The Biharis in Bangladesh: A Reflection on Violence, Victimhood, and Conflict

Abstract

The Bihari community in Bangladesh, an Urdu-speaking, non-Bengali Muslim ethnic group, has faced marginalisation since migrating to East Pakistan (now Bangladesh) after the partition of the Indian subcontinent in 1947. Their support for West Pakistan during the 1971 Liberation War led to retaliatory violence, which caused human rights violations against the Bihari community. Post-war, Biharis have endured systematic discrimination, loss of nationality, and socioeconomic exclusion. Therefore, this article will examine their historical plight during and post the Liberation War, the failures of Bangladesh and Pakistan to protect the rights of the Bihari community under international law, and emphasises the need for justice, human rights protections, and measures to prevent further violence.

Introduction

The term Bihari refers to the Urdu-speaking, non-Bengali Muslim ethnic group in Bangladesh who migrated from the Indian states of Bihar and West Bengal to what was then East Pakistan following the partition of India in 1947 (Macdonald, 2021). The nine-month-long Bangladesh Liberation War led to the deaths of over three million on all sides, with the majority being innocent civilians. Life is valuable to all, regardless of differences, and turning a blind eye to the atrocities committed is a deep disservice to humanity. In 1971, during the liberation war of Bangladesh against Pakistan, the Bihari community provided support to the army of West Pakistan with the hope of saving a united Pakistan (Saikia, 2004). Since the independence of Bangladesh, Biharis have been viewed as traitors by Bangladeshis. Existing research indicates that the Urdu-speaking non-Bengalis were subjected to atrocities by Bengali vigilantes before, during, and after the Liberation War of 1971.

Overview of the Bangladesh Liberation War of 1971 and the creation of Bangladesh

The roots of the 1971 Bangladesh Liberation War trace back to the poorly planned and deeply divisive partition of British India in 1947, which split the region along religious lines. Muslim-majority areas in the northwest and northeast were combined to form Pakistan, while the remaining, largely non-Muslim territories became India (The National Archive, N.D.). During the partition of the Indian subcontinent, communal violence broke out in various regions, leading to mass migration. Among the one million refugees who fled to East Pakistan during this chaos, most were from Bihar. Ethnolinguistically, the Biharis became more aligned with the ruling elite in West Pakistan because of their similarities in language and culture, which created a clear distinction between them and the local Bengali-speaking population (Sattar, 2013). Sen (1999) notes that “the culture of the Bihari refugees contributed to the definition of the ethnic boundary between them and the majority Bengali residents” (p. 626). This separation set a troubling precedent that ultimately resulted in mass murders and looting during the Liberation War.

Although East and West Pakistan shared Islam as a common faith, they had few other bonds. For decades following the partition, the West Pakistani government—located over 1,000 miles away—discriminated against East Pakistan (now Bangladesh). Despite having a larger population, East Pakistan was deprived of fair funding and resources, widening economic disparities. By the early 1950s, per capita income in West Pakistan grew three times faster than that of  East Pakistan (Rao, 1972). During this time, the Urdu-speaking Punjabi elite maintained political and economic dominance in East Pakistan. Consequently, the newly arrived Urdu-speaking British-trained military and civil service members became particularly influential (Redclift, 2010). The Biharis were often favoured over the Bengali population in public sector positions, such as those in railways and telecommunications (Redclift, 2010).

In 1948, the government designated Urdu as the only national language for both regions, dismissing the millions who spoke Bengali (The National Source Archive, N.D.). This development sparked the Bengali Language Movement, causing widespread protests and deaths in Dhaka in 1952 (The National Source Archive, N.D.). With a rich heritage centred on language, arts, cuisine, community, family, and religion, the Bengalis saw the 1971 Liberation War as a struggle to defend their cultural identity and legacy.

