Modelo matemático utilizado para la localización de las electrolineras en

Until 1760, CHT held an independent kingdom status and used to pay revenue (as ‘Karpas’ or cotton) to the Mughal Nawab (Faiz & Mohaiemen, 2010). This independent status continued until 1780 even after the fall of Nawab Siraj ud-Daulah, in 1757, the last independent Nawab of Bengal, to the British East India Company. During the period between 1760 and 1780, CHT maintained the status of a ‘tributary state’ under the British Empire paying revenue to the British rulers (Royhan, 2016). By the end of 1777, Chakma warriors rebelled against the British rule, especially because of increased taxes. Consequently, a series of fights took place between 1778 and 1787 in which all military invasion attempts by the British East India Company failed (Faiz & Mohaiemen, 2010; Royhan, 2016). Eventually, the East India Company changed its strategy and imposed economic restrictions to overpower the hill people. This worked well and the Chakma King surrendered which, ultimately, gave full authority over the region to the British Empire. Although CHT lost its independence to the British Empire, the British regime administered the CHT from 1787 to 1860 without much interference into internal administrative matters (Royhan, 2016, p. 103).

86 The administrative and political histories of the CHT are best understood along with the timeframe of the three different political reigns, British, Pakistani and Bangladeshi, as indicated in Table 4.1.

Era of British Supremacy (1860-1947)

Until 1860, CHT was a part of the Chittagong district. Based on the ‘Raid of the Frontier Tribes Act XXII of 1860’, the region was declared as a separate district under the administration of a ‘Superintendent’ who worked under the authority of the ‘Divisional Commissioner’ of the Chittagong Division (Tripura, 2012, p. 7). Soon after the introduction of the ‘superintendent’ as an administrator, the increased level of functions and responsibilities convinced the ruling authority to change the status to a ‘Deputy Commissioner (DC)’, in 1867, and Captain T. H. Lewin was appointed as the first DC of the CHT district (Royhan, 2016). Initially, the district headquarters were located in ‘Chandraghona’ and, later, in 1868, they were shifted to Rangamati for administrative convenience.

The most remarkable administrative reform in the CHT was achieved by the British colonial regime in dividing the district into three revenue circles: the Chakma circle, the Bohmong circle and the Mong circle. The British completed this division in 1881 and introduced the territorial chief concept by appointing a circle chief for each circle, also known as ‘the King’ or ‘Raja’ (Royhan, 2016). This was carried out with a view to ensure efficient revenue collection and to foster the practices of traditional justice as Chakma (2012, p. 122) observed:

The collection of revenues and dispensation of traditional justice in social courts were done by the three circle chiefs (Chakma, Bohmong, and Mong) of the region. The British colonial administration adopted certain principles to limit interference by the civil administration in local affairs; indeed, a policy of no-interference in local customs and social norms was pursued. The British colonial administration allowed limited self-rule in the CHT.

In the early twentieth century, the British colonial regime instigated ‘the Chittagong Hill Tracts Regulation 1900’, commonly called the ‘Hill Tracts Manual’, which superseded all prevailing acts and regulations in the CHT region. The Regulation created three sub-divisions in parallel with the three circles being supervised by a sub-divisional officer for each sub-division; again, each sub-division or circle was divided into further units, which were known as ‘Mouzas’ and these Mouzas were comprised of village(s) (Chakma, 2012; Ministry of Chittagong Hill Tracts Affairs, 2018; Royhan, 2016; Shelly, 1992; Tripura, 2012). Mouzas were regarded as the smallest revenue units and the Mouza chief was known as the ‘Headman’, whereas, the village or para chief was called the ‘Karbari’ or ‘Bazar Chaudhuri’. Although the circle chief position was hereditary, the headmen were appointed by the sub-divisional officers (at present, the DC) in consultation with the circle chief; both the circle chiefs and headmen then appointed the ‘Karbari’. It is to be noted that this system of traditional administration is still in practice.

The Hill Tracts Manual was amended in 1920 and the Chittagong Hill Tracts (Amendment) Regulation was introduced as a ‘key’ of administrative ruling in the CHT, which is still prevailing, although some sections have subsequently been

87 amended (Tripura, 2012). As per the Manual and Regulation, it is the duty and responsibility of the headmen to collect revenue and hand it over to the Circle Chief for submission to the DC. The presence of such a dual administration identified the region as having a unique status. In fact, the Chittagong Hill Tracts (Amendment) Regulation 1920 declared the CHT as an ‘exclusive area’ and the Government of India Act 1935 stated the region to be a ‘totally excluded area’ (Chakma, 2012, p. 123).

