The Long-Standing Unresolved Southeastern Frontier of Bangladesh

৩১ শে অক্টোবর, ২০২৫ সকাল ১১:৪২

The Long-Standing Unresolved Southeastern Frontier of Bangladesh

1. Introduction
The southeastern frontier of Bangladesh has for over a millenniu functioned as a dynamic zone of political, military, cultural, and economic interaction. Situated between Bengal, Tripura, Arakan, and the wider Bay of Bengal world, this frontier historically served as an interface where multiple powers contended for influence. Despite periodic accommodation, shifting dominance, and successive imperial interventions, the frontier has never achieved stable resolution. Its geopolitical complexity continues today, visible in ongoing conflicts in the Chittagong Hill Tracts (CHT), Myanmar–Bangladesh border tensions, and great-power contestation backed by regional and extra-regional forces.
This article examines the long-term historical process that has rendered the southeastern frontier a perpetually unsettled, long-standing, and strategically contested zone. Drawing on historical analysis and contemporary geopolitical theory, it argues that this frontier's unresolved nature is not accidental but rather the product of deep structural forces that continue shaping the region.

2. Early Frontier Dynamics (1st Millennium onwards)
The earliest political formations in southeastern Bengal faced constant engagement with neighboring powers including Tippera (Tripura), Arakanese/Magh powers, and Burmese kingdoms. The frontier acted as a transitional and contact zone between Indo-Gangetic political culture and Tibeto-Burman cultural milieus. Even in early periods, shifting political alliances, trade networks, and military incursions prevented lasting territorial consolidation.
These interactions fostered hybridization in settlement patterns, cultural life, and economic structures, especially near the Chittagong–Arakan–Tripura corridor. The region's terrain—characterized by hills, forests, rivers, and difficult accessibility—historically limited centralized state control, creating conditions favorable to autonomous local powers and resistant to imperial consolidation.1

3. Maritime Frontier and the Bay of Bengal World
The southeastern frontier historically opened toward the Bay of Bengal, functioning not merely as a boundary but as an economic and cultural maritime gateway. Maritime contact linked Bengal with Southeast Asian polities, Indian Ocean merchant networks, Buddhist monastic circuits, and later, Muslim trading communities.
These networks fostered cosmopolitan interaction and periodic militarized competition involving Arakanese fleets and Bengal-based powers. The frontier's orientation toward the sea created patterns of connectivity and exchange that transcended terrestrial political boundaries, establishing a distinct maritime political economy that continues to influence regional dynamics today.2
4. European Intrusions and New Actors
From the 16th century onward, European powers began influencing the frontier. Portuguese mercenaries collaborated with Arakanese Magh raiders in coastal Bengal, introducing new military technologies and tactics. British strategic expansion subsequently reoriented trade and political authority, imposing colonial administrative frameworks that temporarily clarified but never fully resolved frontier ambiguities.
Later, Japanese involvement during World War II transformed the region into a military theatre, further deepening its strategic significance. These actors intensified the frontier's importance and reshaped its political geography, introducing new military logics, arms, and competing political agendas that embedded instability into the region's structure.3

5. Cultural and Ideological Encounters: Bhakti to Islamization
The frontier was shaped not only by warfare but also by religious and ideological movements. The Bhakti movement radiating into eastern Bengal facilitated cross-ethnic cultural integration, influencing many Tibeto-Burman groups and creating spiritual networks that connected the region to broader northeastern Indian territories—areas now comprising the "Seven Sisters" states.
Similarly, waves of Hinduization, Buddhicization, and Islamization transformed political identities and social structures in the region. Buddhist monastic establishments linked Arakan with Bengal and Southeast Asia, while Sufi-led Islamization created new patterns of authority and social organization. Despite such cultural influences, underlying political control remained fragile and contested, as religious identity often failed to overcome ethnic distinctiveness or resolve competing territorial claims.