On March 25th, 1971 the West Pakistani army launched an invasion of East Pakistan, initiating Operation Searchlight. This operation targeted and killed numerous Bengali civilians, including intellectuals, students, politicians, and members of the armed forces. The ensuing war lasted nine brutal months, with an estimated death toll of civilians and militaries ranging from 500,000 to over three million (The National Source Archive, N.D.). Millions of refugees fled to India for safety. Bengali guerrilla fighters, known as the Mukti Bahini, alongside regular troops supported by the Indian military, resisted the West Pakistani forces. On December 16th, 1971—now celebrated as Victory Day—West Pakistan surrendered, marking the birth of Bangladesh.

Role and position of the Bihari community in East Pakistan before and during the war

Biharis, who spoke Urdu, aligned themselves with Pakistani elites from the outset. Due to their distinct cultural identity, they struggled to accept their Bengali neighbours and alternatively formed alliances with the West Pakistani elites in East Pakistan. They viewed Bengalis as inferior because of their language and perceived cultural similarities to Hindus (Boissoneault, 2016). While Bengalis initially embraced the Biharis as fellow Muslims, this sentiment quickly turned to animosity for several reasons. As Biharis supported the West Pakistani elites unequivocally, tensions began to rise between the two communities.

Bengalis began to recognise their distinct identity as separate from Pakistanis, leading to protests over various issues. Biharis received strong backing from West Pakistani elites upon their arrival (Hashmi, 1998), which made them oppose the Bengalis’ aspirations for an independent nation. Consequently, Biharis came to be viewed as adversaries by the Bengali people, and the resentment towards them intensified. This hostility reached its peak during the 1971 Liberation War when Biharis fought alongside the Pakistani army.

Perpetrators took on various identities—Pakistani, Bengali, and Bihari—yet were united by a common thread. Motivated by nationalism and the drive to build a nation, both Pakistanis and Bangladeshis committed horrific acts of violence. Pakistani soldiers, alongside their Bihari counterparts, raped, killed, and inflicted material and emotional damage on unarmed Bangladeshi nationalists in the name of preserving a nation. At the same time, Bengali men also committed rape, murder, and different forms of violence with the desire to create a new nation. One Bihari woman recounted the murder of her daughter in 1971 (Saikia, 2004).

My daughter’s name was Fatima. She was eighteen years old in 1971 and was married. She was expecting her first child in a few months. After the war was over, on March 28, 1972 some Bengali men from [their] neighbourhood stormed into [their] mohalla [compound]. They killed Fatima’s husband, then they pulled her out of her room into the courtyard. They disrobed her. Then they slit her throat. But that was not enough. They ripped open her stomach, pulled out the unborn child and tore it into two. Fatima died immediately. Recounting this story was not an easy task for Fatima’s mother. She lost her composure many times. The Bengalis thought she was an enemy because she spoke Urdu. They killed her without showing any mercy. It was not her crime that she was born a Bihari.

Minorities at Risk Project (2010) estimates that around 1,000 Biharis lost their lives due to violence by Bengali groups. Historian Rudolph Rummel (1997), however, provides a higher estimate, suggesting that as many as 150,000 Biharis were killed. Other international sources also report differing figures, ranging from thousands to tens of thousands, pointing to widespread disagreement about the scale of the violence. Following Bangladesh’s 1971 independence, the Bihari community faced violent reprisals, particularly from Mukti Bahini fighters and other local militias, due to their perceived alignment with Pakistan. Estimates of the death toll among Biharis vary widely, with figures spanning from 1,000 (Minorities at Risk Project, 2012) to 150,000 (Fink, 2010).

After nine months of conflict, the Pakistani army surrendered on December 16th, 1971. The post-war period was difficult for Biharis, who faced attacks from Bengali militants driven by a strong nationalist sentiment, destroying their homes. In the newly established Bangladesh, Biharis became vulnerable and were seen as ‘others’.

