Interviews

To answer the research sub-questions – ‘How do land claims invoke different notions of identity?’ and ‘How do land claims invoke different notions of authority?’ – I focused on land claims made by people, i.e. how people claim legitimacy of their landed property and their entitlement. Interviews with those involved in land conflicts were most useful in this regard. In contrast, when collecting data on assertions of identity and authority for the sub-questions – ‘How do land claims influence/ (re)produce notions of identity?’ and ‘How do land claims influence/ (re)produce notions of authority?’ – conducting interviews with institutional actors, leaders and political actors were useful. However, separation of the data collected in terms of answering sub-questions from different actors was not always neat. For instance, Bengali leaders, Bengali/Chakma institutional and political actors also often had disputes over their own lands. Interviews explain and place into a larger context what are observed in the field and people’s actions. I developed a questionnaire for the interviews by dividing the questions into three major concepts – property, identity and authority. I translated it into Chakma. However, keeping questions regarding property in land open to generate responses reflecting how property in land as social relation was formed from the respondents’ point of view was challenging (see section 3.6). After conducting a few interviews, I did not follow the semi-structured questionnaire. Subsequent interviews resembled conversations (Olivier de Sardan, 2008 cited in Lund 2014a) which followed a certain pattern based on my research interest.

Understanding local terms was also important. For instance, land disputes are called ‘vejal’ or ‘problem’. Labelling disputes as vejal is also significant, because vejal or problem suggests a process which is evolving, open and enduring without any fixed set of procedures or rules to

58

settle it. This supports the findings presented in the empirical chapters showing that conflicts over land which emerge from competing claims are not getting settled once and for all (see Chapter 8). Asking if there was a dispute or vejal, and how it began, revealed how people owned land and made claims. As discussed in Chapter 2, the notion dakhal was found to be important for people to own land. The interviews focused on exploring how events unfolded, which authority/authorities they took their claims to for recognition and why. In their claim-making, the categorisation of people and how people’s land claims relate to their aspired and ascribed identities were disclosed.

3.5.2.1 Interview Respondents

My methods explored both conflicts within communities and between communities. The following table shows the number of dispute cases found in two villages for each type of conflict:

Table 3.1: Land Disputes within and between Chakma and Bengali Settler Communities

Village Disputes within Community

Disputes between Bengalis and Chakmas

Total Number of Respondents

Chakmachari 15 38 105

Banglachari 17 16 19

In Banglachari, Bengalis can be divided into two categories: settlers and latecomers. 19 in-depth interviews were conducted, of which 17 interviews were with settlers. Thus, 2 interviews were carried out with persons who did not come under the settlement programme. Of the 17 Bengali settler interviewees, 11 were original settlers of Banglachari and the other 6 interview respondents were originally settled in Dhanchari, but moved to Banglachari in 1986 when Banglachari was turned into a cluster village during the armed conflict era; they will be referred to as ‘settlers of Dhanchari’.

Of these 17 interviewees, 8 were recognised as leaders. Among these, 2 were women (members of local Union Council), emerging as leaders by getting involved with the mainstream political parties in the last 15 years. Among the 6 male leaders, 4 were ‘old’ (selected as leaders while they were in the Hajee camp) and the other 2 were ‘new’. Respondents for the interviews were selected by using snowball sampling. Out of 17 respondents, 16 had one or multiple land

59

disputes with hill people. I present their perspectives, claims, actions and strategies in the analysis of disputes between communities (Chapter 8 and Chapter 9).

I mapped out the land disputes that Chakmas of Chakmachari had within and between communities from the survey data. There were 38 cases of disputes between Chakmas of Chakmachari and Bengali settlers (Chapter 9). There were 15 disputes between Chakmas. I conducted interviews with people involved in all these cases. These households belong to different categories based on the amount of land owned, occupation, education, migration history and political networks.

During fieldwork, I conducted taped interviews with 28 institutional actors belonging to the institutions mentioned (see Annex: 3.1). I interviewed administrators in relevant offices and judges at the judiciary division in Khagrachhari district. I also interviewed actors at the national level. I interviewed two Members of Parliament – Chair and a member of the parliamentary caucus – on indigenous issues. I interviewed high-ranking officials at the Ministry of Land and Ministry of CHT Affairs. Interviews were conducted with institutional actors in order to understand their position and perspectives with regard to land conflicts in CHT, legitimacy of claim-making of settlers and hill people, politics of identity or categorisation of people, institutional arrangements in the post-Accord period, land surveys, maintenance of land records, land entitlement and the dispute settlement process. The Land Commission office at Khagrachhari town was closed at the time. No one came to that office for months, so I did not interview the Land Commission official. However, I interviewed the Chief of Marma Circle (who is a member of the Land Commission) and actors from local and national NGOs, and International CHT Commission.

All interviews conducted across the three research sites can be categorised as formal interviews they were taped and consent was taken. Data was also gathered through numerous informal conversations with people in villages, at institutions or with random people waiting at the courtyard. Even in cases of people who have been interviewed formally multiple times before, I acquired interesting dimensions and narratives regarding conflict while having conversations or chats.