Satyadarshi Chakma
Everyone would agree, without hesitation, that
military rule always stands in the way of a country’s development, prosperity,
and progress. That is why, in country after country, people have fought and
struggled against military rule for democracy. The people of Bangladesh, too,
have a long and bitter history of military rule and struggles against it.
In Bangladesh, military rule has come at times through
the direct imposition of martial law, at times through authoritarian rule by
military leaders dressed in civilian clothes, and at other times through
military-backed civilian caretaker governments. But regardless of the form or
guise in which it has appeared, military rule has been a curse for democracy
and development. That is why people oppose it.
The question now is: if military rule is an obstacle
to development and social progress, then why is development in the Chittagong
Hill Tracts being discussed while maintaining a massive military presence and
military rule and control? Isn't that a contradiction? Is it really possible to
establish genuine democratic governance and development in the rest of the
country while maintaining military rule in one region? Bangladesh's history
over the past 55 years bears witness to the fact that it is not.
Military rule in the Chittagong Hill Tracts is not
merely an obstacle to the development of this region; it is also an obstacle to
the development of the entire country. Just as if oxygen is not supplied—or is
supplied inadequately—through the bloodstream to a distant part of the body,
such as a hand or foot, gangrene, ulcers, and cancer will inevitably develop
there, ultimately causing the affected person's death. Alternatively, the hand
or foot would have to be amputated to save the person. Likewise, if the oxygen
called democracy does not reach the Chittagong Hill Tracts, the consequences
will not be good in the long run.
One argument made in favor of a military presence in
the Chittagong Hill Tracts is that the army needs to be there to protect the
country's independence and sovereignty. There can certainly be a military
presence in the hills, just as there is in other parts of Bangladesh. But why
should the military control people's everyday lives? Why should there be
military rule? Why should the entire area be covered with military camps—as if
some foreign country or enemy would attack us at any moment? Why should military
operations, house searches, and harassment be carried out selectively and
repeatedly in indigenous Jumma villages? A military presence and military rule
are not the same thing. The people of the Chittagong Hill Tracts do not oppose
the presence of the military; they oppose military rule and military control.
And they do so for entirely reasonable and logical reasons.
We know that, in response to the questions above, the
military or their subservient supporters will say that such measures are
necessary to suppress terrorism. But it hardly needs to be said that this
explanation is entirely deceptive and misleading. A detailed discussion of this
issue would make this article much longer. Here, it is suffice to say that the
root of all the problems in the Chittagong Hill Tracts today is the absence of
a democratic environment and the existence of absolute military rule. Even
after the armed struggle ended through the 1997 Chittagong Hill Tracts Accord,
the same situation still prevails. The Chittagong Hill Tracts are still viewed
through the lens of counterinsurgency. The army remains the undisputed
authority here.
They are also judging the establishment of a college
in Sajek from this so-called counterinsurgency perspective. They believe that
if the army does not control the college, political parties in the hills—and,
more explicitly, the United People's Democratic Front (UPDF)—will establish
dominance there. The educated students and young people of Sajek will become
politically conscious, and that will create a challenge for the military.
In reality, this is merely a delusion on the part of
the military. They are mistaking a rope for a snake and making a mountain out
of a molehill. They are looking at the entire issue the wrong way. Like the
protagonist of Rip Van Winkle, their thinking and consciousness remain stuck in
the distant past, while the country, society, and world have moved far ahead.
The fundamental point is that national security cannot
be ensured in any region through military repression. The extreme use of
military force by West Pakistan during the period before 1971 in Bangladesh is
proof of this. The more you try to suppress the legitimate rights of a region's
people through military means, the stronger their desire and efforts for
democracy and liberation will become. Democracy, progress, and freedom can
never be stopped through military means. Is the army able to prevent the opening
of the college in Sajek by using force? When people have nowhere left to
retreat, they are compelled to fight desperately for their survival. And
whenever they unite and fight, they cannot be suppressed by any means. History
has demonstrated this truth time and again.
To return once more to the point with which I began:
the military rule prevailing in the Chittagong Hill Tracts is an obstacle to
development not only in the Hill Tracts but throughout Bangladesh. As long as
military rule continues in the hills, genuine democracy and development will
not be possible—not only in the hills, but in Bangladesh as a whole.
“When those who are below us pull us down, we too will
descend. Those whom we leave behind will obstruct our progress forward.”
It would be beneficial to everyone if the country's
leaders kept these words of Rabindranath Tagore in mind.
(August 11, 2026)
---------