Visualizing Indigeneity as a Local Defense: Tourism in the Chittagong Hill Tracts, Bangladesh

Abstract

This paper portrays both how indigenous people reframe indigeneity as a local defense against tourism politics through active participation rather than passive performance, and how touristic actors redefine Indigeneity in tourism marketing through visual depletion and depiction in the Chittagong Hill Tracts (CHT), Bangladesh. The research adopts an ‘otherness’ vs. ‘belongingness’ approach to question the dual position of tourism promotion in the context of indigeneity. Focusing on three research sites in the two districts of CHT, it employs ethnographic analysis of eighty-eight in-depth interviews and three focus group discussions, and netnographic analysis of twenty-five tourist blogs and posts and reviews of six travel websites. The findings unearth that the construction of indigenous ‘otherness’ invokes the reproduction of stereotypes such as ‘primitivism’ and ‘exoticism’. In contrast, indigeneity serves as a local mechanism to control the representation of exogenous agents in opposition to such categorization. The research contributes to reckoning indigeneity as a defensive mechanism for self-visualization in response to one-sided representations of indigenous lifeworlds.

1. Introduction

Indigeneity in tourism encompasses community-led initiatives, such as homestays, food branding, cultural festivals, and Indigenous tour services that aim to preserve and promote Indigenous heritage (Timothy & Ron, 2013; Xie, 2011; Smith, 2006). At the International Disaster Reduction Conference (IDRC) in Switzerland, organized by ICCROM and the UNESCO World Heritage Centre (King et al., 2006) suggest that promoting indigenous knowledge, traditions, and heritage-related tourism enriches cultural resilience, identity revitalization, and sustainable returns, particularly in the Global South. Gowen et al. (2023) also argue that the ICOMOS Cultural Heritage Tourism Charter 2021 reconceptualizes cultural heritage as a shared cultural capital and promotes responsible tourism practices that reinforce community resilience in response to overtourism. Nevertheless, these initiatives are not devoid of the contradictions inherent in neoliberal market logic (Lichrou et al., 2008; MacCannell, 1999; Silver, 1993). Tourism establishes a marketplace where tourists act as buyers and consumers, while indigenous communities are the sellers, and ‘culture’ and ‘identity’ serve as commodities (Maci et al., 2018; Kirtsoglou & Theodossopoulos, 2004; Cohen, 1988). It thus produces what this paper terms the ‘contested position’ of indigeneity: a protection of cultural freedom and a defensive mechanism of self-exhibition. Self-commodified images of indigeneity in tourism, therefore, serve as a platform of both agency and uncertainty, whereby Indigenous actors navigate the delicate balance between visibility and vulnerability. Comaroff and Comaroff (2009, p. 140) also stress that “there is an ongoing worldwide reconfiguration of ‘ethnic minorities’ into ‘ethno-preneurial’ actors.” South Asian scholars (Ahmed, 2017; Chakma, 2016; Hettiarachchi, 2019; Rahman, 2019; Rasul & Manandhar, 2009; Sajib, 2022) suggest that the rich tapestry of indigenous cultural practices is vulnerable to change, as tourism’s encroachment gradually erodes vital cultural codes and diminishes the profound religious significance embedded in these traditions. Furthermore, the concept ‘tourist gaze’ suggested by Urry (2002) analyzes how tourists perceive and interpret indigeneity across visual, culinary, and performative dimensions. This gaze goes beyond simple curiosity, embodying a deeply racialized and gendered view that promotes ideas of Bengali superiority and Indigenous marginalization. Tourists label Indigenous homes as ‘caves,’ call their food ‘primitive’, and describe festivals as ‘exotic,’ often ignoring the socio-historical violence that has shaped these communities. Simultaneously, Indigenous individuals are not simply passive subjects of observation; they also respond, perform, challenge, and manipulate the expectations placed upon them. This interaction forms an ‘indigenous defense’ within tourism—a perspective that challenges prevailing narratives and creates a counter-visuality rooted in lived experience. The paper, therefore, advocates for a decolonial approach to tourism—one that amplifies Indigenous voices, upholds cultural freedom, and opposes the extractive logics of postcolonial development.

