Bangladesh has a problem with a word

Sanjoy Kumar Barua

What happens when a government denies the existence of distinct communities — while its own census counts them, its Constitution recognises their cultures, its laws acknowledge them and its peace agreement recognises their distinct rights?

That is the uncomfortable question now facing Bangladesh.

At its centre is a single word: “Indigenous.”

Home Minister Salahuddin Ahmed has said Bangladesh has no Indigenous peoples and that all citizens are Bangladeshi.

Information and Broadcasting Minister Zahir Uddin Swapon has similarly questioned the relevance of the term in the Bangladeshi context.

Former chief prosecutor of the International Crimes Tribunal Mohammad Tajul Islam has gone further, arguing that recognition of Indigenous identity in the Chittagong Hill Tracts could have implications for Bangladesh’s sovereignty.

Those in power in Bangladesh have repeatedly denied Indigenous identity, raising a stark question: are they following the historical record, or yielding to powerful interests?

Start with the census.

Bangladesh’s 2022 Population and Housing Census recorded 1,650,159 people belonging to ethnic minority communities.

The official figures include 483,299 Chakma, 224,261 Marma, 156,578 Tripura, 129,049 Santal, 85,846 Oraon and 76,846 Garo, alongside Munda, Mro, Tanchangya and numerous smaller communities.

Indigenous organisations challenge the official figures, arguing that some communities were not adequately represented in the census.

That disagreement should be settled through better demographic evidence.

These communities are rooted in histories, languages, cultural traditions and social institutions that predate the state and remain an established part of Bangladesh’s historical and social landscape.

They live both in the Chittagong Hill Tracts and the plains, including the Chakma, Marma, Tripura, Mro, Bawm, Tanchangya, Khyang, Khumi, Santal, Oraon, Munda, Garo, Khasi and Hajong communities.

The Chittagong Hill Tracts Regulation of 1900 established a distinctive administrative framework for the region.

Bangladesh’s land laws have also contained historical references to “aboriginal” communities.

Government policies have used various terms over the decades, including tribal, Indigenous, ethnic minority and small ethnic group.

The Constitution offers another important point of reference.

Article 23A directs the state to protect and develop the “unique local culture and tradition” of the country’s “tribes, minor races, ethnic sects and communities”.

Indigenous organisations have criticised this terminology, particularly the expression “minor race”, and have sought recognition based on self-identification.

But whatever terminology is preferred, Article 23A makes one point difficult to ignore: Bangladesh itself recognises that distinct cultural communities exist within the state.

The question, therefore, is not the existence of these communities, but the continued denial of their Indigenous identity.

More than five decades ago, Manabendra Narayan Larma, the Chakma political leader, articulated the distinction in remarkably simple terms:

“I am a Chakma. I am not a Bengali. I am a citizen of Bangladesh – Bangladeshi.”

Larma’s words make a simple but important point: ethnic identity and citizenship are not mutually exclusive.

A person can be Chakma, Marma, Santal, Garo or Oraon and remain fully Bangladeshi.

Recognition of an Indigenous identity does not, by itself, create another nationality or another state. Nor does acknowledging a community’s history automatically diminish the sovereignty of Bangladesh.

That distinction is particularly important in the Chittagong Hill Tracts, where identity is intertwined with land, political representation and the history of armed conflict.

The 1997 Chittagong Hill Tracts Peace Accord ended that conflict and established special political and administrative arrangements. It also recognised the special characteristics of the region.

The Accord did not create a separate sovereign state. Recognising distinct communities within Bangladesh is not the same as recognising a separate state.

Bangladesh has not ratified ILO Convention No. 169, the 1989 Indigenous and Tribal Peoples Convention.
However, it ratified ILO Convention No. 107 in 1972, concerning Indigenous and Tribal Populations, which remains part of its treaty record.

In 2007, Bangladesh abstained when the United Nations General Assembly adopted the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples.

The declaration was approved by 143 countries, with four voting against and 11 abstaining.

The legal distinction is important: UNDRIP is a declaration, not a treaty ratified by Bangladesh.

The recognition of Indigenous peoples extends well beyond the United States, Canada, Australia and New Zealand.

Across Asia, Africa and the Pacific, Indigenous communities maintain distinct identities, histories and cultural traditions while remaining integral to the nations of which they are citizens.

The most difficult questions are therefore not about a word.

They are about land, representation, customary institutions, settlement, resources and implementation of the Peace Accord.

Bangladesh has every right to safeguard its sovereignty and territorial integrity. At the same time, its Constitution places a responsibility on the state to protect the distinctive cultural traditions of its communities.

A confident nation does not fear recognition. It should acknowledge the identities, histories and rights of its Indigenous peoples without yielding to pressure from any particular group, and uphold that position with institutional independence and political resolve.