning I think....

[mufi_02]

I recently heard that according to BD constitution, a Bangalee can't legally marry an adibashi / upojati. Apparently it is a new law. Is this true??

[Shubho]

I had no idea that "upojati" was demeaning in any way. Perhaps there is a less demeaning but accurate term for non-Bangalee ethnic groups in Bangladesh?

If a tribal person (Garo, Maung, etc) is an adivasi, does that make a Bangalee an adivasi too? It would only make sense to call someone adivasi if their existence in a certain geography predates that of all other ethnicities. But it doesn't sound like that's the case here, or am I wrong?

[ahnaf]

Originally Posted by mufi_02
I recently heard that according to BD constitution, a Bangalee can't legally marry an adibashi / upojati. Apparently it is a new law. Is this true??

i don't think its true

[iDumb]

Originally Posted by Shubho
I had no idea that "upojati" was demeaning in any way. Perhaps there is a less demeaning but accurate term for non-Bangalee ethnic groups in Bangladesh?

If a tribal person (Garo, Maung, etc) is an adivasi, does that make a Bangalee an adivasi too? It would only make sense to call someone adivasi if their existence in a certain geography predates that of all other ethnicities. But it doesn't sound like that's the case here, or am I wrong?

SO i just did a quick search in google and found this book. Will need to read it later more extensively.



link


I agree with you Bangalees should be called adivasi and all the other ethnic group should be called upojati. As far as I know, bangalees are the only Jaat!:p

[Shubho]

Originally Posted by iDumb
SO i just did a quick search in google and found this book. Will need to read it later more extensively.



link


I agree with you Bangalees should be called adivasi and all the other ethnic group should be called upojati. As far as I know, bangalees are the only Jaat!:p

Interesting excerpt.

So, if upojati is derogatory and adivasi is inaccurate (since we are all adivasi), what would be a politically correct and accurate term for non-Bangalee jaat in Bangladesh?

[iDumb]

Originally Posted by Shubho
Interesting excerpt.

So, if upojati is derogatory and adivasi is inaccurate (since we are all adivasi), what would be a politically correct and accurate term for non-Bangalee jaat in Bangladesh?

I don't know, someone else who read on this can shed light. But I think you picked up something interesting. I think the usage of adivasi to term the non bangalee tribes are WRONG. They maybe doing that not to use the term upojati to avoid the negative connotation but i think lost the plot.

However with extensive usage of a term wrongly becomes part of the colloquial and later widely accepted.

As far as I see it from the little I read (i will try to delve into it later), if you can not provide a history that Bangalees are NOT the orginal people then the usage of Adivasi to term the other ethnic groups is WRONG.

They are upojati whether u like the word or not.

[Sylheti_Beta]

Aadibaashi, Jaati and Upojaati are Sanskrit nomenclature and have roots in ancient history.

Aadibaashi as many others correctly stated comprises of Aadi(ancient) and Baashi(inhabitant). It was used to identify/classify tribal cultures. The Mahabharat is replete with references to Aadibashis like Kol(s), Bhil(s),Nishaad(s),Kiraat(s). Some of these tribes still exist in India and have retained their original cultures and traditions. They might have existed in Bangladesh but may have been assimilated into mainstream religion and culture.

Jaati is related to the idea of lineage or endogamous(practice of marrying within a specific ethnic group) groups. Broadly translated its denotes a community and an upojaati denotes a sub community.

[Shingara]

Hang on.
Civilizations' birthplace was in Mesopotamia and from there people went different directions. One group settled in Harappa and Mohenjodaro. While the rest continued further to China.
IMO, the chakmas are Burmese and people from other countries around China who have settled in our country illegally.

[Tigers_eye]

Originally Posted by Shingara
Hang on.
...
IMO, the chakmas are Burmese and people from other countries around China who have settled in our country illegally.

What now? How long they have been living in the hill tracks? If they are living there for over 70 years, then they are every bit of BANGLADESHIS as any of us since hill tracks are inside Bangladesh border. Same with the Mymensingh/Sylhet region natives.

[Sylheti_Beta]

Originally Posted by Shingara
Hang on.
Civilizations' birthplace was in Mesopotamia and from there people went different directions. One group settled in Harappa and Mohenjodaro. While the rest continued further to China.

Homo Erectus,Homo Sapiens and Homo Neanderthalensis originated in Africa and migrated out towards other parts of the world.

Originally Posted by Shingara
IMO, the chakmas are Burmese and people from other countries around China who have settled in our country illegally.

The political boundaries of ancient Burma are not what they are now. Modern political boundaries are not exactly based on racial lines. Case in point, Chakmas and Burmese in BD, tribes in the North Eastern part of India; Kurds and Armenians living across areas currently in Syria,Turkey etc;

[mufi_02]

Originally Posted by Shubho
Interesting excerpt.

So, if upojati is derogatory and adivasi is inaccurate (since we are all adivasi), what would be a politically correct and accurate term for non-Bangalee jaat in Bangladesh?

right now the PC term is adibashi. Upojati doesn't seem accurate as they are not a sub-race of anyone. They are their own race by their own right.

Historically, we Bengalis were not the native population of the traditional adibashi regions (ctg hill tract / mymensingh garo / sylhet etc.) But we have slowly entered and unjustly took many of their lands.