In the Chittagong Hill Tracts (CHT), a region known for its winding hills and deep forests, a subtle yet significant transformation is underway. As the residence of eleven Indigenous communities, this southeastern border region of Bangladesh has historically experienced neglect by the colonial and postcolonial state, military oversight, and ethno-political conflicts. More recently, however, it has emerged as a dynamic hub for tourism in the national interest. Promoted via high-quality brochures, social media campaigns, and corporate advertisements as a site of exotic culture and pristine nature, the CHT is swiftly becoming entwined within the frameworks of neoliberal development and consumer leisure. This shift towards tourism is not simultaneous. It is intricately intertwined with the government’s persistent efforts toward territorial sovereignty, Bengali nation-state building, and cultural homogeneity. Simultaneously, Indigenous communities are actively participating in this transformation. They strategically engage with the tourism economy by branding their culture, places, and identities to both accommodate and resist the forces of commodification. This paper critically analyzes this paradox, examining how indigeneity in the CHT is simultaneously essentialized and commercialized within the evolving tourism landscape. This paper examines the relationship among indigeneity, heritage, and commodification, with particular focus on corporate use through tourism in the Chittagong Hill Tracts, Bangladesh. It also represents the instrumentalization of ‘indigeneity’ in response to the one-sided representation of indigenous lifeworlds in tourism promotion by state-induced actors that counteract indigeneity as a form of local defense.

In summary, this research makes a valuable contribution to the growing body of literature on tourism and indigeneity by providing an empirically grounded and theoretically informed analysis of tourism. It questions the irreconcilable difference between acceptance and endurance through which Indigenous stakeholders engage with the tourism industry. The research findings, presented in three parts, are based on firsthand data collected through an ethnographic and netnographic study. Each of these parts represents the tensions and contradictions inherent in tourism. In the Discussion section, the research questions and arguments are addressed through analysis of the findings, complemented by an intersection of the existing literature. Lastly, the conclusion summarizes the main objectives and reflects on the comprehensive understanding of inclusive indigenous-led tourism policy and decolonial research in South Asia. It advocates for reimagining tourism as a space for justice rather than just consumption.

2. Literature Review: Indigeneity in Between Otherness and Belongingness

The representation of indigeneity is a central factor in tourism in the context of Indigenous people in CHT, in which process people become an authentic ‘other’. To understand the notion of indigeneity, Padovan and Alietti (2019, pp. 172–196) signify a “process by which different groups or clusters of people are discriminated in some way because of their natural characters—skin colour, gender, age—or of cultural features that are naturalized and crystallized—religion, language, dressing”. Hooks (2009, p. 367; cited in Ahmed, 2017, p. 11) also contends that “when ethnicity become commodified as resources for pleasure, the culture of specific groups, as well as the bodies of individuals can be seen as constituting an alternative playground where members of dominating races, genders, sexual practices affirm their power-over in intimate relations with the Other”. Thus, this study unmasks the kaleidoscopic meaning of indigeneity and the politics of categorization. Although indigeneity is a situational and socio-politically constructed issue, it has become a salient object of romanticized tourism fascination in the context of the CHT. For example, in the ‘5th Annual Cultural Diversity Festival’ jointly organized by MoCHTA and the CHTDF titled ‘Unity in Diversity’, the main purpose was to share and sensitize the richness of the ‘pahari’ ethnic tradition and culture of CHT to the ‘mainstream’ Bengali people (UNDP & CHTDF, 2012). It has promoted cultural diversity to enhance tourism potential by collaborating with ethnic entrepreneurs and Bengali corporates. Despite the festival celebrating cultural diversity, the Pahari ethnic people were acknowledged as ‘other’ ethnic groups, not as ‘indigenous’. What exactly does this promotional celebration for tourism promise to enhance in cultural ‘unity in diversity’? It is always projected a colonial mentality by the tourists, travel agencies, and public actors in their advertisements in (social) media that “the pahari communities are very naïve, welcoming, and attached to nature”. In fact, this representation constructs an ‘otherness’ of natives. On the contrary, indigenous communities portray themselves as defenders of ‘indigeneity’ as a local tool to control these distorted representations. Indigenous agencies also incorporate cultural services into their offerings, for instance, hosting Indigenous festivals, dancing and singing, staying at Indigenous homesteads, buying handicrafts, and experiencing indigenous cuisines. It is important to explain how and why indigeneity functions as a political device for the sensitization and exploitation of a particular group.

However, ironically, the state refuses to provide status to Pahari ethnic minorities as ‘indigenous’ for their collective identity, but their indigeneity is employed in tourism development to attract tourists to experience the cultural ‘exotism’. These mostly coincide with the image of indigenous communities living as ‘one with nature’, thus acting on prehistoric views of ‘primitivity’, spreading a certain fabrication of indigeneity. Categorizing Pahari ethnic folks as ‘exotic’, ‘weird’, ‘primitive’, and ‘colorful’ in the context of their clothing, food culture, dialect, and physical appearance allows Bengali tourists to view them as culturally and ethnically inferior. Through romanticized images, adventurous documentaries, and fabricated features in media, “the language of tourism attempts to seduce millions of tourists, and convert them from potential into actual clients, and subsequently to control their attitudes and behavior” (Dann, 1996, p. 2; Maci et al., 2018, pp. 1–5). For instance, when tourists or tour operators sensitize the destinations, they use particular sensational adjectives like “untouched by civilization, remote and unspoiled, colorful, picturesque, quaint, fascinating, almost unknown, newly discovered” to remanufacture indigeneity (Cohen, 1988; Dann, 1996, p. 16; Rázusová, 2009, p. 200). Moreover, tourists’ impressions posted on social media are not only a response to the packages facilitated by tourist agencies or indigenous locals, but also a reproduction of existing discourses after the live experience. Tourism as a power of representation “names things, pictures others, and helps to recreate identities by means of labels, brands, or declarations” (Nogue’s-Pedregal, 2012, p. 9).

