 |
| Shanti Bahini Members. Collected photo |
By: Milton Chakma, Organizer, Dighinala Unit, UPDF
I noticed somewhat late that an individual named Robi
Tripura wrote a reaction on the Parbatya Chattagram Jana Samhati Samiti (JSS)
news portal (hillvoice.net) regarding an essay I wrote. He titled his piece:
"Regarding UPDF leader Milton Chakma’s ‘How was the Shanti Bahini’s Armed
Struggle’."
In the typical JSS style, he began by attempting to
dismiss my essay as fabricated, false, and an attempt to gain political
advantage. He then inveighed against what he called the "responsible
achievements of Prasit and his gang."
Since I have found no existence of a high-ranking JSS
leader by the name of 'Robi Tripura,' it is reasonable to assume he is a leader
or an important member of the JSS writing under a pseudonym. While writing
under a pen name is not a crime—many famous poets and essayists have done
so—using a pseudonym to hide oneself while spreading fabricated and imaginary
information to mislead the public is a heinous and immoral act.
When one writes under their true identity, there is a
sense of responsibility. Under a pseudonym, one can write anything. Robi
Tripura tried to take that opportunity, but in doing so, he gained the freedom
to write whatever "history" he pleased while losing all credibility.
My original article was barely 750 words. In response,
this disguised author wrote over 2,100 words. Despite being three times longer,
he deviated from the main topic and introduced irrelevant issues, such as the
Khagrachari District Conference of the PCP (Pahari Chatra Parishad). Since the
rest of his writing is filled with falsehoods, it is essential to present the
truth.
1) Sending a List of 100 Cadres: A Despicable Lie
Robi Tripura seems to know all the "secrets"
of the JSS and Prasit Khisha, yet we know of no such leader in the JSS, nor
does Prasit Da or any of us recognize him. He claimed:
"In 1995, to strengthen the armed movement, the
JSS leadership called for recruiting members from the PCP and PGP (Pahari Gana
Parishad). Without informing the majority of members, Prasit Bikash Khisha and
Sanchay Chakma sent a list of 100 workers to the party. The party prepared
houses for them, but only a team of 10-15 arrived."
Robi Babu provided no reference for this info, nor
could he. No JSS leader has ever said this. Even Santu Larma and Ushatan
Talukdar, who frequently vent venom against Prasit Da, have never made such an
allegation. How does Robi Babu know "internal secrets" that even JSS
leaders don't know? This proves his information is entirely fictional.
I cross-checked this with Prasit Da. According to him,
the story of sending a list of 100 workers is nothing but a fable. At that
time, they were actually discouraging people like Sachib Chakma and Abhilash
Chakma from joining the JSS-Shanti Bahini because peace talks were ongoing and
everyone was waiting for the results. Prasit Da never made important decisions
without consulting his comrades. If he had sent such a list, he would have
discussed it with us. Thus, Robi Tripura’s "information bomb" is a
dud!
In fact, Prasit Da told us long ago that when he last
met Santu Babu in 1995, Santu Babu asked him to join the JSS. Prasit Da asked
to read the JSS constitution first. Santu Babu promised to send a copy but
never did—it was only supplied to the UPDF 23 years later, in 2018.
It is worth noting that Prasit Da had warned the JSS
leadership about the Awami League. However, the JSS leadership viewed the Awami
League as a "National Bourgeois party sympathetic to indigenous hill
people." They trusted the Awami League and were subsequently betrayed.
2) Santu Larma's Release and Settler Rehabilitation
Robi Babu said: "Arrest and release are common in
politics. The allegation that attacks on settlers decreased after Santu Larma's
release is baseless." While arrests and releases are common in politics,
they become controversial when allegations arise that such freedom was granted
in exchange for a 43-page bond. These allegations came from the Priti Group.
The public wants to know Santu Larma's response. Just as a judge delivers a
verdict after considering the statements of the plaintiff, the defendant, witnesses,
and eyewitnesses—along with the surrounding circumstances and
context—similarly, we and the public wish to hear the statements of both sides
and all involved parties on this matter to reach a conclusion. However, to this
day, we have received no answer regarding this allegation from either Santu
Babu or the likes of Robi Tripura.
In my first article, my question was: why did Santu
Babu order the cessation of armed resistance against settler rehabilitation
immediately after his release from jail? But Robi Babu has avoided answering
that question as well. He seems to know all the 'ins and outs' of the JSS, yet
he does not know the answer to this question—is that even believable?
There is no need to say anything more regarding the
release of Santu Babu. The day before yesterday, an info-based and logical
discussion on this matter was posted on the CHT Voice Facebook page; you may
read that. However, I simply want to state here that the link between Santu
Babu’s release and the government’s settler rehabilitation initiative is
clearly reflected in Robi Tripura's own writing.