Reprisal Against Biharis in the 1971 Liberation War and International Law

Before the discussion steps into a detailed analysis of the status and protection of the Bihari community in Bangladesh since 1971, a precondition determining the characterisation of the attack against Biharis should be clarified – whether it was a countermeasure, a reprisal, or an unlawful attack that may violate the rules of IHL. During the Liberation War, Biharis supported West Pakistan and erupted several conflicts with the Bengali community. Therefore, Biharis were widely arrested as alleged collaborators. Violence targeting Biharis was regarded as a case of retaliation. The regarded retaliation, the intensity between the two communities and the alleged genocide committed by Pakistan against Bengalis undermine the illegitimacy of the violence against Biharis. However, such an argument cannot go beyond the realm of legality.  From the perspective of jus ad bellum, Article 50(1) of the Articles on Responsibility of States for Internationally Wrongful Acts (ARSIWA) stipulates clear conditions for taking countermeasures against a state not conforming with its international obligations towards another state (The ILC, 1991).

[…] countermeasures shall not affect… the obligations (a) to refrain from the threat or use of force as embodied in the Charter of the United Nations; (b) for the protection of fundamental human rights; (c) of a humanitarian character prohibiting reprisals; and (d) under peremptory norms of general international law.

This provision confirms that the countermeasures should be taken within the scope of the rules of international law. However, violence against Biharis that were not merely military attacks but also constituted rape, torture, forced transfer, and other crimes, precluded justifying the legitimacy and legality of these armed attacks, violating international humanitarian law (hereinafter “IHL”), human rights law, and international criminal law while potentially committing crimes against humanity and genocide against Biharis (Gerlach, 2019).

One might then notice the wording “a humanitarian character prohibiting reprisals” in Article 50(1) of the ARSIWA (The ILC, 1991), which induces the discussion of violence against Biharis from the perspective of jus in bello, namely IHL. In this regard, IHL acts as an instruction for domestic law and military manuals, supported by jurisprudences of domestic courts and the ad hoc tribunals, which de facto establishes restrictions for every individual engaged in the armed conflict, imposes obligations on states and individuals, and imposes state responsibility and individual (criminal) responsibility. The four Geneva Conventions and two Additional Protocols require the contracting states to follow the rules and principles to proceed with wars, including war of retaliation.

Additionally, the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court (ICC) also characterises severe violations of the Geneva Conventions along with breaches of the laws and customs governing both international and internal armed conflicts as war crimes. Many recognised actions against Biharis, such as the intentional killing of civilians, torture, rape, enforced pregnancy, inhumane treatment, infliction of significant suffering or injury, and deliberate destruction of civilian property are types of war crimes. Moreover, these actions could also potentially be categorised as crimes against humanity  –  “a widespread or systematic attack directed against any civilian population, with knowledge of the attack” (The ICC, 1998) and genocide – “acts committed with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial or religious group, as such…” (The ICC, 1998).

A “reprisal” (Schmitt, 2024; Shane, 2016) is a breach of  IHL, which would be otherwise unlawful but, in exceptional cases, is considered lawful as an enforcement measure in response to a previous breach of IHL by the enemy, to terminate the enemy’s violation (ICRC IHL Databases). This definition creates an opportunity for legal reprisals, and customary IHL provides more concrete conditions on this (ICRC IHL Databases).

Rules 145: […] belligerent reprisals are subject to stringent conditions in international armed conflicts;

Rules 146: Belligerent reprisals against persons protected by the Geneva Conventions are prohibited in international armed conflicts.

Rules 147: Reprisals against objects protected under the Geneva Conventions and Hague Convention for the Protection of Cultural Property are prohibited in international armed conflicts.

Rules 148: Parties to non-international armed conflicts do not have the right to resort to belligerent reprisals […]

In line with provisions directly prohibiting reprisal against civilians and civilian objects as well as persons and objects protected by the Geneva Conventions (1949) and their Additional Protocols (1977), the requirement of a lawful reprisal does not exceed the fundamental principles of IHL. Otherwise, the exceeded reprisal could commit international crimes, including war crimes, crimes against humanity, and genocide. The prohibition of retaliation against civilians and civilian objects embraces a strict interpretation confirmed by international jurisprudence. In the Kupreskic case, the Trial Chamber indicated the following conclusion.

[…]  violations of IHL by one party cannot justify reprisals against the civilian population of the opposing party to the armed conflict…even when considered lawful, reprisals are restricted by: (a) the principle whereby they must be a last resort in attempt to impose compliance by the adversary with legal standards… (b) the obligation to take special precautions before implementing them… (c) the principle of proportionality… and; (d) elementary considerations of humanity.