In tourism promotion, ‘indigeneity’ is featured as an object of tourism advertising, in which indigenous people perceive their involvement in tourism as a place of resistance. Therefore, ‘indigeneity’ becomes a defensive mechanism against touristic representation through retribalizing themselves and their culture. For example, at an indigenous cultural festival in Dhaka organized by a public organization, a Bengali was giving a speech and frequently mentioning the term ‘upajati’ when addressing indigenous communities. An indigenous man immediately protested against uttering that term (Alam, 2015, p. 127). This confrontation demonstrated a sense of belongingness in response to portraying the ‘otherness’ of indigenous minorities.

In tourism, photographing and videomaking are no longer merely ceremonial or habitual practices for tourists but also a foundation for constructing a notion of indigeneity. In most cases, tourists create scenes of photographing ‘authentic’ indigenous locals (for example, Mru, Khumi, or others) with almost ‘naked’ bodies. Consequently, the hill people feel insulted and uncomfortable with such inhumane treatment. As Schendel (2002, pp. 341–374) claimed that “in these photographs Mru or others’ nakedness served as a marker of a number of contradictory cultural traits: closeness to nature, authenticity, primitivity, wildness, indecency, and underdevelopment”. Moreover, the ‘mutual gaze’ (Maoz, 2006) recognizes the double-sided feature of the host-guest interactions. Hosts also have substantially proactive roles that affect the guests’ minds. The ‘local gaze’ is significant to comprehend the ground reality of the powerless indigenous locals in CHT and how they respond to the dominant voices of tourists and other tourism stakeholders. In postcolonial Bangladesh, the relations between indigenous communities and ‘mainstream’ Bengalis are mostly ‘antagonistic’ (Bal & Siraj, 2017) and contested in a political sense of belonging. Despite the fact of mutual mistrust, locals perform mostly in accordance with “tourists’ views and behaviors, in some cases, tourists act according to locals’ perceptions, attitudes and behaviors” (Monterrubio, 2019, pp. 18–28).

3. Research Sites

The Chittagong Hill Tracts is the most extensive mountainous area of Bangladesh where eleven indigenous communities live with their distinct way of life, along with substantial numbers of ‘mainstream’ Bengalis, a few kilometers away from the Chittagong city. It is a foremost popular tourist destination in Bangladesh, exclusively due to its natural and cultural diversity, which pulls a large number of tourists, mainly from the metropolitan cities of Bangladesh, as well as planned tour operators. It is located in a naturally beautiful area, but it is a hazardous tourist track, infrastructurally underdeveloped, and an underprivileged touristic setup. Its native dwellers experience a disproportionate segment of tourism advantages as the tourism industry is predominantly controlled and promoted by the public and private actors, where indigenous locals are passive touristic entertainers. The Chittagong Hill Tracts is positioned in the south-eastern part of Bangladesh, and its south-east border is surrounded by India and Myanmar. It covers 13,274 sq km, and consists of Rangamati, Khagrachari, and Bandarban, hill districts. According to the 2022 census, the eleven indigenous paharis are 920,217 in total out of 1,842,815 in population, and the largest portion of the population is the Bengali (Muslim and Hindu) community (BBS, 2022). Eleven1 indigenous communities are locally identified as Pahari, Jumma, Adivasi or Upojathi (hill people, shifting cultivators, indigenous or tribal people), but they are officially recognized as ‘ethnic minorities.’ Although it is constitutionally termed as a ‘small ethnic group’, I have often used the term ‘Indigenous’ people to introduce the cultural differences to a broader readership, with due respect to constitutional recognition.

Over nine months of ethnographic exploration carried out between 2021 and 2022, this research selected multi-sited locations: Ruilui para, Sajek in Khagrachari, Munlai para, Ruma, and Kapru para, Lama in Bandarban (see Figure 1 and Figure 2). All indigenous communities and most tourist spots in the CHT were also considered, reflecting a holistic understanding of tourism and its impacts.