According to him, the government rehabilitated
settlers in four stages. While armed resistance against the first stage of
rehabilitation was successful, it failed in the case of the subsequent three
stages. The reason? The reason cited is the factional conspiracy of the Priti
Group and the ensuing civil war. And what was the cause of that civil war? The
causes were the controversial release of Santu Larma, his arbitrary order to
stop armed resistance against settler rehabilitation without any discussion in party
forums, and the decision to dissolve the task force previously formed by the
party to tackle the settler issue.
Yet, Robi Tripura seeks to absolve Santu Larma of the
responsibility for the failure to build armed resistance against settler
rehabilitation. However, his own statements prove that if the energy spent on
the Lamba-Badi civil war had been utilized for resisting the settlers, it might
have been possible to prevent the rehabilitation in the remaining three stages.
Today, a major question remains: there was no internal strife in the JSS until
Santu Larma’s release, so why did it begin immediately after he was freed? If
he had not been released, could the settler rehabilitation have been
successfully resisted?
Robi Tripura admits that the government carried out
settler rehabilitation by exploiting the Lamba-Badi civil war. Yet, they still
haven't learned their lesson; they continue to carry on this fratricidal
conflict. Do they not know that, by taking advantage of this fratricidal
strife, settlers are pouring into the hills every day like dirts? Do they not
see that Balaghata, which was once entirely Jumma-dominated, has turned into a
completely Bengali-dominated area due to this conflict? Do they not see that through
this strife, settlers have become such a majority in Khagrachari, Rangamati,
and Bandarban towns that Jumma people are now hardly visible?
Despite witnessing this picture of national
destruction, Santu and his associates want to eliminate the UPDF first; they do
not want to stop the conflict, and if an agreement is made, they break it. They
do nothing regarding the settlers who are rushing in like an overflowing dam
and seizing land. On the other hand, even though the UPDF has the will, it is
forced to exhaust its entire strength to counter the JSS attacks. This is an
extreme and unbearable situation, for which the sole responsibility lies with
the dictatorial nature of the JSS (Santu).
In his attempt to lecture on the history of settler
rehabilitation in the CHT, the disguised Robi Tripura writes, “Milton Chakma is
incapable of understanding that the real reason was not armed war, but rather
the rehabilitation of settlers from the plains to transform a non-Muslim
dominated hill region into a Muslim-dominated one.”
We are more or less aware of the arrival and
rehabilitation of outsiders in the CHT at various times. However, the context
and objective with which Ziaur Rahman initiated settler rehabilitation in 1979
are fundamentally different from rehabilitations that occurred at other times.
Because of this difference, when discussing CHT politics, the state-sponsored
settler rehabilitation during the Zia-Ershad era is focused on more
specifically than other periods of resettlement. Those who refuse to understand
this are essentially trying to deny the light of day.
There is no doubt that the ruling class of Bangladesh
wants to turn the CHT into a Muslim Bengali-dominated region. However, it
appears that the decision for settler rehabilitation in 1979 was taken entirely
from political and military considerations. One could say it was part of the
government's overall counter-insurgency strategy. To assist the army deployed
in the hills, they were used as "human shields" against the
"rebels." Therefore, we can reach the conclusion that suppressing the
insurgency—that is, the armed struggle—was the primary goal of settler
rehabilitation in 1979.
3) Praising the Divisive Priti Group?
Robi Babu writes: "Those who, becoming part of
domestic and foreign conspiracies and raising cheap slogans of 'quick
settlement' out of greed for power, killed the Great Leader and caused
irreparable damage to the movement—whom the Jumma people hate and
condemn—Milton Babu’s UPDF sings their praises."
For his information, I would like to state that the
UPDF is not in the habit of blindly praising or condemning anyone. In any
historical discussion, the party evaluates an individual based solely on their
role. Just as we condemn the murder of Larma, we also condemn the killings of
Boli Ostad, Chabai Mog, and the writer Suhrid Chakma. We also criticize Santu
Babu’s role in initiating the Lamba-Badi civil war.
Conversely, we see that JSS (Santu) leaders are today
cozying up to and praising the very individuals they once declared as
collaborators, whom they tried to kill, and whom the Jumma people hated and
still hate—all for the sake of base personal interests.
4) Political and Other Preparations for Armed Struggle
Robi Babu has provided a list of everything the JSS
did as political preparation for the armed struggle. This includes the
anti-Kaptai Dam movement (which was essentially limited to the distribution of
a leaflet), organizational tours by the Pahari Chatra Samiti (Hill Students'
Association), political campaigning by Santu Babu and others under the guise of
the teaching profession, participation in elections, and the cultural
activities of the Girisur Shilpi Gosthi.
We know that armed struggle is the highest form of a movement. At a specific stage of a mass movement, it takes the form of an armed struggle. But what do we see in the case of the JSS's armed struggle? Here, despite the existence of opportunities for a mass movement, they were not utilized. Many successful revolutionary guerrilla leaders have said that if there is even the slightest opportunity for legal and democratic movement, revolutionaries must make full use of it. The JSS needed more political and military preparation before starting the armed struggle, and it does not seem that there would have been any risk of harm in doing so.
(January 23, 2026)
-------