Accordingly, even in an armed conflict confronting unlawful armed attacks from the enemy, these conditions cannot naturally justify a reprisal. The target, means, scope, and other conditions of reprisal would affect its lawfulness. In the case of attacks against Biharis in Bangladesh, there is not an overall conclusion. Conditions, including but not limited to whether the attacked Biharis were civilians or not, whether the Bengalis attacked Biharis within a proportionate scope, and whether precautions were announced before the attacks, should be taken into account. The principles of IHL, including the principle of distinction, the principle of proportionality, and the principle of military necessity require that Bihari civilians in the Liberation War and other subsequent conflicts, could not become the target of attacks even in armed conflicts. Only attacks against Bihari combatants were allowed if the attacks were within a proportionate and necessary scope. However, the reality revealed that Bihari civilians and other protected groups of the IHL were indiscriminately attacked, with women raped and tortured, and children deported or killed (Gerlach, 2010).

Post-1971: Bihari Experience in Bangladesh

Violence against Biharis did not stop with the end of armed conflicts. After the independence of Bangladesh in 1971, many Biharis who supported or joined the Pakistan army were treated as traitors of Bangladesh and faced retaliation from the Bengalis (Macdonald, 2021). To resolve the predicament of Biharis in Bangladesh, Article 2 of the Bangladesh Citizenship (Temporary Provisions) Order, 1972 (President’s Order 149 of 1972) was passed to recognise the citizenship of residents in the newly created state, which allowed Biharis to choose between citizenship of Pakistan and Bangladesh (Haider, 2018). While more than 500,000 Biharis rejected Bengali citizenship and identified themselves as Pakistani, waiting to be repatriated to Pakistan (Haider, 2018), Pakistan terminated the repatriation process and stripped the stranded Biharis in Bangladesh of their Pakistani citizenship, leaving them stateless (Islam, Mia, & Islam, 2021). Even Biharis who obtained Bengali citizenship have been marginalised in Bangladesh. What comes with the deprivation and insufficient protection of Biharis’ right to nationality is mass violations of their economic, social, and cultural rights, as well as their civil and political rights.

The remaining Bihari community has settled into 116 slum-like camps around Bangladesh since 1971 (Macdonald, 2021). There is no guarantee of their right to adequate food and housing, or their right to privacy, due to the insufficient infrastructure and crowded space. An average of six to eight people live in an 8 by 10-feet room, and in many cases, 12 to 15 people live in the same space, which compromises everyone’s basic privacy (Haider, 2018). In the largest Geneva camp, approximately 30,000 people use 272 toilets (Haider, 2018). Building materials for constructing houses include plastic sheets and bamboo, which can hardly ensure the basic security of inhabitants (Haider, 2018). The terrible living conditions also make it impossible to ensure Biharis’ right to health, water,  and sanitation. Most camps still lack access to medical care and facilities. Very high infant mortality rates among Biharis in camps have been recorded, with three out of five children dying before the age of five (Haider, 2018). Acute problems with drinking water and poor drainage and sanitation systems still constitute health hazards, as identified by Refugee International (Lynch and Cook, 2004). The Khalispur study found many Biharis with insufficient nutritional intake due to poverty (Haider, 2018). 

Additionally, the right to education is also threatened. Among the 30,000 residents in the Geneva Camp, it is estimated that only five percent have formal education. Bihari children hardly had any access to education – 83 percent of Bihari children in the five to ten age group remained outside camp schools, while among the 11 to 15 age group, 78 percent were out of school (Haider, 2018). With the systematic discrimination against Biharis, public and private universities (Macdonald, 2021) are often inaccessible to them. Crammed-up slums are mostly left unpoliced and are susceptible to becoming breeding grounds for drugs, gangs, and crime (Islam, Mia, & Islam, 2021). These factors have become a serious risk to Biharis’ right to social security. Furthermore, due to their statelessness and lack of fundamental living conditions, Biharis are discriminated against and highly excluded from participating in politics, including voting (Macdonald, 2021). The lack of decent life, education, and discourse power in public has shut down the Biharis’ chance to change their conditions, enhancing the bias and discrimination against them.

