Economic and Social Development: Chittagong Hill Tracts Peace Accord (CHT)
Implementations
Economic and Social Development – 1998
Reflecting the importance of land issues to the indigenous population of the CHT, one of the main themes of the 1997 Accord was land restitution and land use. Over the course of the last several decades, the indigenous peoples of the CHT had lost much of their ancestral lands as a result of armed violence forcing them to flee, forceful evictions, occupation by the military, and government-sponsored Bengali migration and settlement.
Implementation should be evaluated in light of the scope of powers over land issues transferred to the Council by the CHT Accord. Parts 1, 2, 3, and 4 of Amendment 26 were all changed in the Hill Council Acts of 1998. To understand the scope of land issues that the Accord transferred to the CHT, a few legislative changes should be discussed in detail.
The original Rangamati HDC Act of 1989 read as follows:
“Notwithstanding anything contained in any law for the time being in force, no land within the boundaries of Rangamati Hill District shall be given in settlement without the prior approval of the Council and such land cannot be transferred to a person who is not a domicile of the said district without such approval: Provided that, this provision shall not be applicable in case of areas within the Protected and Reserved forests, Kaptai Hydroelectricity Project, Betbunia Earth Satellite Station, land transferred in Government and Public interest, land or forest required for state purposes.”
Act number 9 passed in 1998 substantially changed this section with the addition and deletion of various phrases. The new section now reads as follows:
“64. Restriction on land transfer. (1) Notwithstanding anything contained in any law for the time being in force- (a) no land including the khasland (sic) suitable for settlement within the jurisdiction of Rangamati Hill District shall be leased out, settled with, purchased, sold out or transferred otherwise with the prior approval of the Council; Provided that, this provision shall not be applicable in case of Reserved forests, Kaptai Hydroelectricity Project area, Betbunia Earth Satellite Station, state-owned industries land recorded with the Government. (b) No land, hills and forests under the control and jurisdiction of the Council shall be acquired or transferred without consultation and consent of the Council. (2) The Council shall supervise and control the functions of Headmen, Chainmen, Amins, Surveyors, Kanungos and Assistant Commissioners (land). (3) Fringe land in Kaptai lake (sic) shall be settled with the original owners on the priority basis (sic).”
Most notable among these changes were the new categories of land transactions that had come under the control of the Tribal Council. The original 1989 Act stated that no land could be “given in settlement” without the approval of the Council and if such land were given, the recipient had to be a domicile of the CHT (not a migrant). The new language inserted from the 1997 Peace Accord essentially put all land transactions, even private commercial transactions between CHT residents, under the control of the Council. Under the new language, no land could be bought, sold, or leased anywhere in the Chittagong Hill Tracts without the approval of the Land Commission. The 1997 Accord established a special Land Commission with a mandate to settle the land disputes, including the authority to deny rights of property ownership that were gained illegality. There were no reports of the Land Commission meeting in this year.
Economic and Social Development – 1999
The first Chairperson of the Land Commission was appointed in 1999, a year after the signing of the Accord. Mired in the complexity of the land situation in the CHT, the Land Commission was not functional. Its mandate and responsibilities were, in many ways, incompatible. For example, the commission was mandated to settle disputes over who is currently entitled to tracts of land where indigenous inhabitants are said to have been displaced decades earlier, many without legal titles. Meanwhile, tens of thousands of Bengali settlers, who had been given a legal title to land in the CHT by the government, could not be expected to give up their familiesÕ land. Even if the Land Commission was able to legally annul land titles held by Bengalis, which the government, by all indications, would not allow to happen, there still existed no real enforcement mechanism to make them vacate the property. The police and civil administration of the CHT remained in the hands of the Bengalis and the military.
Economic and Social Development – 2000
Jyotirindra Bodhipriya Larma, appointed to head the Regional Council in 1999, told AFP in an interview in April 2000 that he felt betrayed and frustrated by the slow pace of implementation of the 1997 agreement. Land disputes and land issues were again presented as one of the biggest problems. According to Larma, “A sense of frustration is again growing among the tribesmen as the government is yet to comply with the major conditions of the treaty, including settlement of land disputes.”1
- “Rebel-turned pro-government tribal leader in Bangladesh feels betrayed,” Agence France Presse, April 20, 2000.
