The phrase “New Christian State in South Asia” sounds dramatic. It has appeared in political claims involving parts of Bangladesh and Myanmar, while wider political discussion has sometimes connected the idea with Northeast India.
But this article is not an attempt to prove that a secret Christian state is being created. There is no verified public evidence of such an organized project. The more important question is why people can even imagine a completely different political future for this region.
For the Chittagong Hill Tracts(CHT), the answer begins with decades of unresolved suffering, land loss, displacement, political deprivation and broken promises. That is the real story.
The unfinished question from 1947
India celebrated its 80th Independence Day on August 15, 2026. I offer my sincere greetings to the people of India, but for the Indigenous peoples of the Chittagong Hill Tracts(CHT), August 15 also brings back a painful history.
At the time of Partition in 1947, around 97 percent of the population of the Chittagong Hill Tracts was non-Muslim. Many people expected the region to become part of India, and the Indian flag was raised in Rangamati on August 15.
But the Chittagong Hill Tracts was awarded to Pakistan. More importantly, the people who lived there were never given a referendum to decide their own political future.
Others decided for them. That is the part of 1947 that matters most to me. The problem was not only whether the hills or CHT should have gone to India or Pakistan. The deeper problem was that the people of the hills did not have the final say over their own homeland.
Nearly eight decades later, that question has still not fully disappeared.
The flags changed, but the suffering did not end
The Chittagong Hill Tracts became part of East Pakistan. East Pakistan later became independent Bangladesh, but a new national flag did not solve the deeper political problems of the Indigenous peoples of the hills.
The construction of the Kaptai Dam displaced tens of thousands of people, most of them Indigenous. Many lost homes, farmland and ancestral villages. Later came armed conflict, more displacement and refugee movements.
Thousands fled across the border into India, while many others became displaced inside the Chittagong Hill Tracts. Land became one of the deepest wounds in the region.
Large-scale Bengali settlement, especially from the late 1970s and early 1980s, also changed the demographic balance. This made disputes over land, political power and identity even more serious.
These are not simply stories from the past. Their effects are still visible today.
The 1997 Accord brought hope, but not a final solution
The Chittagong Hill Tracts Accord was signed in 1997 after years of conflict. For many people, it created hope that the political problem could finally move towards a peaceful settlement.
The Accord addressed regional administration, land disputes, refugees, displaced people and the political structure of the CHT. Almost three decades later, however, major questions remain.
Indigenous organizations still call for full implementation of the Accord. Land disputes remain unresolved, while questions about the transfer of powers, local administration, security and rehabilitation continue to create frustration.
Governments have changed, leaders have changed and promises have changed. But many of the basic problems have remained, and that is why the frustration has not disappeared.
Development cannot replace political rights
The Chittagong Hill Tracts needs development. Roads, hospitals, schools, electricity, jobs and better communication are important, and the people of the CHT deserve all of these things.
But development cannot replace political rights. A new road cannot settle a land dispute, and a tourism project cannot replace meaningful political power. A government building cannot answer the question of who should control local administration, land and natural resources.
Development is necessary, but it is not enough. The deeper question is whether Indigenous peoples have meaningful power over decisions affecting their ancestral homeland.
If that question remains unanswered, development projects alone will not remove political frustration.
Why people begin imagining another future
When people believe the existing political system can still solve their problems, they usually continue working within that system. But when generations pass without a lasting solution, political thinking can change.
People may begin asking whether stronger autonomy is needed. They may ask whether a federal system would work better, whether a referendum could one day be necessary, or whether an entirely different political future should be discussed.
These ideas do not appear from nowhere. They grow from political experience.
That is why governments should not ask only, “Who is talking about self-determination?” They should also ask why people have begun talking about it in the first place.
For the Chittagong Hill Tracts, that second question is much more important.
What is the “New Christian State in South Asia” claim?
