Disquieting developments in CHT

THE killing of four members of the United People's Democratic Front, including one of its central leaders, in a gun attack in Rangamati on Saturday, highlights, yet again, the fact that natural peace in the Chittagong Hill Tracts, which had been ravaged by 22 years of guerrilla warfare until the signing of the CHT Treaty on December 2, 1997 between the previous Awami League and Parbatya Chattagram Jana Sanghati Samiti, the political umbrella of the now-defunct Shanti Bahini, remains a remote reality. According to a report front-paged in New Age on Sunday, the UPDF accused the PCJSS of orchestrating the killing—an accusation denied outright by the latter—and called a daylong blockade of road and waterway in Rangamati for Monday in protest against the killing and in demand for the arrest and trial of the killers and the resignation of the PCJSS chief, Jyotirindra Bodhipriya Larma, widely known as Santu Larma from the position of the CHT Regional Council chairman. The accusation of the PCJSS's involvement in the killing and the demand for Santu Larma's resignation by the UPDF appear hardly surprising, though; after all, the latter, formed by a dissident group of students, women activists and PCJSS leader in the wake of the signing of the CHT Treaty, has consistently condemned the PCJSS for signing what it calls a 'document of surrender'.

As we have argued in these columns many times in the past, foot-dragging by successive governments, including the incumbent Awami League-Jatiya Party administration, insofar as implementation of the treaty is concerned, may have seriously undermined the peace dividend that it promises and, instead, stretched the patience of the hill people to a point that they have started suspecting the intention of the ruling quarters, irrespective of their partisan affiliation. In fact, last year, Santu Larma said in public that the so-called 'sincere assurances' of successive governments had been nothing but 'rhetoric'. His claim, regrettably, may have been substantiated by even the incumbent government's failure to make any significant progress in the implementation of the treaty. Needless to add, the expectation from the AL-led government as regards implementation of the treaty may have been especially because not only was the treaty signed during the Awami League's previous tenure in government but the party also promised in its election manifesto to completely implement the treaty.

Indeed, there are provisions in the treaty, e.g. voter registration and eligibility criteria, which are not only legally tenuous but also in contravention with the constitution of the republic. However, none of the successive governments seems to have made any sincere effort to address the legal and constitutional anomalies in the treaty. Moreover, they have hardly made any effort to implement those provisions in the treaty—e.g. settlement of land disputes—that are unlikely to stir any legal or constitutional controversy.

Meanwhile, according to a report also front-paged in New Age on Sunday, quoting the home secretary, the government is 'seriously considering' imposition of a ban on the UPDF, which it seems to think is responsible for the recent instability in the hill tracts. If the government goes ahead with the plan, it might compound the problem, especially because Santu Larma has been clamouring for a ban on the UPDF, which, he says, is a 'terrorist organisation'. The government needs to recognise the fact that the prevailing tension in the hill tracts boils down to the failure of successive governments to effectively address the implementation of the CHT treaty. It needs to also realise that the problem is essentially political and thus the solution needs to be political through peaceful negotiations. Hence, it needs to initiate talks immediately with the parties concerned and strive towards a settlement that promises win-win for everyone. If it allows the tension in the CHT to simmer on, it may some day snowball into a crisis. If it so happens, the consequence could be ultimately detrimental to the interest of the country.

Source: New Age

No comments:

Post a Comment