The demand for Helal Uddin’s removal is not primarily about the man himself.
It is about what his appointment represents.
For many Indigenous people in the Chittagong Hill Tracts (CHT), the controversy surrounding his appointment as State Minister for the Ministry of Chittagong Hill Tracts Affairs raises a larger question: Is the spirit of the 1997 CHT Accord still being respected?
Nearly three decades after the signing of the Accord, trust remains one of the most important foundations of peace in the region. That is why the current debate cannot be dismissed as a simple political disagreement.
Helal Uddin currently serves as State Minister for the Ministry of Chittagong Hill Tracts Affairs.
The controversy surrounding his appointment is not primarily about his personal character or professional qualifications. Rather, it is about representation and the purpose of the institution he serves.
Unlike most government ministries in Bangladesh, the Ministry of Chittagong Hill Tracts Affairs occupies a unique position. It emerged from the political framework established by the 1997 Chittagong Hill Tracts Accord, a peace agreement intended to address decades of conflict and mistrust between the state and the Indigenous peoples of the Chittagong Hill Tracts.
For many Indigenous people, the Ministry is more than an administrative body. It symbolizes the state’s commitment to Indigenous participation in decisions affecting the region’s future.
The controversy is further intensified by the fact that Helal Uddin is neither Indigenous nor known as a resident of the Chittagong Hill Tracts. He is associated with Chattogram, outside the three hill districts of Rangamati, Khagrachhari, and Bandarban.
For many people in the hills, this matters.
The Ministry deals with issues that directly affect the Indigenous peoples of the region, including land disputes, regional governance, cultural preservation, development policies, and implementation of the CHT Accord itself.
Critics therefore argue that leadership within the Ministry should not only understand the region but should also be rooted in the lived realities of the Chittagong Hill Tracts.
From their perspective, the issue is not competence. It is representation.
This concern becomes even more significant when viewed through the lens of Clause 19 of the Chittagong Hill Tracts Accord.
Clause 19 states that a tribal person shall be appointed to the Ministry of Chittagong Hill Tracts Affairs.
Supporters of Helal Uddin’s appointment argue that the Accord does not explicitly prohibit a non-Indigenous person from serving as State Minister. From a narrow legal perspective, that argument is difficult to dismiss.
However, many Indigenous leaders, activists, and observers believe the issue goes beyond legal technicalities.
The Ministry of Chittagong Hill Tracts Affairs is not an ordinary government ministry. It exists because of a political agreement that was designed to address decades of conflict, mistrust, and demands for self-governance in the Chittagong Hill Tracts.
Unlike other ministries, the CHT Ministry carries symbolic and political significance. It represents the state’s commitment to Indigenous participation in decisions affecting the region.
For that reason, many people in the hills view Clause 19 not merely as a technical provision but as a political principle.
The principle is simple: the political leadership of the Ministry responsible for the Chittagong Hill Tracts should remain in Indigenous hands.
This principle matters because the Ministry deals with issues that directly affect Indigenous communities, including land disputes, regional administration, cultural identity, development policies, and implementation of the Accord itself.
The current controversy therefore revolves around a distinction that often appears in political and constitutional debates around the world: the difference between the letter of an agreement and its spirit.
The letter of the Accord may not explicitly prohibit the appointment.
But does the appointment respect the spirit of the Accord?
For many Indigenous people, the answer is no.
Their concern is not that Helal Uddin lacks personal qualifications.
Their concern is that his appointment sends the wrong political message at a time when many provisions of the Accord remain disputed, delayed, or only partially implemented.
Representation matters.
Trust matters.
Symbols matter.
CHT Agreements survive not only through legal compliance but also through confidence-building measures that reassure affected communities that their voices continue to matter.
Many Indigenous people fear that if political representation within the Ministry becomes negotiable, the broader commitments of the Accord may gradually become negotiable as well.
This is why calls for Helal Uddin’s removal continue to emerge from different sections of Indigenous society.
The demand is not rooted in personal hostility.
Nor is it a rejection of democratic politics.
Rather, it reflects a belief that the Ministry created through the peace process should continue to embody the principles that made that peace possible.
Whether one agrees with this position or not, the debate raises an important question for Bangladesh.
Should the implementation of the CHT Accord be judged solely by the exact wording of its clauses?
Or should it also be judged by the political principles, representation, and trust that the Accord was intended to protect?
For many people in the Chittagong Hill Tracts, the answer remains clear.
The future of the Accord depends not only on what is written on paper, but also on whether its spirit continues to be respected.