Following Bangladesh's independence, the state faced numerous challenges in governance. Among them, one of the most complex and persistent problems was the instability in the Chittagong Hill Tracts (CHT) region. The armed movement that gradually developed around the demands, identity, and rights of the hill population kept the country's internal security under challenge for many years. However, this movement was not merely based on local issues. Over time, it became clear that the crisis in the hills was deeply intertwined with India's geopolitical interests.
Since independence, it was observed that armed hill groups began demanding a separate state under the identity of "indigenous" people. They demanded autonomy, their own administrative structure, special rights over land control, and various other concessions from the Bangladesh government. In the 1970s and 80s, these groups gained strength by acquiring weapons. Meanwhile, the state of Bangladesh had to take harsh measures numerous times to counter the violence of these armed groups. Many members of the Army, Police, and BGB sacrificed their lives there. Ordinary citizens also lived for years in fear, uncertainty, and isolation.
In this context, when the Awami League came to power in 1996, they took a new initiative for dialogue. Subsequently, on December 2, 1997, the "Chittagong Hill Tracts Peace Accord" was signed, which is considered a major political decision in Bangladesh's history. The main goals of the treaty were a ceasefire, permanent stability, building trust among the hill population, decentralizing administration to the local level, and accelerating development activities. The government at the time claimed that this treaty would end the long conflict, peace would return to the hills, and trust would gradually be built among everyone.
But standing here 28 years later, the question arises-what did Bangladesh actually gain from the treaty? Have we been able to achieve that desired peace, stability, and development? How much of the treaty has been implemented? The treaty contained about 70 clauses across four sections. It stated that: A special administrative structure would be formed in the hills. A commission would work to resolve land disputes. Armed groups would surrender their weapons. Army camps would be reduced. Equal rights for Hill people and Bengalis would be ensured.
But the reality is that many parts of these clauses have not been fully implemented. The Land Commission has not become effective, and many aspects of administrative autonomy remain only on paper. Furthermore, even after the treaty, numerous armed groups have emerged, leading the entire region back toward instability. Signing a treaty does not automatically bring peace-peace comes from strong state control, the application of just laws, and the ability to counter aggressive foreign influence.
After the treaty, it was said that: Army camps would be gradually reduced. Local administration would take responsibility. The situation would stabilize. But today, we see that the dominance of armed groups increased in many areas right after the reduction of the army. They have re-emerged with new strength. Currently, a large section of public opinion, experts, and even many locals are demanding that there is no alternative to reinforcing the army presence in the hills. Because protecting the sovereignty of the state is a greater imperative than any treaty.
There was hope after the treaty that trust would be built among the hill population and they would see themselves as part of Bangladesh. But the reality is: To this day, they claim to be a "separate ethnic nation." Many do not want to accept the Constitution of Bangladesh. A racially discriminatory attitude against Bengalis persists locally. They frequently raise demands to cancel the treaty.
But when we look back today, we see that a large part of the peace that was supposed to come is absent in reality. The relationship of trust that was supposed to be built did not happen. The development that was supposed to occur is limited. And most importantly, the national security that was supposed to be strengthened still faces major risks today. Therefore, the question today is very natural: What did we actually get from the treaty? Did the hills truly become peaceful? Or were we pushed toward greater insecurity in the name of peace? The reality is-the hills are still turbulent.
The writer is a journalist
