Hypocrisy at Play: How Dhaka Rejects Indigenous Rights of Its Peoples While Wanting It Inside Myanmar

News Analysis ၊ August 14, 2026

Home Minister Salahuddin Ahmed and Indigenous Communities Asking for Recognition (photocrd)

The recent remarks by Dhaka's home minister on August 11 have stirred fresh debate across regional media. His core argument was simple: everyone living within Bangladesh's borders is simply a Bangladeshi, and there is no separate indigenous identity. On the surface, this sounds like a call for unity.

But when you scratch beneath the surface, the statement raises troubling questions about how Bangladesh treats its own minority communities while demanding very different standards for people across its eastern border.

The International Chittagong Hill Tracts Commission (CHTC) and the International Work Group for Indigenous Affairs (IWGIA) have expressed grave concern over these remarks made by Home Minister Salahuddin Ahmed. In a joint statement, they unequivocally rejected the denial of indigenous identity, calling such claims both inaccurate and harmful. They emphasized that indigenous identity and Bangladeshi citizenship are not mutually exclusive—the indigenous peoples of Bangladesh are both citizens of the state and members of distinct communities with their own histories, languages, cultures, and ancestral ties to land.

Let us look first at what is happening inside Bangladesh itself. The home minister's words are not just political rhetoric. They represent a clear denial of the historical and cultural reality of communities in the Chittagong Hill Tracts. The Jumma people, including groups like the Chakma, Marma, and Tripura, have inhabited those hills for centuries. Their presence predates the arrival of Bengalis in the region. They were there long before East Pakistan was created in 1947 and long before Bangladesh emerged as an independent nation in 1971. To simply erase that history with a single statement is not only unjust but also dangerous.

What makes this denial even more troubling is the pattern of pressure these communities face. There is growing evidence of what many describe as Islamization and Bengalization imposed on the hill people. Bengali settlers, often backed by state authorities, have moved into the CHT over the years. They have occupied land and properties that once belonged to indigenous families.

This is not a natural demographic shift. It is a systematic process that pushes the original inhabitants to the margins of their own ancestral lands. The indigenous communities are not asking for special privileges. They are asking for recognition. They are asking for their political, economic, and cultural authority over their traditional territories to be respected. That is a basic right that any fair-minded observer would support. Yet Dhaka continues to treat these demands as threats rather than legitimate grievances.

The CHTC and IWGIA further pointed out that the ministers' assertions about Bangladesh's international obligations are misleading. Although Bangladesh has not ratified ILO Convention No. 169, it ratified the ILO Indigenous and Tribal Populations Convention, 1957 (No. 107), which remains legally binding. They also noted that Article 23A of Bangladesh's Constitution recognizes the existence of peoples with distinctive cultures and mandates the state to protect their heritage. Such denial also undermines the spirit of the 1997 CHT Peace Accord.

Now comes the uncomfortable part. On the other side of the border, in Myanmar's Arakan region, Dhaka sings a very different tune. There, it passionately advocates for the recognition of the Chittagonian Bengali (Rohingya) community. It argues that these people have a distinct identity rooted in pre-colonial history. It demands that Myanmar acknowledge their indigenous status and protect their rights. On the surface, this seems like a noble stance. But when placed side by side with Dhaka's treatment of its own indigenous groups, the contradiction becomes impossible to ignore.

If Bangladesh insists that there is no such thing as indigenous identity within its own territory, then by what logic does it demand that Myanmar recognize the "Rohingya" as indigenous? The Chittagonian Bengalis who migrated to Arakan under British colonial rule are not the original inhabitants of that land. They arrived much later, under very different circumstances. Yet Dhaka presents their claims as unquestionable while dismissing the far older claims of the Jumma people inside its own borders. This is not consistency. This is hypocrisy dressed in diplomatic language.

Islamist Militant Group RSO Inside Bangladesh (photocrd)

The world should pay closer attention to this double standard. Governments and international bodies that monitor human rights and indigenous affairs cannot afford to look the other way. They must press Dhaka to apply the same principles at home that it so forcefully advocates abroad. If the rights of the Rohingya are worth defending, then the rights of the Chakma, Marma, Tripura, and other Jumma communities are equally worth defending. There is no room for selective justice.

At the heart of this issue is a simple truth. Indigenous identity is not a political tool to be used when convenient and discarded when inconvenient. It is a matter of historical fact. It is a matter of justice. And it is a matter of respect for communities that have endured displacement, marginalization, and erasure for far too long. Dhaka cannot have it both ways. It cannot deny the indigenous rights of its own people while demanding those same rights for others across the border.

The international community must monitor this situation closely. The CHTC and IWGIA have already called for meaningful dialogue with indigenous representatives and a clear roadmap for implementing the CHT Accord. Silence in the face of such inconsistency only emboldens those who wish to erase indigenous identities. The hill people of the CHT have a right to be heard. And the world has a duty to listen.