The 1997 Chittagong Hill Tracts Accord and the Ministry of Chittagong Hill Tracts Affairs building, symbolizing the ongoing debate over governance and implementation. Illustration: The Times of Jumland.
Nearly three decades after the signing of the 1997 Chittagong Hill Tracts Accord, a recent cabinet decision by the BNP-led government under Prime Minister Tarique Rahman has reopened political debate in the hills.
On February 17, 2026, the new administration appointed Dipen Dewan, an Indigenous representative, as Minister of Chittagong Hill Tracts Affairs. At the same time, Mir Mohammad Helal Uddin, a Member of Parliament from Chattogram-5 and a UK-trained barrister, was appointed as State Minister in the same ministry.
The Chittagong Hill Tracts Accord, signed on December 2, 1997, contains a specific provision regarding this ministry. Part (D), Clause 19 of the Agreement states: “A ministry on Chittagong Hill Tracts shall be established on appointing a Minister from among the tribals.” That condition has formally been fulfilled.
However, the Accord does more than require the appointment of a tribal minister. The same clause outlines an Advisory Committee structure dominated by representatives from the Hill Tracts region, including the Regional Council, the three Hill District Councils, the three Members of Parliament from the Chittagong Hill Tracts, and the three Circle Chiefs. Only three non-tribal members may be nominated, and they must be permanent residents of the three hill districts.
This institutional design reflects a clear principle of governance of the Chittagong Hill Tracts should be regionally grounded and Indigenous-led, with carefully structured participation from non-tribal residents within the region.
The appointment of a non-Indigenous State Minister from outside the Hill Tracts, therefore, raises a structural question. While the Accord does not explicitly prohibit such an appointment, it does not clearly envision expanded executive authority within the ministry beyond the framework described in Clause 19. Critics argue that introducing a political figure from outside the region into a key executive position risks shifting influence away from the decentralization model embedded in the Agreement.
This debate is amplified by historical context. The Chittagong Hill Tracts Accord was strongly opposed by the Bangladesh Nationalist Party at the time of its signing and was publicly criticized as a “Black Accord.” When Khaleda Zia formed the government in 2001, disputes over implementation remained central to hill politics. Now, under Prime Minister Tarique Rahman, the interpretation and implementation of the Accord once again stand at the center of political scrutiny.
Legally, the government can point out that Clause 19 requires the appointment of a tribal minister, a condition that has been met. The text of the Agreement does not explicitly restrict the appointment of a state minister.
However, the broader institutional design of the Accord reflects a governance model centered on Indigenous leadership, regional participation, and carefully structured non-tribal involvement limited to permanent residents of the Hill Tracts. The expansion of executive authority within the ministry beyond that framework raises questions about alignment with the Accord’s decentralization intent.
In the Chittagong Hill Tracts, where key elements of the Accord, including land dispute resolution, full administrative transfer, and demilitarization commitments, remain incomplete, institutional structure carries symbolic and political weight. The concern expressed by many observers is not about a technical breach, but about the direction of whether governance of the region continues to move toward the decentralization framework envisioned in 1997, or whether it reflects a gradual shift toward greater central oversight.
Nearly 28 years after its signing, the Chittagong Hill Tracts Accord stands not only as a legal framework but as a benchmark of trust between the state and the Indigenous peoples of the region. The current controversy suggests that the central question is no longer simply what the text says, but how faithfully its principles are being carried forward.
