If Self-Governance Does Not Break India, Why Would It Break Bangladesh?

Every time greater autonomy, self-governance, or meaningful implementation of the Chittagong Hill Tracts (CHT) Accord is discussed, the same argument quickly appears:

“It will threaten Bangladesh’s sovereignty.”

But a simple question deserves an honest answer.

If self-governance has not broken India, why would it break Bangladesh?

India’s northeastern region is home to numerous Indigenous peoples with distinct languages, cultures, histories, and political institutions. States such as Mizoram, Nagaland, Meghalaya, and others enjoy various constitutional protections and significant powers of self-administration.

Yet India remains India.

Its sovereignty remains intact.

Its territorial integrity remains intact.

Its national flag still flies across the region.

So why is a similar discussion in the Chittagong Hill Tracts often treated as a threat rather than a democratic conversation?

The CHT is not an ordinary administrative region.

Historically, it was governed under special arrangements, including the Chittagong Hill Tracts Regulation of 1900. Later came the Regional Council, Hill District Councils, the Land Commission, and finally the 1997 CHT Accord.

The existence of these institutions itself acknowledges that the region has a unique historical and political character.

The real question therefore is not whether the CHT is different.

The real question is whether the promises made to the region are being meaningfully implemented.

Many people equate self-governance with separation.

History suggests otherwise.

A population that feels respected, represented, and heard is generally more invested in the stability of the state.

Distrust grows not from rights, but from the denial of rights.

This is why the debate should not be framed as “sovereignty versus autonomy.”

The better question is:

Can a state become stronger by building trust with its Indigenous peoples?

The experience of many democratic societies suggests that it can.

For nearly three decades after the signing of the CHT Accord, debates continue over representation, land rights, institutional authority, and implementation.

Those debates should not be feared.

They should be addressed.

Because lasting stability is rarely built through fear.

It is built through trust.

And trust begins when difficult questions are allowed to be asked.

---