4. Research Design and Methodology

This study uses a mixed-methods approach, integrating ethnographic and netnographic analysis, to examine representations of Indigeneity both offline and online within the CHT. Framed within a decolonial and reflexive perspective, it emphasizes methodological rigor and ethical responsibility. The netnographic method (Kozinets, 2002), which analyzes tourists’ social media posts and online travel narratives, provides valuable insights into the dissemination of cultural myths and the construction of tourist imaginaries. To adhere to ethical standards when engaging with publicly accessible online data, only posts shared on open platforms, such as public Facebook and Instagram posts, were included, thereby ensuring no infringement on private digital spaces. Tourists were anonymized to safeguard their identities, and indigenous informants were treated as co-researchers rather than mere research subjects. This participatory approach enhances the validity of the research and emphasizes Indigenous epistemologies. Netnographic findings were cross-verified with field interviews and focus groups to enhance empirical depth and ensure theoretical consistency. This approach not only records phenomena but also critically examines the discourses present in social media representations. By elucidating the ways in which visual, culinary, and performative representations are mediated through online platforms, this study advances methodological innovations in critical tourism studies. This dual-layered approach enhances the theoretical framework while maintaining ethical integrity in digital ethnographic research.

Fifty-two indigenous Paharis, twenty-four tourists, five tour operators, and seven officials from both the public and private tourism sectors were selected as samples. In-depth interviews revealed how these three actors (indigenous paharis, tourists, and the state) respond to each other in the tourism context (see Figure 3). Three FGDs (Focus Group Discussions) across three sites were conducted through, employing two RAs (Research Assistants), with each FGD comprising 8–10 informants. The researcher served as the moderator, while the RAs documented the records. This arrangement facilitated data verification, clarification of uncertainties, and an exploration of the collective perspectives of indigenous peoples concerning the State and its affiliated private policies. However, for netnographic analysis, this study analyzed the posts and reviews of twenty-five tourist bloggers and six travel websites (see Figure 3) to evaluate overall tourism experiences, including culinary experiences at Pahari ethnic restaurants, homestay hospitality, and cultural tour experiences. This method helped to understand how the ‘indigenous defense’ is developed in tourist communications, and how the tourists, travel agencies, as well as indigenous locals themselves mutually circulate a myth of ‘otherness’ in terms of indigenous homestead hospitality as an authentic experience. Here, who are tourists and who are hosts is sometimes problematic in the sense that Bengali locals also host tourists with indigenous flavors, but in this study, hosts refer only to the Pahari indigenous communities of CHT.

5. Findings of the Study

This study reveals how tourism in the Chittagong Hill Tracts (CHT) reproduces indigeneity as a local defense against the representation of ‘othering’, while also offering opportunities for communities to express their identity. Indigenous cuisines, for instance, are frequently portrayed as ‘exotic’ and ‘primitive’ experiences, reinforcing stereotypes while simultaneously serving as tools for cultural branding and economic support. Despite these challenges, indigenous communities engage in self-commodification by utilizing food, homestays, restaurants, and crafts to preserve their cultural identity while gaining economic benefits. Ultimately, while tourism can serve as a platform for cultural revival and economic progress, it also risks undermining indigenous self-governance of culture and turning communities into mere backdrops for tourist activities.

5.1. Indigenous Food as an Ethnic Marker

Understanding postcolonial and neo-local representations, the paper explores the ‘eatertainment’ (Mkono, 2011) of indigenous food as an ethnic marker and a cultural difference between hosts and guests. It also depicted a politics among Bengali restaurant entrepreneurs aimed at constructing an ‘otherness’ that is transformed into a touristic commodity in their commercial services. A substantial number of studies (Galvez et al., 2017, pp. 604–612; Ingram et al., 2020) signifies that “locally sourced food and drink have the potential to not only initiate a multiplier effect in an area, but they can also contribute to the distinctiveness and ‘authenticity’ travelers seek while enhancing the triple bottom line of sustainability”. Cavaliere (2017, p. 49) also connects that “food-based activities are rooted in multiple types of socio-cultural traditions, practices and performatives”. In the Chittagong Hill Tracts, local ethnic groups provide homestay services that include meals and overnight stays, and sometimes arrange a song-and-dance party to entertain visitors. According to the informants, in the CHT, most restaurants are owned, controlled, and operated by Bengali business elites, with some of these owners based in Chittagong or Dhaka city. They hire indigenous Paharis to capitalize on their ‘indigeneity’ in order to develop a neo-locality. They are less experienced in operating a culinary business with cultural sensitivity. Furthermore, the naming conventions of restaurants and resorts are closely associated with the Pahari natives and the natural environment, exemplified by establishments such as Wild Café, Bamboo Shoot Eco Food Court, and Heritage Dine, which evoke notions of primitiveness and wilderness. To promote the consumption of ‘Pahari’ foods, eateries in the Chittagong Hill Tracts (CHT) are adorned with various types of bamboo, thereby conveying a broader brand of a ‘wild’ atmosphere. Restaurant owners mostly use cards with the name of the restaurant for advertising. Some restaurants display banners with colorful images of food at tourist spots, allowing tourists to experience their culinary hospitality. Most tourists visit restaurants in Bandarban with the help of tourist guides. Travel guides essentially serve as an advertising channel for most restaurants and resorts, as they have an agreement with them. It perpetuates stereotypes of primitivism and exoticism, which are remnants of the colonial legacy (Edensor, 2001, p. 70; Mkono, 2011, pp. 253–270).