6. Colonial and Post-Colonial Reconfiguration
British consolidation brought temporary administrative clarity but did not erase frontier tensions. The colonial state governed frontier regions through special administrative arrangements—such as the Chittagong Hill Tracts Regulation of 1900—that recognized their exceptional status and limited the application of regular laws.4 This established a pattern of frontier exceptionalism that persists today.
Partition in 1947 bisected traditional networks and inflamed new disputes. The integration of the Chittagong Hill Tracts into Pakistan (later Bangladesh) was itself contested, due to longstanding autonomy of local ethnic groups. After 1971, the new Bangladeshi state inherited unresolved border complexities. The CHT conflict emerged as a manifestation of ethno-linguistic demands, territorial insecurity, and external intervention, rendering the region increasingly militarized and further embedding its frontier character.
The departure of colonial powers did not resolve the inherent tensions of this frontier; it merely reconfigured them. The result of these centuries of encounter remains inconclusive and unsettled.

7. Contemporary Manifestations: The CHT, Arakan, and Northeast India Nexus
7.1 The Chittagong Hill Tracts Conflict
The insurgency and subsequent peace accord in the CHT are a direct reflection of this unresolved frontier. The region's distinct ethnic and cultural identity, historically separate from the deltaic plains, continues to be a flashpoint where local aspirations intersect with broader geopolitical games.
The CHT conflict involves the Jumma peoples—comprising Chakma, Marma, Tripura, and other indigenous communities—who have historically maintained distinct identities and governance systems. Bengali settlement programs initiated by successive governments have altered the region's demographic balance, generating resentment and armed resistance. The 1997 Peace Accord, while ending major hostilities, left fundamental issues of land rights, autonomy, and resource control unresolved.5
The suggestion that external actors like intelligence agencies have backed various factions in this conflict highlights how this internal frontier remains a playground for proxy influence, continuing historical patterns of external intervention in frontier instability.
7.2 The Arakan Conundrum and Rohingya Crisis
The ongoing crisis in Myanmar's Rakhine (Arakan) State is a direct continuation of this historical frontier war. The conflict, involving the Myanmar military, the Arakan Army, and Rohingya communities, draws in regional and global powers—from China and India to Western nations.
The influx of over a million Rohingya refugees into Bangladesh since 2017 has transformed the Cox's Bazar region into one of the world's largest refugee concentrations. This crisis represents the southeastern frontier's unresolved nature manifesting in contemporary form. The statelessness of the Rohingya, Myanmar's denial of their citizenship rights, and the international community's inability to forge a sustainable solution demonstrate how historical frontier ambiguities continue to generate human suffering and political instability.
The Rohingya crisis reveals how frontier conflicts attract great power attention. China's support for Myanmar, India's strategic calculations, and Western humanitarian concerns create a complex diplomatic environment where Bangladesh's interests must be navigated carefully.6 The influx of Rohingya refugees is a stark reminder that the southeastern border is not a sealed line but a permeable membrane through which regional instability inevitably spills.
7.3 The Northeast Indian Nexus: The Seven Sisters Connection
The northeastern Indian states—Assam, Meghalaya, Tripura, Mizoram, Manipur, Nagaland, and Arunachal Pradesh—form an extension of the southeastern frontier complex. These regions, once connected through cultural and spiritual channels like the Bhakti movement, share historical, ethnic, and geographical connections with the Bangladesh-Myanmar borderlands.
Post-partition political boundaries divided communities and disrupted traditional economic and social networks. Insurgencies in northeastern India, separatist movements, and ethnic conflicts in these states often have cross-border dimensions involving Bangladesh. The government of Bangladesh has cooperated with India in addressing these security concerns, but the underlying causes of instability—questions of identity, autonomy, and development—remain unresolved.
The concept of this broader frontier zone, extending from the CHT through Arakan and into Northeast India, challenges conventional nation-state frameworks. It suggests a region whose natural geography and historical connections create dynamics that transcend current political boundaries, making the frontier a transnational phenomenon rather than a bilateral border issue.