International instruments including but not limited to the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (United Nations, 1948), International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights and its Optional Protocol (United Nations, 1976), International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (United Nations, 1976), International Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination (United Nations, 1969), Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination Against Women (United Nations, 1979), Convention on the Rights of the Child (United Nations, 1989), and the Statute of United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR, 1950) have stipulated provisions to protect the human rights mentioned above and establish international standards to protect the Biharis. However, the Biharis remain in poverty and marginalised. The enforcement and implementation of these international human rights treaties and bilateral agreements of repatriation between Pakistan and Bangladesh have become seriously problematic: there are no effective and efficient institutions or organisations, either official or private, to monitor or proceed with repatriating Biharis to Pakistan and improving their economic, social, cultural, and political rights in Bangladesh.

State’s obligations of protection, prevention, and punishment

Ensuring the human rights protection of Biharis in Bangladesh becomes the next prominent problem to resolve, particularly from the state’s perspective. As one of the core issues of international human rights law, states are obligated to protect people’s human rights within their territory. Most international human rights instruments entail the state’s obligation to prevent, prosecute, and punish the violation of specific human rights, which may give rise to state responsibility for failure to fulfil such obligations. Bangladesh and Pakistan are also on the list to fulfil their obligations. This requires states to play a more positive role in protecting human rights by ensuring that the domestic law has reached the minimum international standard of human rights protection and actively regulating the potential and ongoing violations of human rights. Progress can be observed with the growing sense of human rights protection and attention towards the Bihari community, improving the conditions of Biharis through the 2003 decision of Abid Khan and others v. Government of Bangladesh and others (Writ Petition No. 3831 of 2001). This decision held that the minor Urdu-speaking petitioners born both before and after 1971, were Bangladeshi nationals under the Citizenship Act of 1951 and the Bangladesh Citizenship Order of 1972 (Hasan, 2015). Subsequently, in 2008, the Dhaka High Court approved citizenship and voting rights for about 150,000 refugees born after the Bangladesh 1971 war of independence (Siddiqui, 2021). A lenient and accessible approach towards Biharis can also significantly promote human rights protection and facilitate the fulfilment of Bangladesh’s positive obligations.

However, this approach confronts two main obstacles: (1) the divergence between domestic and international standards of protection and (2) the insufficient and inefficient mechanisms to implement international law, particularly human rights law. Concerning the first obstacle, the constituent elements of international crimes and the protection of human rights can no longer follow the international standard. For example, unlike the Rome Statute, forced disappearance is not included in the 1973 Act. The statelessness of the Biharis places them at a high risk of forced disappearance, increasingly positioning their situation as a crime against humanity. The lack of a comprehensive stipulation of sexual crimes – “sexual slavery, enforced prostitution, forced pregnancy, enforced sterilisation, or any other form of sexual violence of comparable gravity” (The ICC, 1998) enhances double discrimination against Bihari women and makes it harder to protect them from sexual violence. The lack of these stipulations requires the 1973 Act to align the standards between international law and Bangladeshi law, providing a more concrete legal source for human rights protection.

For the second obstacle, due to the structurally insufficient protection and implementation of human rights, Bangladesh still has a long way to go to construct mechanisms and processes for enforcing international human rights law, such as the reformation of judicial mechanisms and the establishment of strategic human rights litigation. For instance, along with its ratification of the Convention Against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment, Bangladesh enacted the Torture and Custodial Death (Prevention) Act in 2013. From 2013 to 2019, only 18 cases were filed under this act in the High Court due to victim harassment and threats from perpetrators. Additionally, victims and their families were forced to withdraw their cases out of fear (Faruque & Islam, 2024). Inactivity in filing cases may be due to the lack of an adequate legislative framework, low-level focus on marginal perpetrators, laws that serve as barriers to domestic proceedings, or general issues of political will and judicial capacity (Faruque & Islam, 2024). Bangladesh must establish more effective access for victims, not only limited to prosecutorial or judicial approaches but also other alternative mechanisms focusing on victim-centric protection, such as truth-telling commissions, funding for victim reconciliation, and the construction of witnesses and victims protection mechanisms to offer Biharis a better platform to establish their narratives and preserve their human rights.

