The Bangladesh Observer, 9 September 2003
http://www.bangladeshobserveronline.com/new/2003/09/09/editorial.htm
The hill districts of south-eastern Bangladesh is rest-less again. A military order was slamped in the area, ap-parently to improve the situation. But it seems to have backfired. It was withdrawn a few days later amidst se-vere criticism from the tribal leaders.
What prompted the government to impose a virtual military rule in the area? Apparently, a book by the 'King' of the Chakmas' Raja Tridib Roy published recently had prompted the government to take stern measures in the region. The King, who is now in Pakistan and has been a resident of that country since Bangladesh's indepen-dence in 1971. He has also served that country loyally since 1971. His current book, reportedly, challenges the integration of what was the Chittagong Hill Tracts into Bangladesh.
No doubt the Raja's remark disturbs many in Bangladesh, particularly as his son Debashish Roy has become the unofficial spokesman for the Chakmas. Debashish should make his position clear regarding his father's book otherwise there will be many who will think that he tends to agree with it.
The government should also refrain from making sweeping generalisations. Although it is true that the Chakma king had joined the Pakistanis there were many of his tribe who joined the Liberation War. The Chakma freedom fighters ought to have as much voice in Bangladesh as Tridib Roy has in Pakistan. The wholesale branding of an ethnic group as anti-national will only help the cause of people like Tridib Roy.
Ethnic discontent has been a feature of South Asian politics for quite sometime. The eastern part of the sub-continent has been more prone to it. Neighboring India has had to face many ethnic insurgencies some dating back to the days of the partition and independence of the sub-continent from Britain in 1947. Some of these dis-putes have been settled, while others fester. The most successful resolution has been that of Darjeeling, where Gurkhas, themselves immigrants from Nepal, were de-manding a separate state. A regional council with ade-quate powers was organised that defused the tension.
Bangladesh, too, had signed a peace accord with its tribal insurgents but apparently it is not working. This is unfortunate. Governments must understand that keeping a people in tow, by force, is not a desirable thing. At the least, it is an expensive exercise. For a poor, land-starved country like Bangladesh, one can easily imagine the disil-lusionment of its minorities, particularly those who have a geographically defined territory.
In a sense the problems of the Hill districts is a com-mon third world problem. Minorities failing to identify with the post-colonial state. Many of the countries of East Asia like Malaysia and to a lesser extent Myanmar have solved this problem by providing economic largesse. For Bangladesh that seems a difficult proposition. The only way Bangladesh can solve this problem is by taking the pro-Bangladesh elements into confidence.
One has to remember that country's like China have allowed Specialized Economic Zones (SEZs) that are to-tally free not only to run their local affairs but also to conduct foreign trade. This has not had a negative impact on Chinese integrity but has contributed positively to nation-building. Policy-makers in Bangladesh should remember the experience of handling such ethnic issues throughout Asia to find a solution that works. Otherwise, the Hill districts will remain no-man's-land for a long time to come.