8. Contemporary Geopolitical Dimensions
Today, the southeastern frontier is shaped by overlapping security interests that make it a multidimensional arena involving state militaries, non-state actors, transnational intelligence agencies, and insurgent groups. Key actors include:
• Myanmar–Bangladesh tensions intensified by Rohingya displacement and border militarization
• Arakan military dynamics involving ethnic armed organizations seeking autonomy
• India's Northeast political volatility and counter-insurgency operations
• Growing Chinese presence in Myanmar and Bay of Bengal through infrastructure investments and strategic partnerships
• Regional intelligence involvement with various agencies accused of exploiting local grievances to advance geopolitical objectives
The frontier's unresolved nature has attracted external involvement, reflecting its continuing strategic significance. Intelligence agencies have been accused of exploiting local grievances to advance their own geopolitical objectives, making the frontier a space where great power competition and regional rivalries play out through proxy conflicts and influence operations.
This external dimension reflects a pattern established during earlier periods when regional and extra-regional powers sought to advance their interests through frontier instability. The difference in the contemporary era lies in the sophisticated nature of intervention—combining intelligence operations, ideological support, and strategic assistance to various actors.7

9. Analytical Framework: Understanding Frontier Persistence
9.1 Why Frontiers Remain Unresolved
Several structural factors explain the southeastern frontier's persistent instability:
Geographical Complexity: The region's terrain facilitates insurgency, smuggling, and cross-border movements while complicating governance and development. Mountain ranges, dense forests, and river systems create natural corridors for non-state actors and limit the projection of centralized state power.
Ethnic and Religious Diversity: The frontier zone encompasses numerous ethnic communities with distinct identities and historical experiences. Bengali Muslims, indigenous Jumma peoples, Rohingya, various northeastern tribes, and others have competing claims and interests. Religious diversity—Buddhist, Hindu, Muslim, Christian, and animist populations—adds another layer of complexity, as these identities intersect with ethnic and political allegiances in unpredictable ways.
Economic Marginalization: Frontier regions often lag in economic development, creating grievances that fuel conflict. Limited infrastructure, inadequate government services, and exploitation by outsiders generate resentment among local populations. The contrast between resource-rich frontier zones and their lack of development benefits creates a sense of internal colonization.
Strategic Importance: The region's location at the intersection of South Asia and Southeast Asia, with access to the Bay of Bengal, makes it strategically significant. This importance attracts external interest and intervention, complicating local dynamics. The Bay of Bengal's emerging role in Indo-Pacific geopolitics further amplifies the frontier's strategic value.
Legacy of Incomplete Settlements: Historical conflicts that ended inconclusively established patterns of cyclical violence. Neither complete conquest nor genuine accommodation occurred, leaving fundamental issues unresolved and available for reactivation under favorable circumstances. Peace processes often address symptoms rather than root causes, perpetuating instability.
Weak Administrative Integration: Over centuries, the frontier has resisted full incorporation into centralized states. Whether under pre-colonial kingdoms, colonial empires, or modern nation-states, the region has maintained a degree of autonomy and separateness that prevents definitive settlement.
9.2 The Frontier as a Perpetual Zone of Exception
Following Giorgio Agamben's concept of the "state of exception," frontier regions often exist in a permanent state where normal legal and political rules are suspended.8 The southeastern frontier has historically been governed through special administrative arrangements, military operations, and emergency powers rather than regular civilian governance.
This exceptionalism creates a self-perpetuating cycle. The lack of normal governance generates instability, which justifies continued exceptional measures, which in turn prevent the establishment of normal governance. Military operations, special security laws, and restricted civilian access become normalized features of frontier life, creating parallel governance structures that bypass democratic accountability.
Breaking this cycle requires fundamental reimagining of state-frontier relations. However, entrenched interests—military establishments, intelligence agencies, and political actors who benefit from frontier exceptionalism—resist such transformation. The frontier's exceptional status serves multiple purposes: it provides justification for military budgets, enables covert operations, and allows states to manage ethnic diversity through containment rather than integration.

