On September 23, 2025, a tragic incident involving the rape of a girl in Khagrachhari sparked widespread outrage among indigenous communities. Student groups, reportedly linked to the United People’s Democratic Front (UPDF), launched protests demanding justice, causing a road blockade that defied Section 144, an order banning public assembly. According to the Inter Services Public Relations (ISPR), a confrontation in the Ramesu Bazar area of Guimara upazila led to gunfire allegedly from armed UPDF members, targeting both army personnel and civilians. However, the UPDF has categorically denied these claims.
These conflicting accounts raise troubling questions regarding the treatment towards indigenous communities by Bangladesh. A concern where the past and present circumstance of the indigenous peoples of the country eerily resembles the fundamental aspects of ‘apartheid’.
Constitutional Promises vs. Indigenous Reality
The Constitution of Bangladesh (1972) promises equality before the law (Article 27) and non-discrimination on the grounds of race, religion, caste, or sex (Article 28) of citizens. However, the definition of citizens seems to be a bit tricky. On one hand, the Constitution embeds the ‘Bangalee nationalism’ in Article 9, while labels the indigenous people as “tribes,” “minor races,” or “ethnic sects” under Article 23A. The term Adivasi, or indigenous, is not even mentioned in the Constitution of Bangladesh. This linguistic exclusion is more than symbolic. By refusing to officially recognize indigenous status, the state conveniently avoids disregard of international law, such as the UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples (UNDRIP) in 2007, where it has still abstained its vote, if not ratified.
Such euphemistic ideological designs marginalize non-Bengali, non-Muslim communities and evinces their distinct identity invisible in spirit, if not through doctrine.
Historical Roots: Militarization, Demographics, and Islamisation
One of the most evident invidious duplicities of the State is the conflict of the Chittagong Hill Tracts. In response to the ‘Bangalee nationalism’ enactment, the Parbatya Chattagram Jana Samhati Samiti (PCJSS) was formed in 1972, and its armed wing, the Shanti Bahini, began an insurrection demanding autonomy and constitutional recognition. The government responded with heavy militarization and policies incentivizing the settlement of Bengali Muslims in the Hill tracts. This policy is also known as ‘islamisation policy’. Hence, Bangladesh rebranded separate development of South Africa as integration. This led to a militant demographic transfiguration ranging from dispossession of land, cultural assimilation, and violent clashes between settlers and indigenous people.
Peace Accords and Unfulfilled Promises
In 1997, after 2 decades of conflict in the Chittagong Hill Tracts (CHT), the government signed a Peace Accord with the Parbatya Chattagram Jana Samhati Samiti (PCJSS), promising autonomy, demilitarization, land restitution, and cultural recognition. The formation of institutions like the CHT Regional Council and Land Dispute Resolution Commission was also assured.
Despite these, from 1st January to 31st July 2025 there were 12 land related incidents from Rangamati, Bandarban, Chittagong and Cox’s Bazar, such as an attempt to occupy 130 acres of Jum and fruit plantations belonging to 39 indigenous Jumma families by Security Forces, among many others.
Furthermore, the Kaptai Dam Project (1960s) caused the displacement of a staggering 100,000 Jumma Peoples from their ancestral homes, and a second displacement following the filling up of the Kaptai reservoir, submerging resettlement sites.
Structural Inequalities and Legal Manipulation
Land grabbing, facilitated by legal loopholes, represents a contemporary expression of structural inequality, with consequences that mirror those of historical apartheid.
For instance,
1. The State Acquisition and Tenancy Act (1950) with aim to abolish the zamindari system, was exploited for the nullification of communal ownership.
2. The Forest Act (1927) declared lands as ‘reserved’ (chapter II, 4(a)), labelled shifting cultivation as ‘privilege subject to control, restriction and abolition by the Government’ (chapter II,10(5)), paving the way for radical commercial logging.
Thus, failure to implement the Peace Accord, and weaponizing the legal system is more of a ‘justice denied’.
Yet, the repercussions are reaped by the natives.
Mass settlement spawned ethnic violence, where accountability is unseen. Such inexorable impunity ensures the ‘Adivasi’ remain sub-citizens without judicial protection. Incidents such as the ‘Baghaihat-Khagrachari Attack’ in 2010, and ‘Langadu violence’ in 2017 serve as a testimony of the intensified socio-political disenfranchisement.
These similar ‘crime against humanity’ encompasses the range of territorial and systemic, contaminating the culture of these people.
Cultural and Educational Marginalization
The National Education Policy 2010 ensures ‘the availability of teachers from ethnic groups and to prepare texts in their own languages’ (Article 18), and ‘special assistance’ (Article 19) under Children of ethnic groups. However, these promises proved to be rather tokenistic policies, because schooling remains monolingual and monocultural.
Indigenous children are forced to fit into Bengali language and culture, dropping out due to alienation, ergo, the fundamental right to education is compromised.
These calculated strategies in written laws is advantageous, as the Constitution recognizes the international laws (Article 25), where apartheid falls under ‘Jus Cogens’ (a peremptory principle from which no derogation is permitted).
Such epistemic violence is less conspicuous but equally devastating.
‘Apartheid’ refers to a system of institutionalized racial segregation and discrimination, where one racial group dominated and oppressed another.
A Modern Form of Apartheid
While not legislated like in South Africa, Bangladesh’s treatment of indigenous peoples reflects:
- Land forfeiture and forced evacuations
- Systematic discrimination through state policies and military presence
- Denial of cultural, linguistic, and political rights
- Reinforcement of Bengali dominance
The socio-political disenfranchisement, loss of ancestral lands, and denial of cultural and educational rights mirror apartheid-era segregation. Legal compliance without moral scrutiny is complicity. Only by harmonizing positive law with moral conscience can we ensure that no one’s fundamental rights are sacrificed to a legal loophole.
Written by Mir Zahra