Food-loving tourists who seek a novel experience in CHT want to taste indigenous cuisine where they experience a blend of ‘primitive’ dishes with ‘modern’ ones, served by indigenous people in the homestay hospitality and Bengali-owned restaurants as well. Tourists, having indigenous cuisines, for instance, nappi, pachon, which are considered as ‘novel’, ‘untried’, ‘unfamiliar’ or ‘unusual’ items, show a “symbolic distinction of his/her status with both a physical and intellectual openness to difference, an adventurous curiosity, willingness to risk, and a desire to consume contrast” (Molz, 2007, p. 85; Mkono, 2011, pp. 253–270). Reviews of different categories (based on class, age, and religious intensity) of tourists in Facebook concerning indigenous ‘other’ cuisine and ‘eatertainment’ reveal a particular form of mindset and response on social media that requires some netnographic analysis. Some tourists become ambassadors of ‘food localization’ (Egresi & Buluç, 2016, p. 232) as they are frequent visitors, and they know which local cuisines are famous among tourists. Hence, they contribute to advertising these foods in metropolitan restaurants as an indigenous brand. While it helps promote cultural diversity, it also represents an attitude that contributes to the ‘exoticization’ of cultural differences. Tourists who are hesitant or less interested in consuming ‘Pahari’ foods available in their own cities and even restaurants in CHT often prefer to taste that ‘peculiar’ cuisine at homestay services, as it maintains enough privacy.

Nevertheless, most tourists are not bothered by how the food was cooked or what cooking condiments were used; they are just excited to eat ‘Pahari food’ to experience it as a ‘primitive recipe’. It has been observed that in three districts of the Chittagong Hill Tracts, a variety of ‘authentic and unique’ recipes, as indigenous brands, have become a favorite and much-demanded cuisine among tourists, particularly during indigenous festivals. For example, bamboo chicken, bamboo chicken biryani, bamboo cup tea, beanie rice, bash-korol, panchphodan, or different types of indigenously prepared pita are very popular items among tourists. In many restaurants, these dishes are prepared right in front of them, which makes them happy. Those who have never tried bamboo chicken are encouraged to try it after hearing about it from fellow travelers through social media. Hence, the exotic ‘other’ cuisine becomes appealing as it represents a ‘cultural capital’, and carries deep-rooted cultural values and symbols (Mkono, 2011; Molz, 2007; Gyimóthy & Mykletun, 2009). However, there is a change in the taste of the indigenous food items when they are prepared for commercial purposes (Mohiuddin & Sajib, 2021, p. 152). These foodstuffs are not unique to any particular Pahari community but are shared as part of an indigenous food tradition, albeit under different names. For instance, Marma terms a semi-cooked dish as Appreng, where Tripura names it as Rozak (Mohiuddin & Sajib, 2021, p. 152). For example, Bini rice, Kakan rice, Chutki rice, Kebang, Hebang, Gorang, Nappi, Pachphodan, Sabereng huro, chicken laksu or horbo, Bamboo chicken, Bamboo cup tea, Pahari Bada, and Bashkorul (bamboo shoot) are mostly the names of the favorite dishes typical among the various indigenous locals in CHT. These are not even recognized as usual ‘food’ by the Bengali ‘modern’ metropolitan tourists. These foods are not available in bazaars, institutions, terminals, and Bengali hotel restaurants throughout the CHT. Furthermore, it is concerning for indigenous gastronomy that, despite the ethnic tensions related to food extinction and the loss of native culinary terminology, ‘Bengali food’ is increasingly dominating the lexicon of indigenous food languages. The delicious recipe ‘Bamboo chicken’, for instance, is a well-known and popular dish among tourists, regarded as an ethnic ‘exotic’ cuisine, but it has an indigenous name ‘Huro Chumo’. Restaurant management manipulates these Pahari foods to allure tourists with modern names and culinary combinations, thereby maintaining the ‘exotic’ with the ‘civilized’ cuisines. The insertion of Bengali foods, which are represented as an indigenous culinary experience, is thus a profitable and strategic practice for balancing them. The indigenous-owned restaurants, as a result, represent an ideal site for questioning indigenous ‘other’ cuisines, assessing the representational politics of ‘other’ in culinary hospitality, and distinguishing between ‘exotic’ and ‘mixed’ cuisines. Therefore, precisely authenticating “who the Other is, who the Otherer is, and what this Other is Other from” is problematic (Mkono, 2011, pp. 253–270).