10. The Frontier as a Conceptual Space
The southeastern frontier is not simply a territorial boundary. It is:
• A zone of cultural exchange where multiple civilizations have historically intersected
• A corridor for migration accommodating population movements across centuries
• A sphere of intermittent militarization where security concerns periodically override civilian governance
• A nexus of international espionage where intelligence operations exploit local conflicts
• A strategic maritime gateway connecting South Asia to Southeast Asia and the broader Indo-Pacific
Understanding this frontier requires acknowledging the interplay of political history, ethno-linguistic diversity, economic networks, religious transformations, and great-power rivalry. It challenges conventional analytical frameworks that privilege territorial sovereignty and fixed borders, suggesting instead a more fluid conception of political space shaped by overlapping authorities and contested legitimacies.
The frontier operates according to different logics than the state's core territories. Time moves differently here—historical grievances remain vivid, past conflicts inform present identities, and cyclical patterns of violence recur across generations. Space is experienced differently—borders are porous, loyalties are multiple, and communities maintain connections that transcend official boundaries.

11. Conclusion
For more than a thousand years, the southeastern frontier of Bangladesh has remained a space of contestation. Repeated interactions with Tripura, Arakan, Burma, and later European and Japanese forces forged a frontier where no single power could enforce lasting control. Contemporary conflicts—particularly the CHT issue, the Rohingya crisis, and Northeast Indian instability—are legacies of this long historical trajectory.
Even today, intelligence operations, regional power competition, and insurgency reflect the continued struggle to define and stabilize this frontier. The unresolved nature of this frontier is not accidental; it is the product of deep historical processes, ongoing geopolitical shifts, and structural forces that continue shaping the region.
The southeastern frontier's persistence challenges simplistic narratives of state formation and national integration. It reveals the limits of sovereignty in regions where geography, ethnicity, and history conspire to resist centralization. It demonstrates how international borders can simultaneously divide and connect, creating zones of exception where normal rules do not apply.
Therefore, the southeastern frontier remains a long-standing unresolved geopolitical and cultural zone—a frontier still in the making. Any sustainable resolution must acknowledge its complex history, address legitimate grievances of marginalized communities, reduce external interference, and imagine new forms of governance that accommodate rather than suppress diversity. Until then, the frontier will continue to generate instability, attracting intervention, and producing human suffering—a perpetual reminder that not all political questions admit of final answers.

________________________________________
References
Footnotes
1. Van Schendel, Willem. "The Invention of the 'Jummas': State Formation and Ethnicity in Southeastern Bangladesh." Modern Asian Studies 26, no. 1 (1992): 95-128. ↩
2. Eaton, Richard M. The Rise of Islam and the Bengal Frontier, 1204-1760. Berkeley: University of California Press, 1993. ↩
3. Leider, Jacques P. "Arakan's Medieval Golden Period: Historical Reality or Wishful Thinking?" In Estudos de Historia Maritima, edited by Francisco Contente Domingues, 33-63. Lisbon: Academia de Marinha, 2012. ↩
4. Sopher, David E. "The Swidden/Wet-Rice Transition Zone in the Chittagong Hills." Annals of the Association of American Geographers 54, no. 1 (1964): 107-126. ↩
5. Mohsin, Amena. The Chittagong Hill Tracts, Bangladesh: On the Difficult Road to Peace. Boulder: Lynne Rienner Publishers, 2003. ↩
6. Ullah, AKM Ahsan. "Rohingya Refugees to Bangladesh: Historical Exclusions and Contemporary Marginalization." Journal of Immigrant & Refugee Studies 9, no. 2 (2011): 139-161. ↩
7. Ganguly, Rajat. "India, Myanmar, and the Politics of Regional Security." Asian Affairs: An American Review 43, no. 4 (2016): 159-179. ↩
8. Agamben, Giorgio. State of Exception. Translated by Kevin Attell. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 2005. ↩

০ টি +০/-০