Conclusion

The formulation of Biharis’ adverse situation since 1971 is complicated and multifaceted. It was caused by the cultural divergence between Biharis and Bengali Communities, the lack of human rights protection in Bangladesh and Pakistan, and the mutual hatred caused by historical conflicts. This article first focuses on the historical condition of the Bihari community since the divisive partition of British India in 1947, which laid the foundation of social, religious, linguistic, and cultural divergence among Bengalis, Pakistans, and Biharis. With the intensification of the conflict between the communities due to the 1971 Bangladesh Liberation War, the onset of mass violence and atrocities violated the rules of international law, constituting human rights violations and international crimes. The occurrence of the genocidal campaign in Bangladesh and the Biharis’ support for Pakistani armies in the Liberation War in 1971 undermined serious violations against Biharis, which were justified as retaliation.

Systematic discrimination and the failure of Biharis’ repatriation to Pakistan further marginalised their status in Bangladesh and negatively affected, derogated, and deprived their human rights, particularly the right to nationality and economic, social, and civil rights. While Biharis should also be protected by international law, including international humanitarian law, international criminal law, and international human rights law, their marginal situation and poor conditions suggest the opposite. Thus, both Bangladesh and Pakistan must devise solutions not only to fulfil their obligations to protect Biharis’ human rights under international treaties but also to provide support to deal with past atrocities, protect their present human rights, and prevent the recurrence of violence against the Bihari community in the future.

Bibliography

Boissoneault, L., 2016. The Genocide the U.S. Can’t Remember, But Bangladesh Can’t Forget. Smithsonian Magazine. Retrieved from: https://www.smithsonianmag.com/history/genocide-us-cant-remember-bangladesh-cant-forget-180961490/[Accessed 17th October 2024].

Convention Against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment (CAT), Article 16.

Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination Against Women (CEDAW), Articles 10-14.

Faruque, J.A. & Islam, Md.R., 2024. Human Rights in Bangladesh: Success and Challenges. IntechOpen. Retrieved from: https://doi.org/10.5772/intechopen.112233[Accessed 17th October 2024].

Fink, G., 2010. Stress of War, Conflict and Disaster. Academic Press, p. 292. ISBN 978-0-12-381382-4.

Geneve Conventions and Additional Protocol I (various articles).

Gerlach, C., 2019. Crowd Violence in East Pakistan/Bangladesh 1971–1972. In: Genocide and Mass Violence in Asia, Vol. 1, pp. 15–39. Walter de Gruyter GmbH. Retrieved from: https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110659054-002[Accessed 18th October 2024].

Haider, Z., 2024. Biharis in Bangladesh: Transition from Statelessness to Citizenship. 1st ed. Springer Nature Switzerland. Retrieved from: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-46129-3[Accessed on 27th October 2024].

Haider, Z., 2018. Biharis in Bangladesh and Their Restricted Access to Citizenship Rights. South Asia Research, 38(3_suppl), pp. 25S-42S. Retrieved from: https://doi.org/10.1177/0262728018791695[Accessed on 24th October 2024].

Hasan Arif, Md.K., 2015. Legal Status of Bihari Community. The Daily Star. Retrieved from: https://www.thedailystar.net/law-our-rights/rights-advocacy/legal-status-bihari-community-169906[Accessed 3rd November 2024].

Hashmi, T. (1998). The Bihari minorities in Bangladesh: Victims of nationalism. In M. Hasan, (ed.) Islam, communities, and nations: Muslim identities in South Asia and beyond. New Delhi: Manohar Publishers.

ICRC, n.d. Customary International Humanitarian Law (CIHL). Rules 145-148. Retrieved from: https://ihl-databases.icrc.org/en/customary-ihl/v1[Accessed on 3rd November 2024].

