Dharma Jyoti Chakma
Aongay Marma, Organizer, Khagrachari Unit, UPDF
Dharma Jyoti Chakma is contesting the election in the
Khagrachari constituency as a representative of Khagrachari’s civil society.
The process through which he became the civil society–nominated candidate is
discussed below:
• 8 November 2025: At the initiative of repatriated
refugee leader Santoshit Chakma (who is widely regarded as very close to the
JSS Santu Group), a meeting was held at his office to select an honest,
qualified, and protest-oriented candidate to contest the 13th National
Parliamentary Election from the Khagrachari constituency. At that meeting, it
was decided to convene a gathering of public representatives and traditional
leaders on 15 November.
• 15 November 2025: At the convened meeting, 70
representatives from all nine upazilas of Khagrachari were present, including
seven former upazila chairmen, chairmen and members of various unions, headmen,
and karbaris. The decisions taken at this meeting included:
1. Formation of an 11-member “Candidate Screening,
Selection and Liaison Committee,” with former principal Bodhisattva Dewan as
convener and Triptimoy Chakma as member secretary.
2. Communicating and exchanging views with regional
political parties regarding the candidate nomination process.
3. Preparation of an initial list of seven potential
candidates. Samiran Dewan’s name was not included among these seven. (Later,
the names of a few more potential candidates were added, such as Sonaratan
Chakma and Super Jyoti Chakma.)
• 18 November 2025: First meeting of the screening and
Selection committee. Of the seven candidates, two withdrew their names
themselves; two were found ineligible to contest under election rules. Thus,
three candidates remained: Sarbottam Chakma, Santoshit Chakma, and Dharma Jyoti
Chakma.
• From 20 November 2025: The screening committee held
discussions with the Jumma political parties of Khagrachari and received full
support from all parties. The JSS (M. N. Larma faction) stated that they would
fully support whoever the civil society’s screening and selection committee
selected as the candidate. The UPDF expressed the same position. In addition,
many people praised the screening committee for its role.
• 17 December 2025: With the support of the Jumma
political parties, the screening committee permitted interested candidates to
collect nomination papers. Santoshit Chakma, Dharmajyoti Chakma, and Sonaratan
Chakma expressed their intention to collect nomination papers. On the other
hand, Sarbottam Chakma stated that due to complications related to cases
against him, and Super Jyoti Chakma due to personal reasons, they would not
collect nomination papers.
• 28 December 2025: Leaders of the screening committee
met Santu Larma, leader of the Santu Group of the Jana Samhati Samiti, in
Rangamati. Instead of supporting this noble initiative of civil society, Santu
Larma pressured them to abandon their work and to campaign in favor of BNP
leader and notorious collaborator Samiran Dewan.
• 19 January 2026: Under intense pressure from the
Santu Group, the civil society–formed Candidate Screening and Selection
Committee was declared dissolved.
• Dharma Jyoti Chakma’s nomination was validated. The
nominations of Sonaratan Chakma and Santoshit Chakma were rejected. However,
Sonaratan Chakma appealed to the Election Commission and regained his
candidacy. Despite this, he ultimately withdrew his nomination at the final
moment in support of Dharma Jyoti Chakma.
Some Issues and Questions
Several issues and questions arise here.
First, the JSS Santu
Group is propagating that the civil society–formed screening committee is
actually a proxy of the UPDF. Nothing could be further from the truth. The
initiative to select a qualified candidate was taken by Santoshit Chakma, who
is more closely associated with the JSS Santu Larma faction. Former principal
Bodhisattva Dewan and Triptimoy Chakma are not affiliated with any party. They
have never participated in any party programs, and no one can provide proof to
the contrary. Labeling them as “UPDF” is merely the culture of tagging, which
ordinary people cannot accept. Khagrachari’s civil society genuinely worked
with a noble objective. Yet the JSS Santu Group viewed this noble initiative
with suspicion and attempted to malign it. The question is: when civil society
should be encouraged in such noble efforts, why did the Santu Group display
narrow-mindedness by belittling, insulting, and discouraging them?
Second, by humiliating
and insulting Khagrachari’s civil society, the JSS Santu Group has in fact
humiliated and insulted the people of Khagrachari themselves. Santu Larma wants
to field a candidate in the election, yet he disregards the opinions of
respected local figures and elected representatives. How can that be
acceptable? Can any self-respecting person accept coercion that forces 70
distinguished individuals—including seven former upazila chairmen—who formed
the screening committee to discard their noble initiative and support a
preferred candidate of someone else? It must be remembered that this civil
society selected a candidate through a democratic process of discussion and
consultation. On the other hand, Santu Larma unilaterally imposed Samiran Dewan
as a candidate. This undemocratic, fascistic, authoritarian, and dictatorial
behavior of Santu Larma is the root cause of all problems in the Jumma people’s
movement. What harm would there have been in supporting the noble initiative of
civil society and generously accepting their democratic selection process?
Third, it is absolutely
clear that Dharma Jyoti Chakma became a candidate through a democratic
screening process conducted by Khagrachari’s civil society. His name was
proposed by members of the screening committee themselves. At a later stage,
the UPDF proposed the names of one or two individuals, but for various reasons
they were not included. The UPDF did not raise any objections, let alone apply
pressure. It respected the opinion of civil society and left the verdict to the
voters. Therefore, the JSS Santu Group’s campaign portraying Dharma Jyoti
Chakma as a UPDF candidate is nothing but baseless and malicious propaganda.
Fourth, all Jumma
parties except the JSS Santu Group expressed support for the civil society’s
candidate selection process. Even the Hill Students’ Movement Against Conflict
and Discrimination extended its support. If the JSS Santu Group continues to
show contempt for public opinion and behaves in a fascistic manner, why would
the people accept their leadership or listen to them? JSS leader Santu Larma is
losing public support and sympathy in this way.
Fifth, a comparison
between the candidates shows that Samiran Dewan is inferior to Dharma Jyoti
Chakma in every respect. He has frequently changed political allegiances and is
notorious as a collaborator of the government and the military. His role after
the Logang massacre was extremely reprehensible and condemnable, and people
have not forgotten his history of collaboration. The JSS itself once labeled
him a collaborator. Even now, he has personally admitted to journalists that he
remains in the BNP—a party with a long history of anti-Jumma politics. Under
these circumstances, the public cannot understand on what grounds the JSS Santu
Group has fielded him as a candidate. In reality, it is not in the national or
public interest; rather, to retain control of the Regional Council during the
tenure of the next (BNP?) government, the JSS Santu Group is supporting Wadud
Bhuiyan’s “brother,” Samiran Dewan, out of narrow self-interest.
In conclusion, the JSS Santu Group is requested to
revoke its wrong decision. Show respect for the opinion of Khagrachari’s civil
society and the people of Khagrachari, and play a role in ensuring the victory
of Dharma Jyoti Chakma. This will not demean you; rather, it will demonstrate
your goodwill toward national unity and the movement.
(25 January 2026)
---------