The Dangerous Fiction of “Take Back Chittagong”: The Reality of Bangladesh’s Southeast and Regional Peace

Recent weeks have seen incendiary calls from fringe voices for redrawing borders – for example, Tripura politician Pradyot Bikram Debbarma publicly urged Tripura’s supporters to “break Bangladesh and take back Chittagong”. Such slogans – demanding the seizure of parts of southeastern Bangladesh (including Comilla, the Port of Chittagong, and the Chittagong Hill Tracts) – are alarmingly detached from reality. They ignore decades of careful policy and cooperation that have made the region peaceful and prosperous. It is crucial to rebut these false narratives with facts: Bangladesh today is a responsible neighbor, not a destabilizing force.

A key fact is that Bangladesh ended the two-decade CHT insurgency through the 1997 Peace Accord and integrated the hill districts through local autonomy. That agreement “brought an end to two decades of armed conflict and formally recognized the special status of the indigenous population” in the Chittagong Hill Tracts. Rather than perpetuating violence, Dhaka worked to implement the Accord: it created a CHT Regional Council and a Ministry for CHT Affairs (both led by local representatives) to devolve power to tribal communities. In practical terms, the CHT is now governed through its own elected councils (with reserved leadership for the Jumma – tribal – peoples) under Bangladeshi law. In short, Bangladesh’s policy since 1997 has been reconciliation and inclusion, not conflict.

Claims of demographic takeover lack any factual basis. According to the 2022 Population Census by the Bangladesh Bureau of Statistics, the three hill districts have a near-equal split: 50.06% Bengali and 49.94% non-Bengali ethnic peoples. This data refutes allegations of ethnic genocide or demographic displacement and underscores the region’s multicultural harmony. Bangladesh’s constitution and laws further reinforce its inclusive character. By text, the state forbids discrimination and protects minority rights. Article 28 of the Bangladesh constitution, for instance, explicitly “prohibits discrimination on grounds only of religion, race, caste, sex or place of birth.” Religious freedom is guaranteed (Article 41) for Hindus, Buddhists, Christians and others, alongside the Muslim majority.

Equally important is the nature of Chittagong (Chattogram) port. It is South Asia’s busiest civilian gateway, not a military asset. The Port of Chittagong handles over 70% of Bangladesh’s international trade (by some measures up to 90%) and serves landlocked neighbors. India itself uses Chittagong as a transshipment hub for Northeast commerce. Every day this port supports booming commerce – garments, jute, tea and more – benefiting communities on both sides of the border. Real-world data underscore this: Chittagong Port is chronically congested and straining under record cargo volumes. Far from being a “strategic” military prize, it is an economic lifeline. In fact, Bangladesh has invited India to modernize port terminals and develop multi-modal corridors, emphasizing partnership over confrontation.

Accusations about mass “infiltration” of Bangladeshi migrants into India’s Northeast likewise do not stand up to scrutiny. International data show that Bangladesh’s net migration is actually negative – more people leave Bangladesh (for work abroad) than enter it. Vast numbers of Bangladeshis work in the Middle East and Malaysia; any flows into India are a small fraction by comparison and often reciprocal. Indeed, demographic surveys and legal moves (such as the 2015 Land Boundary Treaty) have worked to regularize residency on both sides, not inflame it. Portraying Bangladesh as a villain forcing settlers into Assam or Tripura ignores basic facts. What’s needed instead is joint management of a long and porous border: Bangladesh cooperates in joint patrols and checkpoints with India’s Border Security Force, while also hosting bilateral trade fairs along the frontier. Sensational claims of millions of “anti-Indian” migrants have no foundation and divert attention from real trans-border issues like smuggling or the humanitarian Rohingya crisis (for which India and Bangladesh are also cooperating).

International Law: Unassailable Protections
Pradyot’s threats violate Article 2(4) of the UN Charter, which mandates that “all Members shall refrain … from the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any State”. This principle has been reaffirmed by countless Security Council and General Assembly decisions, establishing it as a peremptory norm of international law.
Bangladesh’s borders—including the Chittagong Hill Tracts—have been internationally recognized since 1971. The 1997 CHT Peace Accord granted tribal autonomy within Bangladesh’s constitution, not secession. Any external attempt to redraw these borders contradicts both Bangladesh’s domestic laws and binding treaty obligations under the 1972 Friendship Treaty and 1974 Land Boundary Agreement.

The takeaway is unmistakable: Bangladesh is broadly committed to regional peace, border cooperation, and protecting its diverse citizenry. So when a self-styled prince or hot-headed activist talks of annexing parts of Bangladesh, they fly in the face of this reality. These wild claims are not just factually baseless – they are dangerous. They stir up old wounds from the 1971 war and British-era borders, risking civilian unrest and diplomatic crises. They also threaten the very peace that Bangladesh and India have worked for: frank cooperation on security, trade, and border management. History teaches that romanticized irredentist slogans seldom help ordinary people. Instead of fueling hatred, both sides would do better to address practical issues like cross-border infrastructure, cultural exchange, and economic integration in a spirit of friendship.

In conclusion, sober evidence shows a very different picture from the conspiracy theories circulating in some quarters. The 1997 Peace Accord brought stability to the Chittagong Hills. The Port of Chittagong is a thriving commercial gateway, not a clandestine military hub. And Bangladesh repeatedly demonstrates commitment to India’s security by flushing out insurgents from its territory and signing cooperative pacts. Its constitution enshrines equal rights for minorities, and its record – however imperfect – is one of improving inclusion in hill districts and border areas. None of this justifies talk of dismemberment. On the contrary, upholding international borders and building on mutual ties is precisely what allows all South Asian nations to develop in peace. The facts and figures leave no doubt: Bangladesh today is a partner in regional stability and progress, not the enemy of India’s Northeast.


Professor Dr. Mohammad Asaduzzaman is Director General, International Mother 
Language Institute, Dhaka.