ICRC, 2010. Civilian “Direct Participation in Hostilities”: Overview. International Committee of the Red Cross. Retrieved from: https://www.icrc.org/en/law-and-policy/direct-participation-hostilities [Accessed 27th October 2024].

ICRC, 2023. The Principle of Humanity and Necessity. International Committee of the Red Cross. [Accessed on 27th October 2024]

International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR), Article 6.

International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights (ICESCR), Articles 6-15.

International Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination (CERD), Article 5.

International Criminal Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia (ICTY), Prosecutor v. Aleksovski, Case No. IT-95-14/1, Judgment, 25 June 1999, para. 229.

International Criminal Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia (ICTY), Prosecutor v. Kvocka and Others, Case No IT-98-30/1-A, Judgment, 28 February 2005, para. 226.

Islam, M.T., Mia, Md.T., & Islam, M., 2021. The Right to Nationality and Repatriation under International Law: A Study on Biharis in Bangladesh. Journal of Indonesian Legal Studies (JILS), 6(2), pp. 251–278. Retrieved from: https://doi.org/10.15294/jils.v6i2.50499[Accessed on 6th November 2024]

Lynch M. and Cook T., 2004. Stateless Biharis in Bangladesh: A Humanitarian Nightmare. Refugees International. Retrieved from: https://www.refworld.org/reference/countryrep/ri/2004/en/14670  [Accessed on 27th October 2024]

Macdonald, G., 2021. Bangladesh: Urdu-Speaking “Biharis” Seek Recognition, Respect and Rights. International Republican Institute. Retrieved from: https://www.iri.org/resources/new-bangladesh-report-reveals-priorities-of-the-bihari-minority/ [Accessed on 27 October 2024].

Minorities at Risk Project, n.d. Chronology for Biharis in Bangladesh. Retrieved from the original on 2nd November 2024.

Prosecutor v. Kupreškić, Case No. IT-95-16-T, Judgment, 14 January 2000, paras. 517-518 & 535.

Rao, V.K.R.V., 1972. Bangla Desh Economy: Problems and Prospects. Delhi: Vikas Publication.

Redclift, V., 2010. Subjectivity and Citizenship: Intersections of Space, Ethnicity and Identity Among the Urdu-Speaking Minority in Bangladesh. Journal of International Migration and Integration, 25(12), pp. 25-42.

Rummel, R.J., 1997. Death by Government: Genocide and Mass Murder Since 1900. Transaction Publishers. ISBN 978-1-56000-927-6. Archived from the original on 19th September 2024.

Saikia, Y., 2004. Beyond the Archive of Silence: Narratives of Violence of the 1971 Liberation War of Bangladesh. History Workshop Journal, (58), pp. 275-287. Retrieved from: https://www.jstor.org/stable/25472765[Accessed on 26th October 2024].

Sattar, N., 2013. The Rejected Biharis. MSc South Asia and International Development, Vol. 1 No.2 (2013), pp. 14-23.

Schmitt, M.N., 2024. Retaliation, Retribution, and Punishment and International Law. Lieber Institute West Point. Retrieved from: https://lieber.westpoint.edu/retaliation-retribution-punishment-international-law/ [Accessed on  19th October 2024].

Sen, S., 1999. Stateless Refugees and the Right to Return: The Bihari Refugees of South Asia. International Journal of Refugee Law, 11(4), pp. 625-645. Retrieved from: https://doi.org/10.1093/ijrl/11.4.625[Accessed on 27th October 2024].

Siddiqui, H., 2021. The ‘Other’ Victims Of The Liberation War Of Bangladesh – OpEd. Eurasia Review, 15 December. Retrieved from: https://www.eurasiareview.com/15122021-the-other-victims-of-the-liberation-war-of-bangladesh-oped/[Accessed on 27th October 2024].

The Geneva Conventions (GCs), Common Article 12.

The Geneva Conventions (GCs), Common Article 3.

The National Archives, n.d. The Independence of Bangladesh in 1971: What can British documents tell us about the creation of Bangladesh? Retrieved from: https://www.nationalarchives.gov[Accessed on 24th October 2024].