In May 2024, then Prime Minister Sheikh Hasina made a remarkable allegation. She said there was a plan to create “a Christian state like East Timor” using parts of Bangladesh and Myanmar.
She also spoke about pressure connected to a foreign airbase in the Bay of Bengal. However, she did not publicly identify the country or organization supposedly behind the plan, and no verified public evidence has proved that such an organized state-building project exists.
Bangladesh’s Christian community also expressed concern about the allegation. Christian leaders feared that ordinary Christians could become targets of suspicion for something they had nothing to do with.
For that reason, I do not present a New Christian State in South Asia as an established fact. But I also do not think the political discussion behind the claim should simply be ignored.
The more useful question is why such a dramatic idea could enter national political discussion at all.
The Seven Sisters, the CHT and parts of Myanmar
The geography of this region helps explain why wider political speculation exists. The Chittagong Hill Tracts lies beside Northeast India and western Myanmar, while India’s northeastern region is commonly known as the Seven Sisters.
Modern borders divide many Indigenous and ethnic communities across Bangladesh, India and Myanmar. Their cultural and historical connections are often much older than the borders themselves.
Wider political discussion has sometimes imagined the Chittagong Hill Tracts together with parts of Northeast India and parts of Myanmar in a new regional arrangement. Again, this is not a proven international project.
It is also important to separate this wider speculation from Sheikh Hasina’s original allegation. Her 2024 statement referred to parts of Bangladesh and Myanmar. She did not publicly describe all of India’s Seven Sisters as part of that alleged project.
The religious description is also too simple. The Chittagong Hill Tracts itself is home to Buddhists, Christians, Hindus and followers of traditional Indigenous beliefs.
So the phrase “New Christian State in South Asia” may attract attention, but Christianity is not the most important part of the question. The deeper issue is political.
The real reason is deprivation, not Christianity
If a completely new political arrangement were ever seriously discussed in this region, Christianity alone would not explain why people found the idea attractive.
For the Indigenous peoples of the Chittagong Hill Tracts, the real issues are much older. They include loss of land, displacement, demographic change, political marginalization, insecurity, questions about identity and the failure to fully implement political agreements.
A Buddhist Chakma, a Christian Bawm, a Hindu Tripura and an Indigenous person following a traditional faith may have different religions. But they can still share concerns about land, political representation and the future of their homeland.
People do not begin imagining another political future simply because they follow a certain religion. Such ideas become attractive when people lose confidence that the existing political system will protect their land, identity and future.
This is why the unresolved suffering and political deprivation of the Indigenous peoples of the Chittagong Hill Tracts must remain at the centre of the discussion.
India should think about this seriously
India has a special place in the history of the Chittagong Hill Tracts. In 1947, many people in the hills looked towards India, and the raising of the Indian flag in Rangamati remains a symbol of that expectation.
Later, during periods of conflict, thousands of Indigenous refugees crossed into India. For decades, many people in the hills continued to hope that Delhi would understand their political situation.
But nearly eight decades have passed, and a difficult reality should now be accepted. India will protect Indian interests, Bangladesh will protect Bangladeshi interests, and Myanmar will protect its own interests.
The Chittagong Hill Tracts cannot build its entire political future around waiting for another country to save it. At the same time, India should not assume that the political feelings of the people of the hills will remain unchanged forever.
Political loyalty is not created only by geography or old memories. It also depends on justice, security, dignity and the feeling that people have a meaningful future.
If India wants long-term stability along this sensitive border region, the unresolved problems of the Indigenous peoples of the Chittagong Hill Tracts should matter to Delhi too. Ignoring deprivation is not the same as creating stability. Sometimes it only delays a larger political problem.
The question is bigger than the 1997 Accord
The Chittagong Hill Tracts Accord should still be fully implemented. That remains an immediate political responsibility.
But after almost three decades, it is also reasonable to ask whether people should be allowed to discuss other possibilities. Would stronger autonomy provide better protection? Could a federal arrangement offer more meaningful political power?