5.2. Indigeneity as a Cultural Capital

In response to the non-indigenous Bengalis’ penetration into the neoliberal tourism economy, indigenous communities developed a discourse of ‘indigeneity’ as a saleable form of cultural capital to express their belonging in the corporate setting. In addition, indigenous communities are economically forced to negotiate their identity as a ‘self-exotic’ due to the cash flow and encroachment of tourism development. Due to the distorted representation of indigeneity by the tourists, the State, media, and tour agencies, Indigenous locales perceive self-representation as a potential avenue for both cultural resilience and political-economic emancipation. Moreover, the indigenous self-involvement is the new prospect of representing themselves to be ‘mainstream’ in tourism services, as the State’s representation of ethnic Paharis is a kind of politically motivated remarginalization process. Wilson and Ypeij (2012, pp. 5–16) claim that “the commodification and staged authenticity may not always mean the loss of meaning or the destruction of culture. They may also lead to a renovation or revival of ethnic identities”.

In addition to indigenous restaurants and homestay hospitality, there are a few Dhaka-based indigenous restaurants operated by indigenous communities, such as Hebaang, CHT Express, Sabereng, and Jummo Kitchen (Haider, 2021). They serve ‘unique and authentic’ indigenous foods with the Pahari cooking style. However, a woman informant states that an integrated indigenous women’s group called ‘SAVANGEE’ took the initiative during the coronavirus pandemic. They create Facebook groups and advertise their own indigenous foods. A platform is created where everyone orders their products. They arrange home delivery of their products to customers. Not only food but also a variety of products, including clothes and rattan items, are available for their distant tourists. Four ventures fascinate the tourists in quest of the ‘authentic’ and ‘exotic’ other. However, in Sajek, tourists often dress up in the traditional costumes of the Lushai community to experience the fantasy of being ‘exotic’ folks, and frame some couple photos as if they are in a romantic and colorful lost world. The homestay services offered by indigenous locals are viewed as an ‘indigenous brand’ which has a historical legacy as cultural heritage and as a means of communal bonding. A key indigenous informant narrated that,

“There was a cultural practice that was more likely a homestay or paying guest framework; when a passerby crossed a para (village), he/she would bring some rice with him/her. When the sun set, passerby would offer their rice to a local family in exchange for shelter, food, and a place to stay for the night. Such gestures from the receiver and provider foster a mutual bond between the two families. We have already lost such a tradition. We must uphold this practice, and tourism allows us to continue it”.

All these enterprises contribute directly and indirectly to constructing a ‘self-exotic’ authenticity in order to entertain tourists, although “most natives are positionally unable to affect how images of authenticity are constructed and marketed” (Silver, 1993, p. 316). Most of the indigenous key informants asserted that “incorporating self-commodified indigeneity initiates a transformative process of personal empowerment while fostering sustainable cultural preservation. This active engagement not only enhances indigenous identity but also reinforces our cultural heritage for future generations”. They are, in fact, concerned with equitable inclusion in the control and decision-making process of tourism promotion.

5.3. Branding ‘Indigeneity’ Through Agency

Tourist advertisements by tour operators or post-tourists themselves, particularly on social media, convey an impression that traps people through semiotic constructions of tourist destinations. For instance, CHT-based tourist agencies offer cultural performances and adventurous activities, often using language on their websites that distorts reality and conflates fantasies of the primitiveness and wilderness of Pahari indigenous people. It was found that tourists expressed several reasons for choosing the Chittagong Hill Tracts as a tourist destination, for example, enjoying natural diversity, exploring Pahari ethnic cultural practices, and experiencing adventurous events are influential in making pleasurable and memorable trips. In addition, online reviews of post-tourists, for instance, on Facebook, Instagram, or travel websites, also persuade many people to visit the Chittagong Hill Tracts. In addition, before visiting CHT, tourists show boundless interest and express abundant oral, textual, and photographic portrayals of desirable tourist spots on Facebook, Instagram, and YouTube, thereby creating a ‘truth marker’ (MacCannell, 1999; Rázusová, 2009) of these destinations. The portrayal of the ‘wilderness’ is fundamentally linked to issues of asymmetrical power relations between observers and the observed. An activist of the Marma ethnic group posted a blog about his bitter experience of how Bengalis approach them, that is,

“I stayed outside the Chittagong Hill Tracts for ten years. I was the only Marma in our office. Once, I went to another department for work. The official there got to know me and said, well, you are Marma. Your main festival is ‘Sangrai’, right? At that time, you play water sports. right? I saw it on TV. To Bengali tourists, the Marma community is perceived as backward and uneducated people from the hills who love festivals and enjoy playing with water during the Sangrai festival. The majority of people in Bangladesh share the same impression of us. However, they are unaware of our long history of struggle. Our history of exploitation, deprivation, and genocide by the State”.