The Pakistan Era (1947-1971)

The British colonial regime ended and the British sub-divided the broader Indian sub-continent into two countries before their departure. Subsequently, India and Pakistan were separated in 1947 and CHT became a part of the, then, East Pakistan. As noted earlier, the hill leaders were divided about ratifying the division and some wanted to be a part of India while others supported Burma (now Myanmar). This issue, including the flag-hoisting event, created a degree of political distrust and insecurity, which were reflected through the policies and activities of the Pakistan government. In general, the government took three strategies to create immediate, medium and long-term impacts. First to respond immediately, the government employed the army to settle the flag hoisting issue and take control over the region (Faiz & Mohaiemen, 2010, p. 26). Secondly, as a medium term strategy, the government started transferring indigenous government employees working in the CHT to other parts of the East Pakistan to establish central government control (Chowdhury, 2006). Finally, a long-term impact was planned through the systematic rehabilitation of Bengalis (people from East Pakistan) into the region. In the early 1960s, the government commissioned the ‘Kaptai Hydroelectric’ project in Rangamati, which rehabilitated several thousands of Bengali into the CHT region (Roy, 2000).

The CHT was administered remotely from the city of Lahore. The government took the first administrative move by amalgamating the local police force of the CHT into the East Pakistan police, which contradicted and, ultimately, ended the CHT Frontier Police Regulation of 1881 (Chakma, 2012). However, the first constitution of Pakistan, in 1956, retained the status of the CHT as an ‘Excluded Area’. Afterwards, in 1964, a constitutional amendment took effect and the region’s status was changed to ‘Tribal Area’ following the administration of tribal areas in West Pakistan. In the following year, the government made an amendment to Rules 54 and 34 of the Hill Tracts Manual 1900, which restricted the power of the Deputy Commissioner and assisted the settlement of the non-indigenous (Bengali and others) people in the CHT (Shelly, 1992).

During the period between 1950 and 1963, the government carried out two massive development projects with the assistance of foreign funds. The first project was the ‘Karnafuli Paper Mill’ and the second, as mentioned earlier, was the ‘Kaptai Hydroelectric Project’. Both the projects dislocated the indigenous peoples from their traditional lands but with an inadequate rehabilitation plan. The paper mill completely failed to provide any visible benefits to the

88 local indigenous peoples as the majority of jobs were taken by outsiders and hill-people only occupied one per cent of the total workforce, mostly in lower-skilled categories (Adnan, 2004; Mohsin, 2003; Roy, 2000). Moreover, they started losing resources essential for their daily lives; for instance, the mill required bamboo and softwoods, which were traditionally used by indigenous peoples. In order to ensure supply, the government created ‘Protected Forests (PF)’ that forced the indigenous people to move away from their lands and this affected their forest life (Mohsin, 1997). Similarly, the hydroelectric project also displaced a large number of indigenous people. Shelly (1992, p. 31) and Roy (2000, p. 96) noted that the creation of the artificial ‘Kaptai Lake’ and the hydroelectric project submerged a total area of 1,036 square kilometres (400 square miles), including 54,000 acres (21853.04 hectares) of cultivable land. It was also noted that the submerged land area comprised around 40 percent of the total settled cultivable land which, in turn, ejected 100,000 persons from 10,000 farming families and 8,000 Jhumiya (people who follow traditional Jum cultivation methods) families. Although 280 million rupees were allocated for rehabilitation purposes in this project, only 20 million were reportedly released (Shelly, 1992). This incidence severely affected the socio- economic life of the local indigenous peoples and many were compelled to migrate over the border into Tripura State in India.

On the positive side, a progressive approach can be observed in government activities as it intensified education by establishing many primary and secondary schools, between 1958 and 1968 (Shelly, 1992). The Chakma community mostly appreciated these efforts. Accordingly, their literacy rate reached over 50 percent by 1970. Education raised their political awareness and they took the lead in the ‘Jumma’ rights movement, which is still evident in the present day.

The Bangladesh Era (1971-Present)

Bangladesh got liberation from Pakistan in 1971 after a nine-month long bloodshed war. The political distrust that prevailed throughout the Pakistan regime, however, was sustained, to some extent in the Bangladeshi period as well. For example, the role of indigenous people in the liberation war was almost labelled as having a ‘pro-Pakistani’ stance, although a few hundred of Jumma people fought for Bangladesh (Faiz & Mohaiemen, 2010). Such a claim was generalised based on the role played by some tribal leaders, such as Raja Tridiv Roy, and some youths in the Civil Armed Forces, which was formed by the Pakistan military (Shelly, 1992, p. 33). However, indigenous people as a whole became confused and took a neutral position.