Should people one day have the right to express their wishes through a referendum? If decades of political settlement continue to fail, could discussion of an independent republic, Jummaland or another political arrangement eventually become stronger?
Asking these questions does not mean independence must happen tomorrow. It means recognizing that long political frustration has consequences.
Governments cannot make political ideas disappear simply by declaring them unacceptable. The better approach is to address the reasons those ideas appear.
Delhi cannot decide our future either
India should pay attention to the Chittagong Hill Tracts, but India should not decide its future. Replacing Dhaka with Delhi would not solve the deeper problem; it would simply repeat it.
In the 1947 Partition, powerful outsiders decided what would happen to the CHT without giving the people a democratic choice. The same mistake should not be repeated under another name.
Neither Dhaka nor Delhi should have the final voice. Neither should Naypyidaw, Beijing, Washington or any other capital.
The central voice must belong to the peoples of the Chittagong Hill Tracts themselves.
No single Indigenous community can decide for everyone
Self-determination must also be democratic inside the Chittagong Hill Tracts. No single Indigenous community should decide the future of everyone else.
The Chakma are one of the largest Indigenous peoples of the region, but the hills do not belong only to the Chakma. The Marma, Tripura, Mro, Tanchangya, Bawm, Khumi, Khyang, Chak, Pankhua, Lushai and other Indigenous peoples must also have meaningful and equal participation.
Their opinions may not always be the same, and that is normal. Democracy does not require everyone to agree. It requires everyone to have a voice.
If it was wrong for outsiders to decide the fate of the CHT in 1947, it would also be wrong for one Indigenous community to decide the future of all the others today.
Freedom means political power
Freedom is more than raising a new flag. Autonomy is more than creating another council, and independence is more than drawing another border.
The real issue is political power. Can people protect their ancestral land? Can they make meaningful decisions about local administration? Can they protect their languages and cultures?
Can they influence what happens to forests, rivers and natural resources? Most importantly, can they take part in deciding their own political future?
Without that power, political slogans mean very little.
Why the “New Christian State” idea should worry governments
The phrase “New Christian State in South Asia” may sound unrealistic or sensational. Perhaps it is, and there is no verified evidence today that a new state involving the CHT, Northeast India and parts of Myanmar is actually being organized.
But governments should still pay attention to what the discussion represents. New political maps become imaginable when people lose trust in old political arrangements.
If governments want existing borders to remain stable, the best protection is not simply military strength or diplomatic agreements. The strongest protection is making people feel that they have justice, dignity and a meaningful place inside the state.
For the Chittagong Hill Tracts, that means addressing land disputes, displacement, identity, political representation and the unfinished commitments of the 1997 Accord.
The answer to political frustration is not silence. The answer is political justice.
Nearly eight decades are enough
In 1947, the people of the Chittagong Hill Tracts were not given a democratic choice about their political future. What followed included displacement, land loss, conflict and decades of political struggle.
The 1997 Accord created hope, but major questions remain unresolved. That history explains why people may eventually discuss stronger autonomy, federalism, a referendum, Jummaland, an independent republic or even wider regional political ideas.
Those ideas should not automatically be treated as proof of a conspiracy. They should first be understood as questions produced by history.
I am not saying which political system the Chittagong Hill Tracts must ultimately choose. That decision is too important for one writer, one political party, one Indigenous community or one foreign government to make. The people of the hills must have the central voice.
The real question is not whether someone is secretly building a New Christian State in South Asia. The deeper question is why such ideas can arise at all. When a people face decades of land loss, displacement, broken political promises and limited power over their own homeland, they eventually begin to imagine other political futures.
If Bangladesh, India and the wider region want long-term stability, the answer is not to silence those questions. The answer is to address the deprivation that creates them. In 1947, others decided our political future. Nearly eight decades later, the peoples of the Chittagong Hill Tracts should finally have the central voice in deciding what comes next.
You must be logged in to post a comment.