(Marma, 2013)

There is a significant change in the form, flavor, taste, presentation, and management of the festivals of the indigenous Paharis. For instance, the Pahari people’s New Year festival is not merely a seasonal cultural celebration conducted in its authentic form; it has now transformed into a form of entertainment for the urban middle class of Bengali tourists. Although few indigenous activists opined that naming ‘Boishabi’ is a local political decision of the indigenous elites, Uddin (2013) questions whether it is significant to distort the name of a traditional practice with the word ‘Boishabi’ in order to build cultural sustainability. The colorful representation of the ‘Boishabi’ provides a taste of ‘primitiveness’ in the eyes of tourists that indeed constructs a ‘Bengali tourist gaze’ upon the indigenous people and their cultural practices through the ‘media gaze’. As a result, the cultural identity of the paharis is no longer an intact ethnic marker, but a commodified object.

Numerous travel agencies, such as Bangladesh Eco Adventure, Bangladesh Adventure Club, Nijhoom Tours, Travel Mate, Travel CHT, Chittagong Tourist Gang, Travel Tracker, Avijatrik, Lake Bilash Campaign Zone, Lonely Planet, Baundule LRT group, and so forth, offer ‘package tours’ with accommodation and food at an indigenous house. For instance, ‘Travel CHT’ captioned in their travel webpage that “you are actually looking for traditional food and dress for traveling in Chittagong Hill Tracts! We try to provide this service. Our goal is to introduce the tradition of Chittagong Hill Tracts” (Hill Travel, 2020). Another tour operator named ‘Travel Mate’ offered that “Want to See the Tribal Life Closely? The tribal life is very simple but different and colorful in some cases. If you want to see the tribal lifestyle, you can make a tour plan with Travel Mate” (Staff Editor, 2019). A well-known travel agent, Avijatrik, posted various catchy offers for climbing hilltops and experiencing Pahari homestay hospitality, for example, “Keokradong Hiking Tour- Stay with Tribal Communities in a wooden house”, and “Keokradong Hiking Tour promotes adventure, tribal heritage, cultural immersion, and environmental awareness” (Avijatrik, n.d.). In Munlai para, community tourism was developed, supported by the Bandarban Hill District Council, and designed by BASECAMP Ltd, Bandarban, Bangladesh. They provide all facilities to tourists to experience a genuine ‘community tourism’ with natural adventure. The BASECAMP set their motto as “we want to create a holistic, sustainable & inclusive tourism model that benefits both the locals and the travelers alike.”2 A post-tourist reviewed his trips in Nafa-khum, Bandarban, captioning with ‘Beauty with boldness’ that,

“In the rainy season, it overflowed! it was big! Lots of water is moving around in the dry season, too! It was the source of life in Remakri. Pahari during all seasons! I have been there more than 13 times. You have to go through the Tindu Boro Pathor area with a boat and a guide, which will cost 3500tk for the boat and 2000tk for the guide, to visit Nafakum! You have to take permission from the Police and BGB for going there”.

(Tripadvisor, 2020)

Another post-tourists’ review posted with the title ‘A place of Tranquility’ that “The 2 h trekking takes a lot to cross, jungles, long grass fields, slippery water channels. The air is so fresh and smooth, it smells like peace. The silence, the music of the environment will take you to other world” (Tripadvisor, 2018). These memories posted by post-tourists in social media construct “a sense of proximity, connection, and co-presence to feel less alone and make others feel less alone” (Gibbs et al., 2015, p. 266). Thus, the representation of natives and nature by tourists on social media, travel agencies on websites, and corporations in the media accelerates the commodification of people and places.

