From Neighbors to Enemies: An Examination of South Asia's Property Laws
By Shivani Patel
The different sociopolitical climates of Bangladesh, India, and Pakistan account for the variation in their policies towards religious minorities. Pakistan’s Enemy Property Act of 1965, India’s Enemy Property Act of 1968, and Bangladesh’s Vested Property Act of 1971 are exemplary of discriminatory policies in South Asia that deepen the decades-long religious conflict between Hindus and Muslims. The Indo-Pakistan war in 1965 led to the passage of the property acts because the stalemate intensified the border issues and reinforced the right to land based on religion, which set off the migration of religious minorities between each country, with Muslims uniting in Pakistan and Hindus in India. While religious minorities who did not migrate suffered from communal violence at the hands of the majority population, migrating minorities endured displacement and property loss, as the governments believed they held a right to the abandoned valuables. These property acts declare that the governments can confiscate certain properties—such as all movable and immovable assets, including agricultural property—from migrating individuals of marginalized religions and nationalities that are suspected of being “enemies,” or anti-nationals, to the country. However, anti-nationals connoted religious minorities, as Pakistan and Bangladesh’s property acts (now repealed) confiscated the property of Hindu migrants, whereas India’s property act confiscated the property of Muslim migrants.
Pakistan and India would do well to repeal the property acts, just as Bangladesh recently did, in order to provide reparations for the affected religious minorities, as such a move will protect the human rights of individuals and future generations that are economically affected by their losses. Furthermore, repealing the acts will strive to re-establish peaceful relations with neighboring countries that all used to be one, sharing the same religious rituals and last names. The repeal serves as a symbolic act of decolonization from the long-term consequences that the British Raj implanted, including government confiscation of properties. These policies continue to operate under British imperialist strategies as they preserve the fabricated Hindu-Muslim tension that keeps the population divided by communal violence, poverty, and legal inequality.
Higher degrees of ethnic nationalism in a country set ideal conditions for governments to exploit antagonistic social conditions and codify religious prejudice into law, as evidenced by the adoption of the property acts. This form of nationalism is a modern occurrence that increased as the British colonists constructed a political culture that taught Hindus, Muslims, and Sikhs to split. The current uncooperative Hindu-Muslim relationship is a residue of the ways in which British colonization shaped conflict in South Asia. The imperial power established a segregated society that capitalizes on the political disenfranchisement of ethnic minorities. Prior to the arrival of the British, the Indian subcontinent housed all three ethnic groups that engaged in common practices, but the British split the region into India, East Pakistan, and West Pakistan to accomplish their divide-and-rule strategy. During this period, ethnic nationalism started to manifest itself when the British offered the Hindus privileges, while the Muslim population suffered in poverty. After independence, India upheld these institutions, which furthered religious divisions, until the Indo-Pakistan war established the sovereignty of Pakistan. The religious majorities did not wish to relinquish their political authority and continued to believe in their religious superiority, whereas the minorities endeavored to form a separate homeland, an illustration of the political influence of ethnic nationalism instilled by British rule.
Furthermore, ethnic nationalism helps to understand the relationship between the passage or repealment of these religiously discriminatory policies. A country with a higher degree of ethnic nationalism usually finds election results, migratory patterns, and citizenship laws in favor of the majority ethnic group, whereas political statements and public opinion fall against the minority group. When there is high ethnic nationalism in a country, there tends to be a higher sense of solidarity among members of the prevailing ethnic group, as well as a higher sense of enmity toward ethnic minorities that maintain opposing beliefs. The term “enemy” is suitable for the warring relations between Pakistan and India because such antagonistic constructions of one another have yielded a fertile environment for the maintenance of property acts. These two countries are unrestrained with their political domination of and communal violence toward ethnic minorities, which warrants their interest in upholding their discriminatory policies.
These policies are a contradiction to the countries’ supposed values about secularism. Even though both India and Pakistan grant political recognition of individuals of all religions in their constitutions, they infringe on the rights of religious minorities and worsen social exclusion that has existed since British colonization. In contrast to India and Pakistan, Bangladesh repealed its policy to the Vested Property Return Act of 2001 and the Vested Property Return (Amendment) Act of 2011, which returned the confiscated property of Hindu migrants. Bangladesh’s decision to repeal the Property Act is a compelling result because it works toward social inclusion by ameliorating the religious issues and restorating religious minorities’ property. As a result, the Bangladeshi government recognizes the rights of the religious minorities in their countries and is not committing violations against the basic rights of its citizens, which is a noble step towards providing reparations.
Conversely, a lower degree of ethnic nationalism allows various ethnic groups to peacefully coexist because the country’s agenda focuses on secularism, as evidenced by the repealment of the Property Act in Bangladesh. Originally, the country was forced to adopt the Property Act when it was under West Pakistan’s dominion, but did not harbor enmity towards India, breaking suit with the hostile relationship between India and West Pakistan. Surprisingly, when Bangladesh fought for independence, Pakistan became the “enemy,” to Bangladesh, which positioned Bangladesh and India as allies against Pakistan despite their contrasting religious makeup. Thereafter, Bangladesh perceived the Vested Property Act as a contradiction to their relationship with India and its Hindu citizens when it became allies with India through the mutual “enemy” of Pakistan. Sociopolitical conditions in Bangladesh set ideal conditions to repeal the property act, as there are no extreme ethnic tensions, xenophobia, or ancestral emphasis. Since the majority Muslim community does not habor a strong sense of ethnic solidarity, the country does not perceive Indian Hindus and Sikhs to be the “enemy” and does not work to push them out of the country. Without an interest in displacing the religious minorities, it is understandable that Bangladesh repealed its property act to try to promote amity and secularism.
Bangladesh seems like a paradox in South Asia because it chose to repeal its Vested Property Act in an effort to end communal violence, while its neighbors, Pakistan and India, uphold their perception of being each other’s “enemies”. The effects of British colonialism are long-lasting in Pakistan and India, as these countries maintain a belief that they are “enemies” based on a difference in faith decades after independence, the partition, and a ceasefire. Providing reparations for this policy will need to start with dismantling religious prejudice at the individual level in order to find support to repeal the property acts, as individual prejudice has polluted the political systems and has made the property acts seem customary due to existing societal conditions. Following the strides that Bangladesh has been making, India and Pakistan need to start dismantling this mindset in order to recreate the harmonious society that once prevailed under a single land before British colonialism.
Shivani Patel is a student at The College of New Jersey, who majors in Political Science and English and minors in African American Studies and Women's, Gender, & Sexuality Studies. This year, she is interning at the US Department of State in a Virtual Student Foreign Service project and continues to work as a tutor for her college. She aims to attend law school to pursue a career in practicing international law, as well as protect human and civil rights.
"Bangladesh" is by Shafi Muhammed and is licensed under CC BY-NC 2.0
