Introduction
Vietnam is a multiethnic society comprising of fifty-four ethnic groups recognized by the government of Vietnam. It bears witness to many different ethnic groups who have made Vietnam their homeland. Some of them are residing for the last thousand years while some have entered into its lands only a few centuries back making it one of the most complex areas on the whole Southeastern coastline of the Asian continent. (Mackerras 2003: 108)
Minorities have occupied the most important position in Vietnam, as they are part of the sensitive areas of Vietnam touching borders. Because they occupy strategically important and sensitive border areas like China, Laos, and Cambodia, they are always kept under watch, as retention of their loyalty is critical for national unity and safety. Ho Chi Minh has always been invoking unity, unity, and great unity (Doan ket, Doan ket, dai Doan ket) in his propaganda campaigns. (Mackerras 2003: 127)
Main body
Despite ethnic groups being only 14 percent of the total population, the majority belongs to the poor and 75 percent of them lie below the internationally set poverty line. (World Health Organization 2003: 6) All the records show there is a wide gap between the living standard of ethnic minorities and the groups belonging to the majority population and this gap has only been widening.
Since the 1990s, Kinh and Hoa groups have been making great progress and are sustaining a higher standard of life as compared to the others belonging to the remaining 52 ethnic groups. The Khymer and many other groups belonging to the Northern Upland minorities have experienced themselves a standard level of growth but if we analyze their expenditure level’s we may find they are spending at much below the poverty line. But the minority ethnic groups staying at the Central Highlands and H’Mong are lacking behind in growth. (World Health Organization 2003: 6)
The minority groups towards the Northern Mountains are scattered and do not have any defined territories. E.g. Thai and Muong, who are the wet rice farming groups, have made their settlements in valleys and intermountain basins whereas Kho Mu who are rotational cultivators are biased towards lower slopes of mountains where H’Mong are found towards higher parts of the mountains. (Mackerras 2003: 111)
All the diverse groups have spread over the vast lands and within the parameter of the geographical landscape; there have been diversity and variedness in the various policies of subsequent government’s towards the minority ethnics. The constitutions of Vietnam of 1946, 1980, and 1992 recognized the rights of ethnic minorities. Many ethnic minorities take part in the framing of the policies and representing quite a reasonable number at the national level.
Hoa, the term denoted by the Vietnamese for the ethnic Chinese people initially migrated into this land from China as administrators and merchants. Till the nineteenth century, they were all considered to be Chinese but they were readmitted into the mainstream of social and political life of Vietnam so that they have Vietnamese Nationality but they remained confined into their domain following their own culture, language, and their lion dances. But they occupied major parts of urban areas and became successful merchants, artisans, and entrepreneurs and the majority of them settled in Southern Vietnam.
Gradually they inherited mistrust of the Vietnamese people owing to their economically superior position and were deeply hurt when anti-Chinese sentiment aroused after 1975. Tensions were further aroused when China attacked Vietnam in 1979 and to escape from the reprisals of Vietnamese, thousands of them known as “boat people” escaped to settle in Australia, France, or America to join their previous refugees to now become what the Vietnamese call Viet Kieu. Recently the Government of Vietnam has made it easier for Viet Kieu to return back and even made provisions for them to send money to their family back in Vietnam. Still, the attitude of the Vietnamese towards Viet Kieu has not changed and the government is still perplexed on how to improve the relations. (Dodd, Lewis & Emmons 2003: 531)
After the reunification of the nation in 1976, the Government introduced what was known as an orthodox central planning system to initiate large investments in industrial development, its self-sufficiency, and distribution of resources through complexities in the planning system.
These involved the development of the large-scale state farms, serving as the production units as well as the security zones when located near the border areas. Some of the forest areas were reserved for exploitation in the name of development and major investment in infrastructure. But on the other hand, there was also the displacement of minority communities at the cost of the development of Hoa Binh Hydropower Dam. (Wandel: Online)
The 1970s also saw severe economic upheavals by the government and by the end of the year, the government prevented acting upon the consolidation of the Centrally Planned Seas. Again in 1980, cities saw high rates of investment yet the government had very little control over the economy like that of Eastern Europe, China or the Soviet Union had. And within this paradigm, we would also say that government too did not have much control over the economy of rural areas, as any investments and production in the rural areas were not linked through the central plan.
In real terms’ the reform process was started in 1979 to 1980 initiated by the Vietnamese military involvement in Cambodia and subsequently its withdrawal of aid from Western areas and China. This yet again followed by the changes in agricultural policy in 1981 with the help of “end product end system.”(Wandel: Online) Under this system, autonomous power was given to the farm household production unit. During the same period was also initiated the liberalization of small-scale trade and craft activities which was taken further by the reform movements known as “Doi Moi” initiated and coined by the Vietnamese reform makers of Sixth Party Congress in 1986. (Wandel: Online)
In 1993, The Committee for Ethnic Minorities and Mountainous Areas (CEMMA) was formed on the Government’s similar lines for the study of, planning, and implementation of all issues concerned with ethnic minorities and mountainous areas. It was allocated with the budget of D 7.9 trillion to spend on the projects over the five years crossing 2005 but if this had been properly utilized then this would account for the US $ 50 per ethnic minority household every year.