After liberation, and during the drafting phase of the national constitution, in 1972, a group of indigenous representatives from the CHT headed by Manobendra Narayan (MN) Larma, then a Member of Parliament, met the Prime Minister, Sheikh Mujibur Rahman, and raised four points to be in the constitution. The points demanded autonomy for the CHT; retention of Hill Tracts Regulation 1900 along with future provision against any amendment

89 of the Regulation; continuation of the circle chief’s office; and imposing a ban on the influx of Bengali people (Chakma, 2012, p. 125). In response, the Prime Minister denied the opportunity for those points to be addressed in the constitution and advised them ‘to forget their ethnic identities’ and remarked that they had become engrossed with ‘Bengali nationalism’ (Ahsan & Chakma, 1989, p. 967). Arens and Chakma (2010, p. 23) noted further that the PM threatened the delegates with the deployment of a large-scale military presence and the settlement of more Bengalis in the CHT if they insisted on their demands. Thereafter, in the course of parliamentarian debates on the draft constitution, Mr. Larma showed his discontent with the constitution on behalf of the hill-people by undertaking a single-member walk-out from parliament. Indicating the cultural differences, Mr. Larma conveyed the message in the national assembly that ‘I am a Bangladeshi (citizenship) and Chakma (national identity) not a Bangladeshi and Bengali’ (Chakma, 2012). Following the loss of his motivation, M. N. Larma formed a regional political party ‘Parbatya Chattagram Jana Samhati Samiti’, or PCJSS, in 1972, as mentioned earlier. One year after its formation, PCJSS introduced its armed wing named ‘Shanti Bahini (Peace Brigade)’. Thus, from the very beginning the policies of the Bangladesh administration fostered a tribal problem in the CHT region that remains today as a deeply rooted political background.

Even though the PM, Sheikh Mujibur Rahman, was inconsiderate about the demands of the tribal leaders, he did not undertake massive militarisation or force on Bengali settlements during his leadership (Arens & Chakma, 2010). The political administration of Bangladesh changed overnight on the back of a military coup leading to the assassination of Sheikh Mujibur Rahman and his family, on 15 August 1975. Soon after, the democratic struggle of PCJSS faded as successive governments took on aggressive policies and deployed large-scale military action which, ultimately, turned the CHT region into an armed conflict-prone area (between the military and Shanti Bahini). This policy focused principally on the long-term strategy, as mentioned under the Pakistani regime, as well as the threat from the PM, Shiekh Mujibur Rahman, i.e., the settlement of Bengalis to outnumber the indigenous population. In 1976, General Ziaur Rahman formed the Chittagong Hill Tracts Development Board (CHTDB) and started the government-backed settlement of Bengalis in the CHT region; the settlers were redistributed onto land sourced from tribal or indigenous people, along with being given government help for their living expenses (Faiz & Mohaiemen, 2010). In this regard, Chakma’s (2012, p. 127) claim is worth mentioning- “the Bengali settlers are the only people in the CHT who have received uninterrupted rations from their arrival in the late 1970s and early 1980s to till date”. In response to massive Bengali settlement, Shanti Bahini operated their first attack on a military outpost, in late 1976, to express their discontent (Arens & Chakma, 2010). This incident gave the government a valid reason to extensively militarise the region to fight such insurgencies. By mid-1977 the ratio of armed forces to CHT residents was 1:5 (Faiz & Mohaiemen, 2010, p. 27). Attack and counter-attack continued for the next two decades and thousands of hill people fled to the neighbouring country of India as refugees, while around 25,000 people were killed (Chakma, 2012, p. 126). A number

90 of initiatives were taken in the meantime to settle the conflict in CHT. Finally, on 2 December 1997 the long-awaited Peace Treaty was signed between the, then, Prime Minister’, Sheikh Hasina led Awami League government and PCJSS. Alongside the ongoing conflicts, CHT region experienced administrative reforms in the early 1980s as a part of countrywide administrative restructuration. All the subdivisions of the country were raised to ‘District’ status; subsequently, all the three subdivisions of CHT; namely, Rangamati, Bandarban and Khagrachari were elevated to districts by 7 November 1983 (Tripura, 2012). A ‘Deputy Commissioner (DC)’ who is appointed by the central government runs the district administration. Under the previous structure, each sub-division was divided into a number of ‘Thanas’ (Police Stations) and each Thana, in turn, consisted of ‘Unions’ and each Union was made up of a number of ‘Wards’. The administrative reforms split the district administration into ‘Upazilas’ or ‘Sub-districts,’ which hold resources’ allocation authority for the ‘Unions’.