6. Discussion

This paper examines Indigenous motives to offer homestay accommodations, prepare and promote their cuisines, perform traditional dances and festivals, and negotiate with Bengali tour operators and government agencies. Each of these interactions is interpreted as a reflection of broader structural dynamics, such as racial hierarchies, cultural essentialism, gendered performances, and disputes over land ownership. While some Indigenous youth perceive this involvement as an opportunity for cultural revival and economic development, others regret the erosion of authenticity and the instrumentalization of sacred traditions. However, Sajib (2022, pp. 273–285) contends that not only the subsistence, but also the indigenous cultural practices are changed where tourism erodes many cultural codes of conduct and religious gravity. Tourism has led to drastic changes in the aesthetic contents of indigenous culture, in which indigenous people became active agents as touristic performers in the commercial settings that sped up the commodification of community and culture in CHT. Nevertheless, although Pahari ethnic communities are not constitutionally recognized as ‘indigenous’, their culture and identity are staged and marketed by the state and the private actors in tourism promotion due to the distinctiveness of their cultural practices. In this neo-liberal tourism economy, tourist experiences and cultural practices of natives construct a space for interaction between host and guest that accelerates culture to be commodified. Public and private actors intend to view indigenous people not only as a tourism promoter but also as a ‘touristic indigeneity’. Moreover, an alternative narrative was also identified, in which indigenous communities have consistently emphasized the need to increase their direct participation to foster sustainable tourism. They are eager to promote themselves as the ‘other’ who can at least serve as a safeguard against their cultural uniqueness and authenticity being erased, but not to be labeled as ‘exotic’ and agents. Their reasoning pertains not only to the quantifiable benefits associated with participation in tourism development but also emphasizes a more significant aspect: the potential for commercialization to lead to the mistreatment of cultural and natural diversity by tourism corporations. The indigenous hosts hold the belief that it, in turn, assists in reintroducing their cultural ‘uniqueness’ to the guests, thereby boosting their identity within the multicultural coexistence. Tourism development reinforces the mainstream’s ‘othering’ vision through the socio-economic marginalization of locals and the empowerment of the Bengalis by facilitating entrepreneurial opportunities. Bringing Paharis into the ‘mainstream development’ means turning the material lying in the corner of the remote hill tracts into a product for the tourism market. Moreover, the absence of knowledge and experience of indigenous participants and the state-backed intrusion of Bengali private entrepreneurs often resulted in the ‘cultural violence’ of the right to involvement in the tourism economy. Hence, the state politics of inclusion of indigenous people for their cultural performance in tourism activities is to manufacture them into a neoliberal tourism commodity. It is merely a mechanism of selling the sense of indigeneity, not sharing it with tourists as cultural preservation.

Through the multilayered representational politics and commodification of indigenous culture, a ‘community’ as a sense of belongingness is transformed into a ‘commodity’ as a means of economic gain. The deliberately falsified and commodified image of the ‘exotic others’ manufactured by the postcolonial state of Bangladesh and its actors contributes to constructing a biased knowledge that reshapes indigeneity through tourism promotions in CHT. Moreover, the postcolonial representations staged by tourists in social media and advertised by tourist operators in their webpages often include Pahari ethnic peoples’ physique and their decorative appearances in a primitive sense, which is manifested under postcolonial ideologies (Said, 1978; Hall & Tucker, 2004). What was eventually observed is that indigenous locals became economic victims of corporate encroachment, and political objects of remarginalization due to the unplanned intervention of public actors, whereas cultural extinction has been a non-problematic and absurd issue. Thus, indigenous locals become passive performers. Although natives are, to some extent, enthusiastic to represent themselves as cultural ‘others’ who are possibly experienced with commodified objects, they do not want to “be represented as such by exogenous agents” (Kirtsoglou & Theodossopoulos, 2004, pp. 135–157; Odermatt, 1996, p. 106). The reflection of major informants is that their expectations were not only about economic returns through engagement in touristic activities, but also, they believed that control and ownership of representation could be protected from where indigeneity is engineered (Kirtsoglou & Theodossopoulos, 2004, pp. 135–157; Tice, 1995, p. 8). Indigenous Paharis have faith in their own forms of representation to empower their communal collectivity and connectivity.

7. Conclusions

A common tendency of buying the silent voice of indigenous victims is rationalized by the tourism actors through selling indigenousness as a path to alternative livelihoods (Ahamed, 2022), thereby promoting an ideal acceptance of the ‘win–win’ model of tourism in CHT. This model, however, constructs tourists as a consumer class whilst indigeneity becomes a product and indigenous people become sellers, performers, and mediators. Salazar (2013, pp. 669–696) articulates that “dominant imaginaries and discourses do not reflect the actual situation on the ground and often silence the voice of the powerless”. As a result, the deconstruction of the intersection between community and consumption is important because representations of indigeneity from both sides are deeply rooted in the neoliberal tourism economy, where economic gain is the ultimate desire. Therefore, indigenous traditional ritualistic performances, ceremonies, celebrations, and practices are customarily instrumental in addressing the challenges of the preservation of cultural heritage. In addition, establishing dialogue and mutual trust between the state and indigenous communities can help prevent indigenous resistance to tourism representation and consequently enhance the potential of the sustainable maintenance of indigenous cultural pride in the CHT. Moreover, the community’s contribution to sharing culture signifies a sensitive view of shared response and solidarity. Eventually, it was observed that tourism might initially appear advantageous to the indigenous Paharis. However, it raises contentious issues regarding the beneficiaries and the entities or factors genuinely providing compensation for that benefit (Sajib, 2022, pp. 282–283). The paper contributes to understanding how the state policy reflects the aspirations of indigenous peoples and the gaps between policy and practice in tourism promotion. This paper has opened up a window to provide ‘food for thought’ for further research on how the portrayal of indigeneity is reckoned as a defensive mechanism for sustainable preservation of indigenous heritage and improving local livelihoods through the performative engagement in tourism in an indigenous setting.