But since 1998, CEMMA had been under severe criticism regarding the allocation of the funds. In March 2001, the 11th Plenum of the Central Committee of the party closely watched CEMMA chairman Hoang Duc Nghi. According to Cohan, “At the heart of the CEMMA’s failings is a top-down approach…Ethnic minorities rarely participate in planning development projects, and rarely know what they are entitled to once projects are implemented.” (Glewwe, Agarwal & Dollar 2004: 256)
Besides the Government’s initiating programs of 133, The Ministry of Labour, Invalids and Social Affairs is taking hunger eradication and power reduction programs at the doorsteps of minorities but the gravity of the situation does not allow the programs to spread proportionately though under its list are included the poor of lowland and midland areas. The main weakness of the programs is its insufficient target and with D 410 billion, it could not reach the poorest households dissipating the whole concept of programs on which it is based. (Glewwe, Agarwal & Dollar 2004: 287)
The Government also initiated The Hunger Eradication and Poverty Reduction Programme (HEPR), with coordination at central, province, district, and commune levels to initiate the investment and social service programs for the ethnic minorities. Another program closely related to it is “Programme 135”. This program is aimed at the social-economic development of the communities facing numerous difficulties in mountainous and remote areas. (World Health Organization 2003: 21)
For ages government had discriminated the minorities like H’Mong, Montagnards, Tay, and Khymer. It had also been a tradition in the ethnic Kinh Vietnamese to show their arrogance towards the minority tribes. This was the reason for many minorities to give their support to the French and Americans during their independence and anti-colonial wars. When Vietnam was reunified in 1976, the Government made a systematic approach to suppress minorities
The necessary resources and funds were not reaching them and till today they come under the poor and most underdeveloped areas of the country. As compare to others, they also lag in infant mortality rate, life span, literacy, calorie intake, etc. But now the efforts are being made to restore their identity and are being taught the Vietnamese language to encourage tourism.
In 2000, a report was submitted by the Government of Vietnam, which stated, “For the Vietnamese people, racial discrimination is unfamiliar and does not exist in the country. In Vietnam, all ethnic groups have, from time immemorial existed peacefully without racial conflicts and discrimination. All ethnic groups in Vietnam, regardless of their size, language, culture, history, and level of development, have enjoyed the same rights in all aspects of life.” (Jones, Saunders & Smart 2002: 30)
Theoretically, the government’s strategy was based on the SRV 1995 policy document targeting the disproportionate poor, encouraging ethnic people to come forward in the development process, building up their capacity, giving them sustained development, and encouraging the respect and responsibilities of the parties involved but in practice, the government policy had been more repressive, that goes contradictory to the religious and cultural practices of ethnic minorities including their agriculture and land use. The policies have also been poorly implemented due to the lack of resources, poor communications at all the official levels, and corruption. (Jones, Saunders & Smart 2002: 31)
Regarding religion, Vietnam’s constitution of 1992 did not guarantee the “freedom of religion”, but “the freedom to believe or not believe in a religious faith” (Article 70). (Abuza 2004: Online) However, the same article also dictates them that “no one can violate the freedom of faith or exploit it in a way that is at variance with the law and state policies.” (Abuza 2004: Online)
Though the policies of the Government towards minorities saw improvement in the 1990s, yet people generally mistrust the minorities. Many minorities got converted to evangelical Christianity, which till 2001 was an unofficial religion. (Abuza 2004: Online).
Conclusion
The Government’s policy between the years 1975 to 2000 had been a policy of complexities and mixed reforms towards ethnic communities, but no policy has been implemented with true letter and spirit. To fruitfully bring ethnic communities into the mainstream of social and economic development, there is a need to have transparency in the all-endeavoring propositions of the government.
References List
Abuza, Z. 2004. Vietnam Today. Web.
Carino, T.C. 1980. Vietnam’s Chinese Minority And the Politics of Sino-Vietnamese Relations. Web.
Dodd, J., Lewis, M. & Emmons, R. 2003. Vietnam. New York: Rough Guides.
Ellinwood, D.C. & Enloe, C.H. 1980. Ethnicity and the Military in Asia. New Jersey: Transaction Publishers.
Glewwe, P., Agrawal, N. & Dollar, D. 2004. Economic Growth, Poverty, and Household Welfare in Vietnam. Washington, DC: World Bank Publications.
Jones, S., Saunders, J. & Smart, M. 2002. Repression of Montagnards: Conflicts Over Land and Religion in Vietnam’s Central Highlands. New York, London: Human Rights Watch.
Mackerras, C. 2003. Ethnicity in Asia: A Comparative Introduction. First Edition. New York & London: RoutledgeCurzon.
Ruthorford, S. 2003. Vietnam. Langenscheidt Publishing Group.
Taylor, P. 2004. Social Inequality in Vietnam and the Challenges to Reform. First Edition.
Singapore: Institute of Southeast Asian Studies.
Witter, Sophie. 1993. Working with Ethnic Minorities in Vietnam; An Introduction to the Issues. Ha Noi: Save the Children Fund (UK).
Wandel, J. Development Opportunities and Threats to Ethnic Minority Groups in Viet Nam. Web.
World Health Organization. 2003. HEALTH AND ETHNIC MINORITIES IN VIET NAM. Web.