Our Politics of Dispossession- part 3

In 1972, "Bangladesh Vesting of Property and Assets Order" merged the abandoned property of those who had left for Pakistan with those who had left for India. This was further solidified in "Vested and Non-Resident Property Act" of 1974. This new development provided useful obfuscation and political cover. The newly independent nation's mood towards Pakistan was naturally hostile, and, therefore, the idea of seizing land abandoned by "Pakistanis" or "Biharis" was popular. However, as Barakat has shown, the vast majority of land appropriated under this act, as with previous versions, was and continues to be Hindu property. On March 23, 1974, the High Court ruled that no further property could be enlisted as Vested Property. However, this ruling continued to be ignored in practice for the next three decades.

Shahadat Parvez/ Driknews

As a result of the publication of Barakat's first two studies, and major campaigning around this issue, the 22nd session of the National Parliament passed the "Vested Property Return Act 2001." While this law was a milestone in beginning the return of Hindu owned property to their rightful owners, there were several key flaws: The act covered only land vested up to February 1969. This meant all Hindu land appropriated from 1969 to 2001 (and beyond) was not covered by this act. If the land had been permanently transferred to statutory or other organisation, and return of land was impossible, there was no provision for financial compensation. The original owner or heir is required to have "continuously" resided in Bangladesh, an absurd clause that allows many legal claimants to be excluded. The original owner also had to submit claims within 90 days of publication of the list of returnable properties. Finally, Hindu women heirs were excluded from inheritance in case of death of male owners, a convenient "accommodation" to "Hindu religious personal law."

In November 2002, the new alliance government passed an amendment to the 2001 Act, which essentially gutted all enforcing power. Especially harmful was the clause that gave the government "unlimited time" in which to publish the list and enforce return of property. Since the passage of this amendment, not a single list has been published, nor any return process initiated in the last six years.