One cannot really be sure as to what would have happened if the demand for political autonomy in Bangladesh´s Chittagong Hill Tracts (CHT) had been taken up in the 1960s, at the time of the Bengalis´ struggle for "autonomy" within the state of Pakistan. What is certain, however, is that the construction of independent Bangladesh saw the almost simultaneous birth of the Hill people´s "nationalist aspirations" in the state of Bangladesh. Therein lies the paradox. But that was in the past. The demand for "political autonomy" in the CHT is now too little, too limited, too late. This is said neither to win the heart of a chauvinistic member of the so-called "sub-national" minority community, nor (as the case may be) to evoke the wrath of an equally chauvinistic representatives of the majority community. Rather, it springs from a conviction that the time has come to bury old struggles and begin new ones, rethought and reorganised to face the challenges posed by our ever-changing times.
Too Little
The demand for political autonomy is inadequate as it cultivates a demand that is primarily "political" in the narrowest sense of the term. A close reading of the Five-Point Demand of the PCJSS (Parbatya Chattogram Jono Sanghati Samity, the main political party of the Hill people) will show that the demand for political autonomy in the CHT is not only territorial in nature but is also informed by a precise governmentality.
While the demand for autonomy is justified and hardly needs to be deliberated upon, what is less easy to understand is the implied suggestion that such an autonomy will by itself end Bengali domination and weed out the grievances of the Hill people. The current subjugation of the Hill people did not come about just from the flooding of the CHT by the Bengalis. The domination, although "Bengali" in its composition, is also secular and comprehensive—political as well as social, cultural and intellectual. Merely limiting Bengalis territorially will not guarantee an end to domination (Bengali, or any other) in the CHT.
By targeting the government, the demand reflects a mentality that considers the "government" to be the deliverer of all things. This is what is meant by ´governmentality´, and in a way it asks the government to give what is really not in its possession. That "modern state" is not simply a political society, it represents a complex combination of both political and civil societies. The demand for political autonomy is restricted to political society and fails to consider the fact that much of the delivering power, particularly for sustaining the core objectives of the autonomy, lies with the civil society.
If the intention is to disempower the (Bengali) state and secure political autonomy, it is critical that the (Bengali) civil society be disempowered as well. Anything less than that will not only polarise the situation and make the conflict more violent but will also make the demand for political autonomy more difficult to achieve.