Economic and Social Development – 2001
The Bangladeshi parliament passed The Chittagong Hill Tracts Land Disputes Resolution Commission Act of 2001. The Jumma community rejected the act and the Land Dispute Commission for several reasons. First, they saw the act as an attempt to legally justify the illegal possession of Jumma lands by Bengali settlers. Second, the act gave the Chairperson the final word on land disputes in the event of a lack of consensus among other members. Third, the act excluded internally displaced Jummas from the ambit of the Land Commission.
Economic and Social Development – 2002
No further developments occurred this year.
Economic and Social Development – 2003
The Dhaka Daily Star reported that the government had decided to stop giving food rations to “65, 000 indigenous people who became refugees in CHT after returning from the Indian state Tripura following the 1997 peace accord” (Xinhua General News Service, 2003). The tribal refugees “are still awaiting the return of their lands occupied by the Bengali settlers, and demand the government to rehabilitate the settlers elsewhere.” However, the government’s sympathies appeared to have been with the Bengali settlers. The Daily Star reported that the Prime Minister was finalizing a plan to “give permanent resident status to over 26,000 families of Bengali settlers living in the Chittagong Hill Tracts (CHT).”1
On 2 December 2003, the Chairman of CHT Chittagong Hill Tracts Regional Council, Jyotirindra Bodhipriya Larma, gave a press conference calling on the government to fully implement the 1997 agreement. Larma called on the government to rehabilitate the 3,055 tribal families who returned to the CHT to find their lands occupied. “Around 40 Jumma villages still remained occupied by the settlers.”2
- “Bangladesh to give Bengali families permanent resident status in CHT,” Xinhua General News Service, September 23, 2003.
- “Tribal leader demands withdrawal of Bangladeshi camps from Chittagong,” BBC Summary of World Broadcasts, December 3, 2003.
Economic and Social Development – 2004
The Land Commission was not functional in 2004 and no further developments were reported on land issues. At a 2004 conference at Dhaka university, Dr. Harun-ur Rashid, the dean of social sciences, stated that Bengali settlers continued to migrate to the CHT on a daily basis and that the ratio of indigenous peoples to Bengali settlers in 2004 was roughly 55:45.1
Economic and Social Development – 2005
In January 2005 Bengali Muslim settlers from Maischari cluster village in Khagrachari district, aided by the army stationed in the CHT, built houses on the recorded lands of indigenous Jummas at Gamaridhala in the Khagrachari district according to a letter dated January 2005 by Ushatan Talukder, the Secretary for Political Affairs of the Parbatya Chattagram Jana Samhati Samiti (PCJSS).1
- Ushatan Talukder, “Chittagong Hill Tracts Issue and Post-Accord Situation,” Unrepresented Nations and Peoples Organization (UNPO), February 10, 2005, access January 4, 2012, http://www.unpo.org/article/1927.
Economic and Social Development – 2006
No progress or developments were reported on resolving land disputes. Sadly, the end result of decades of Bengali migration and displacement of the indigenous population was not compatible with the political vision of restoring traditional land use in the CHT to the indigenous peoples. Several hundred thousand Bengali inhabitants of CHT land stood as concrete obstacles to that political vision. No voluntary relocation program for Bengalis was ever initiated by the government of Bangladesh. In contrast, the government continued to provide free food rations to anywhere from 27, 000 to 50,000 Bengali settlers in the CHT. This continued government support to the Bengali settlers in the CHT was noted in 2006 as an “essential component in ensuring that Bengali settlers from the plains do not return to their original home regions.”1
The latest PCJSS report stated that 5,130 acres of land in Bandarban, 25,375 acres of land in Lama, 6,397 acres in Alikadam, and 3,175 acres in Naikhyangchari had been leased by the government of Bangladesh or the District Commissioner to firms without the consent of the Council. In addition to leases, the government had also acquired a total of 94,066 acres across 7 different upazilas in the CHT.2
- International Working Group for Indigenous Affairs, 2006, 371.
- “Report on the Status of Implementation of the CHT Accord,” PCJSS, 2011, 20.
Economic and Social Development – 2007
No further developments observed.