On the other hand, there were some interactions between the two races. Bengalis are mostly tibeto-dravidian group (hence our darker skin but sometimes oriental features -- see BCB prez Papon) while the tribal populations are mostly Tibeto-Burman.

In 1666 CE, Shaista Khan, who was then Mughal Governor of Bengal, defeated the Arakanese, conquered Chittagong, and renamed it Islamabad.[7] However, in the early days the Mughal supremacy was confined only to the plain areas of Chittagong, and the Chakmas remained practically unaffected.

[Sylheti_Beta]

Originally Posted by mufi_02
Bengalis are mostly tibeto-dravidian group (hence our darker skin but sometimes oriental features -- see BCB prez Papon) while the tribal populations are mostly Tibeto-Burman.

No offence, but one Papon doesn't represent all Bengalis.

Jokes apart, Bengali's are primarily Indo Aryan. Dravdians are from Southern India and not all of them have dark skin(its an incorrect generalization) same is the case with Bengali's unless your benchmark for comparison is with Caucasoids.

Dravidian's have very little linguistic similarities with Indo Aryan languages(Bangla,Hindi, Urdu etc). Its the first time I have come across this term Tibeto-Dravidian. Do you have any authentic anthropological texts/references to support this ?

I saw a chart somewhere outlining the racial groups in our sub-continent and will try to look around for it. It clearly categorizes the linguistic groups at-least.

[Shingara]

Papon is oriental - made my day! At least you could have said Shujon!

[Zeeshan]

ummm..........manush?

[Zeeshan]

Read this yesterday. Perfect time to post it:

The Clever Apprentice

Scotland

A shoemaker once engaged an apprentice. A short time after the apprenticeship began the shoemaker asked the boy what he would call him in addressing him.

"Oh, I would just call you master," answered the apprentice.

"No," said the master, "you must call me master above all masters."

Continued the shoemaker, "What would you call my trousers?"

Apprentice: "Oh, I would call them trousers."

Shoemaker: "No, you must call them struntifers. And what would you call my wife?"

Apprentice: "Oh, I would call her mistress."

Shoemaker: "No, you must call her the Fair Lady Permoumadam. And what would you call my son?"

Apprentice: "Oh, I would call him Johnny."

Shoemaker: "No, you must call him John the Great. And what would you call the cat?"

Apprentice: "Oh, I would call him pussy."

Shoemaker: "No, you must call him Great Carle Gropus. And what would you call the fire?"

Apprentice: "Oh, I would call it fire."

Shoemaker: "No, you must call it Fire Evangelist. And what would you call the peat stack?"

Apprentice: "Oh, I would just call it peat stack."

Shoemaker: "No, you must call it Mount Potago. And what would you call the well?"

Apprentice: "Oh, I would call it well."

Shoemaker: "No, you must call it the Fair Fountain. And, last of all, what would you call the house?"

Apprentice: "Oh, I would call it house."

Shoemaker: "No, you must call it the Castle of Mungo."

The shoemaker, after giving this lesson to his apprentice, told him that the first day he had occasion to use all these words at once, and was able to do so without making a mistake, the apprenticeship would be at an end.

The apprentice was not long in making an occasion for using the words. One morning he got out of bed before his master and lighted the fire. He then tied some bits of paper to the tail of the cat and threw the animal into the fire. The cat ran out with the papers all in a blaze, landed in the peat stack, which caught fire.

The apprentice hurried to his master and cried out, "Master above all masters, start up and jump into your struntifers, and call upon Sir John the Great and the Fair Lady Permoumadam, for Carle Gropus has caught hold of Fire Evangelist, and he is out to Mount Potago, and if you don't get help from the Fair Fountain, the whole of Castle Mungo will be burned to the ground."

Source: W. Gregor, Folk-Lore Journal, vol. 7 (1889), pp. 166-67.
Gregor's source: Mr. A. Copland, a schoolmaster in Tyrie, Aberdeenshire.

http://www.pitt.edu/~dash/type1562a.html

[Sylheti_Beta]

Originally Posted by Zeeshan
Read this yesterday. Perfect time to post it:



http://www.pitt.edu/~dash/type1562a.html

Superb.
Too much of political correctness laced semantics is

[Fazal]

Originally Posted by Shingara
Papon is oriental - made my day! At least you could have said Shujon!

Papon is khati 100% Bhoirbi. Both his parents and atleast three (if not 4) of his grandparents are from Bhairob.

[aklemalp]

Very informative thread...learning alot

[Sylheti_Beta]

Originally Posted by Fazal
Papon is khati 100% Bhoirbi. Both his parents and atleast three (if not 4) of his grandparents are from Bhairob.

So an Upojila is now a race

Bhairob by the way is one of the names of the hindu god Shiva. And his wife is referred to as Bhairobi. Thorough confusion.

[kalpurush]

Originally Posted by Shingara

IMO, the chakmas are Burmese and people from other countries around China who have settled in our country illegally.

Interesting claim ...

[Fazal]

Originally Posted by Sylheti_Beta
So an Upojila is now a race

Bhairob by the way is one of the names of the hindu god Shiva. And his wife is referred to as Bhairobi. Thorough confusion.

Not sure why you are confused by my comment. Did I say that (Upojila is now a race )?

Before some of our forefathers were converted to Muslim, most of us were Hindus. So its natural that some of the city/area names may have originated from Hindu religion/culture.

Not sure why you get confused so easily.