KATHMANDU: Migration is a pervasive feature of Chinese and Bangladeshi urban life. Not only in the medieval and early modern periods, but also in modern times, Chinese and Bangladeshi people have migrated from one city to another and from China or Bangladesh to other areas or countries as well.  In pre-modern China, particularly from the Song to Qing dynasties, the Chinese migrated from the northern plains to the mountainous south and the southeast coast.

Similarly, in modern Bangladesh, Bangladeshi people are migrating from the countryside to the city, mainly Dhaka (the capital of Bangladesh), and from Bangladesh to foreign lands as well. For example, during the military rule of Bangladesh between 1979 and 1984, a large number of Bengalis migrated from different plain districts to the hilly area of Chittagong.

At this point, the question is: are there any unique features or differences between both pre-modern Chinese and modern Bangladeshi migration patterns? Basically, the objective of this comparative study is to determine the similarities and differences in migration between pre-modern Chinese and modern Bangladeshi migration cases.

Hence, in order to answer the question above, I am going to use theories of comparative history, particularly the comparative history theory of Marc Bloch (Sewell, 1967).

It should be noted that writing this brief article as a comparison of all cases of pre-modern Chinese and modern Bangladeshi migration history is difficult; for this reason, I have selected a few cases that represent a group, a community, or an event in pre-modern Chinese migration history. Similarly, I will try to find a few cases in modern Bangladeshi migration history as well as cases in pre-modern China.

I am going to proceed with this article by dividing the migration patterns of pre-modern Chinese and modern Bangladeshi migrations mainly into three groups, and henceforth each group into two or three subgroups based on the mobility, willingness, and living duration of emigrants.

Firstly, I would like to divide patterns of migration based on the distance of emigration into a) short-distance migration and b) long-distance migration. Secondly, based on the willingness of emigrants: a) voluntary migration and b) forced migration. Thirdly, based on the duration of migration: a) seasonal, b) temporary, and c) permanent migration.

At this point, I would like to say that all these patterns of migration are important features of pre-modern Chinese and modern Bangladeshi migration history, which indicate that the Chinese and Bangladeshi migration patterns have similarities.

For example, during the liberation war of Bangladesh in 1971, ten million Bangladeshi migrants migrated as refugees from their hometowns to India temporarily in consequence of the Bengali massacres by the Pakistani Army. Obviously, after the independence of Bangladesh, these migrants returned to their homes.

So, this migration was an example of forced migration, long-distance migration, and temporary migration at the same time. Similarly, in pre-modern China, large-scale population movements and deportations often took place as a consequence of military upheaval during the massacres of the late Ming dynasty (Winter, 2013). Subsequently, the patterns of both Bangladeshi and Chinese migrations are quite similar.

Because both Bangladeshis and Chinese left their countries in the context of military intervention, we can consider both Bangladeshi and Chinese migration as examples of forced migration.

However, at the same time, both the Bangladeshi and Chinese migration cases have differences, because this Chinese migration case does not represent the two patterns—long-distance migration and temporary migration—as did the Bangladeshi migration case.

These Chinese migrants could not return to their homeland after the massacres, unlike the Bangladeshi migrants in 1971.

Indeed, it is true that a comparison between the Chinese and Bangladeshi migration cases, case by case, shows that the patterns of migration of the Chinese and Bangladeshi are not entirely the same. As an illustration, the meaning of long-distance migration in pre-modern Chinese migration history and modern Bangladeshi migration history is different.

Pre-modern Chinese long-distance migration predominantly involved intercity movement by merchants, officials, ethnic groups, female migrants, etc. (Winter, 2013).

Conversely, modern Bangladeshi long-distance migration refers to migration from the countryside and small cities to Dhaka, the capital city of Bangladesh, and from Bangladesh to other countries across the globe, mainly by professional, skilled, semi-skilled, and unskilled workers; a few government officials; traders; etc.

Additionally, voluntary and forced migrations are other important features of both Chinese and Bangladeshi migration history. During the late Tang to Song periods, a large number of Chinese migrated from the northern plains to the mountainous south and the southeast coast, for instance (Winter, 2013). The main reason for that migration was economic need, and as such, it can be classified as voluntary and permanent migration as well.

This migration changed the geographical distribution among the Chinese people and thus played a vital role in the changing demography and economic fate of the mountainous south and the southeast coastal area. Similarly, in modern Bangladesh, a large-scale voluntary and permanent Bengali migration happened for economic reasons from the plains to the mountainous or hilly areas.

During the military rule of Bangladesh between 1979 and 1984, more than 400,000 Bengali Muslims migrated from many different plain districts to the hilly area of Chittagong in Bangladesh, for instance (Chakma & Akhy, 2017).

As in China, this Bengali migration changed the geographical distribution of people and the demography and economic fate of the hilly area of Bangladesh and, as such, eventually destroyed the ancestral cultivable land of indigenous people.

Moreover, with that, the economic condition of indigenous peoples was damaged. In addition, this large-scale migration of non-indigenous people created armed conflicts between the Bengali emigrants and the indigenous people, and later it turned into a conflict between the Bangladesh Army and the indigenous militant groups.

During this armed conflict, familiar indigenous people were terrified. They had to migrate to new areas in order to secure their lives. In this case, most of the indigenous people migrated to foreign lands, particularly the plains of Arunachal and Mizoram in India (Chakma & Akhy, 2017). At this point, I want to claim that modern Bangladeshi migration from the plains to the hilly areas in Bangladesh produced another migration.

So, it is clear that the push and pull factors are one of the important features of Bangladeshi migration history. But the Chinese migration to hilly areas during the late Tang to Song period does not represent these push and pull factors.

These particular features highlight the differences between the Bangladeshi and the Chinese hilly migration cases.

Finally, I would like to claim that from a comparison of these Bangladeshi and Chinese migration cases, it is clear that both migrations have similarities. But a case-by-case comparison indicates that both migration patterns are not entirely the same, as both Chinese and Bangladeshi hilly area migrations represent voluntary patterns of migration.

The Bangladeshi hilly area migration case also represents the patterns of push and pull, which were absent in the northern plains to the mountainous south and the southeast coast migrations of pre-modern China. Similarly, the Bengali massacres migration case in 1971 and the Chinese massacres case of the late Ming dynasty are the same.

Both migration cases represent forced and long-distance patterns of migration. Both migrations, however, are not entirely the same because the Bengali massacres migration case also represents the temporary pattern of migration.

On the other hand, the Chinese massacres case represents a permanent pattern of migration. So, after these comparisons between the pre-modern Chinese and the modern Bangladeshi migration cases, I would like to claim that both migration cases have specific differences.

(Md. Abusalah Sakender is Assistant Professor, Department of Islamic History & Culture, Jagannath University. He can be reached at [email protected])