In 1989, the government of Bangladesh created three ‘Local Government Councils (LGCs)’ for each of the three hill districts based on the ‘Hill District Local Government Council Act 1989; Act Nos. 19, 20 and 21’. Following the peace treaty, in 1997, these LGCs are now known as ‘Hill District Councils (HDC)’ and, essentially, represent one of the key local government structures for the hill district people. The peace treaty also initiated a regional body in the name of ‘Chittagong Hill Tracts Regional Council (CHTRC)’ with a view to monitoring and coordinating the local governments’ (e.g., HDCs) activities while maintaining communication with the central government. Apart from local and regional structures, a separate ministry was formed at the central government level in accordance with the peace treaty, which is called the ‘Ministry of Chittagong Hill Tracts Affairs (MoCHTA)’.

In general, the researcher found the overall administrative structure of CHT was confusing and, to some extent, with overlapping administrative structures. There were no meticulous sources found to report with an explicit structure or organogram that could essentially clarify the reporting structures and the territories of organisational duties and responsibilities within CHT. Keeping aside the military administration, at least three administrative structures are noticeable in the CHT, as illustrated by the following figures (Figures 4.7, 4.8 and 4.9). The figures are presented in the most comprehensible way. To develop these structures and overcome the limitation of unique sources to cite, the researcher considered a variety of sources, including consulting government officials, field observation notes, the relevant ministries’ websites and other published documents, such as the CHT Peace Accord 1997, the CHTDB Act 2014 and the CHTRC Act 1998. Finally, after developing these structures, they were communicated to one local government (HDC) representative and one central government representative (research participants) to ensure crosschecking and to increase the validity of the reporting process.

91 Figure 4.7 indicates a general administrative structure prevailing elsewhere in Bangladesh, which indicates a three interconnected layer of local government administration encompassing the District, Upazila and Union Councils. These offices are operated under the controlling authority of the local government division at a central level while being represented by an elected chair.

Figure 4.7 General administrative structure

92

Figure 4.9 Traditional administrative structure

Apart from those three layers, an additional structure is also visible, a ‘Pourasava’ or ‘Municipality’, which is principally a town-centric arrangement and not available for every upazila or not such as, in Bandarban where there are two municipalities. An elected mayor represents a municipality. All these organisations work in collaboration with each other. Beside these local government configurations, the DC represents the District Administration Head, which is a line with the central government. However, the DC works as the chief operating officer of the ‘District Council’ although this is not equally applicable for the hill districts. At upazila level, the UNO plays a similar role to the DC and serves the Upazila Council. At the central level, CHT matters are coordinated through the MoCHTA. The dotted line in each figure indicates an informal working relationship and communication for better-coordinated outputs. Figure 4.8 has been drawn exclusively from the observations on the CHT Peace Accord 1997, the CHTDB Act 2014 and the CHTRC Act 1998. The figure illustrates a typical local government structure that is unique to the districts of CHT. The Peace Accord predominantly introduced CHTRC as a semi-autonomous body to co-ordinate and supervise the activities of local government institutions. This can be observed from Section 9 (a) of Part ‘C’ of The Chittagong Hill Tracts Peace Accord (1997, p. 9):

The Council shall coordinate all the development activities carried out by the three Hill District Councils, and shall also superintend and harmonize all the affairs of and assigned to the three Hill District Councils. Besides, in the event of lack of harmony or any inconsistency being found in the discharge of responsibilities given to the three Hill District Councils, the decision of the Regional Council shall be final.

However, the overall reporting and controlling structure of the HDC is aligned with the MoCHTA. Alternatively, the Peace Accord and the relevant act suggest MoCHTA follows the recommendations from CHTRC (as a regional body) and HDCs. Besides HDC, the Accord mentions that CHTRC shall regulate local councils, including the municipalities, as well as the regional development board, i.e., CHTDB.

93 Figure 4.9 signifies the structure of the traditional administration within which the British introduced three different circles (the Chakma circle, the Bohmong circle and the Mong circle). The central government appoints the circle Chief or Raja, although the position is hereditary, and the circle chief works independently. The DC of each district is required to consult the respective circle chief for the nomination of a ‘Headman’. Finally, the DC as per the Hill Tracts Manual appoints a Headman. The major responsibility of circle chiefs is to collect revenue from the circles with the assistance of ‘Headmen’ and ‘Karbaris’ and to hand over a portion of the total revenue to the central government