When Human Rights Become Conditional in the Chittagong Hill Tracts

 

Bangladesh, Rangamati | March 15, 2026: A recent statement by Bangladesh’s newly elected BNP-led government Home Minister, Salahuddin Ahmed, has reignited a long-standing debate over security, citizenship, and equal rights in the Chittagong Hill Tracts.

 

On March 11, 2026, during a dialogue titled “National Human Rights Commission Ordinance 2025 and Expectations from the New Parliament” at the China Friendship Conference Center in Dhaka, the minister asserted that “100 percent human rights cannot be ensured in the Chittagong Hill Tracts in order to protect national integrity and security.”

 

The minister referenced the three hill districts of Rangamati, Khagrachhari, and Bandarban, stating that the security situation in these areas sometimes necessitates intervention by defense forces. He further argued that if all actions by security forces are evaluated solely through a human rights framework, the state may be constrained in implementing measures deemed essential for safeguarding sovereignty and territorial integrity.

 

During the same speech, the minister compared these security measures to those implemented during wartime, specifically referencing the 1971 Liberation War. He contended that actions undertaken during national crises cannot always be assessed using standard legal criteria and maintained that exceptional circumstances may necessitate extraordinary responses.

 

However, for many Indigenous communities in the Chittagong Hill Tracts, the statement carries a deeper and more troubling meaning. The concern is not simply about one political remark. It touches a historical experience that has shaped the relationship between the state and Indigenous peoples in the region for decades.

 

The Chittagong Hill Tracts is home to several Indigenous communities, collectively known as the Jumma peoples, whose languages, cultures, and traditional land systems are distinct from those of the Bengali majority. After Bangladesh’s independence in 1971, tensions arose between the government and Indigenous political leaders concerning political recognition, cultural rights, and control over ancestral lands. These disputes escalated into an armed insurgency that persisted for nearly two decades.

 

In 1997, the government of Bangladesh and representatives of the Indigenous peoples signed the Chittagong Hill Tracts Accord (CHT Accord), which aimed to end the conflict and establish a political framework for autonomy, land dispute resolution, and regional governance. The accord generated optimism that the protracted conflict would give way to a new relationship grounded in political trust and institutional reform.

 

Nearly three decades later, many Indigenous leaders contend that several key provisions of the CHT Accord remain only partially implemented. Ongoing disputes regarding land rights, the authority of local institutions, and the effectiveness of the Land Commission continue to generate tension throughout the region. Consequently, security forces maintain a significant presence in the hills, and the area is still primarily regarded as a sensitive security zone.

 

Within this context, statements implying that full human rights cannot be guaranteed in the region are met with particular concern. Indigenous organizations and civil society groups have consistently argued that security-related rhetoric has frequently been employed to justify exceptional policies in the hills, including restrictions on political activity and unresolved land disputes affecting Indigenous communities.

 

For many residents of the region, the minister’s remark raises a fundamental question regarding equality within the state. If citizens in the Chittagong Hill Tracts are informed that “100 percent human rights” cannot be ensured due to security considerations, it implies that the people of the hills may be subject to a different standard of rights compared to citizens in other parts of the country.

 

In any democratic state, the legitimacy of governance fundamentally relies on the principle that all citizens are equal before the law. When national security discourse is used to redefine the boundaries of human rights in a specific region, this principle is at risk of being undermined.

 

Nearly three decades after the signing of the Chittagong Hill Tracts Accord, the central issue in the region remains unresolved. The key question is whether governance will continue to prioritize security management or shift toward the full realization of political commitments intended to transform the relationship between the state and the Indigenous peoples of the Chittagong Hill Tracts.

 

For many observers, the resolution of this question will determine not only the future of the Chittagong Hill Tracts but also how Bangladesh defines equality and citizenship within its national boundaries.