Sohel Chakma<\/strong>, Assistant General Secretary, Hill Students\u2019 Council<\/p>\n Regarding his nonsensical remarks, I would like to say the following:<\/p>\n One.<\/p>\n You said, \u201cAs a simple fact, there isn\u2019t just one tiger in a forest. So I don\u2019t understand why the UPDF and some critics use this nonchalant (sic) term.\u201d What I don\u2019t understand is how you don\u2019t know why it\u2019s used. Kindly teach this \u201ctwo tigers can\u2019t share one forest\u201d theory to Santu Larma himself. Because he is the only one who believes \u201ctwo tigers can\u2019t share one forest, therefore only JSS can exist in the politics of the hills.\u201d He hasn’t just believed this silently\u2014he\u2019s been desperately trying for the past 27 years to establish his sole reign over the hill\u2019s political forest. In doing so, countless promising and militant \u201ctigers\u201d have faced premature demise\u2014there\u2019s no way to count them all.<\/p>\n Since we\u2019re talking about tigers, let me give you some more insight into a tiger\u2019s behavior. When a tiger gets old and can’t hunt anymore, what does it do? It eats its own helpless cubs. Old Santu Babu is doing just that now. He can no longer lead movements (though how much he ever did is debatable), so with the help of the military rulers, he\u2019s hell-bent on eliminating the new generation of leaders.<\/p>\n But just as a tigress protects her cubs from aggressive, ferocious male tigers\u2014sheltering and hiding them\u2014the Jumma people have been protecting the UPDF from Santu\u2019s barbarous attacks for the past 27 years. That\u2019s why the UPDF has survived and grown from a cub into a powerful tiger.<\/p>\n Two.<\/p>\n Nipon Babu wrote: \u201cIn any movement or party organization, there\u2019s always one leader. The rest are assistants, and one of them fills in as the next leader in his absence.\u201d (Poorly structured sentence.) This idea\u2014that in movements and parties, there is always just one leader and the rest are mere assistants\u2014is completely flawed and nonsense. Only someone with a fascist mindset could hold such a view. Of course, it\u2019s true in fascist parties like Ershad\u2019s Jatiya Party, Khaleda Zia\u2019s BNP, and Hasina\u2019s Awami League\u2014where there\u2019s only one leader and everyone else is a servant.<\/p>\n But in parties led by great revolutionaries like Lenin, Ho Chi Minh, and Fidel Castro, leadership is not like that. The idea of leadership in revolutionary parties is entirely different. It\u2019s not like Santu Larma\u2019s party leadership, or the leadership of Ershad-Khaleda-Hasina, where one person is supreme.<\/p>\n You cited Lenin as an example. But do you know that even Lenin\u2019s important opinions were often rejected through party votes? When the Bolsheviks decided to seize power in the October Revolution, two central leaders\u2014Lev Kamenev and Grigory Zinoviev\u2014publicized the plan in the press. Lenin was furious and demanded their expulsion from the party. But the majority of the central committee did not support him. So his demand was rejected\u2014his view was defeated. Even after the revolution succeeded, Lenin’s opinion was not always accepted. The committee made decisions based on democratic majority votes, and Lenin accepted them.<\/p>\n But what would Santu Babu have done in such a case? What would have happened in the so-called \u201crevolutionary\u201d JSS party?<\/p>\n The answer is very simple. It would have been decided according to clause 7 of article 17 of the JSS constitution. Let everyone see what it says:<\/p>\n \u201cIn case of serious disagreement within any party committee, where members are nearly evenly divided, every effort must be made to reach consensus. If reaching consensus proves impossible, then the president\u2019s opinion shall be taken as final.\u201d<\/p>\n There\u2019s a lot of talk about democracy and majority opinion in the JSS constitution. But this clause renders all that hollow and meaningless. This is the fundamental difference between Lenin\u2019s party and Santu Babu\u2019s party\u2014even though Santu and his followers loudly spew Leninist-Maoist jargon.<\/p>\n Why, when \u201cserious disagreements arise and opinions are split,\u201d should the president\u2019s view be final? What kind of democracy is that? What kind of revolutionary practice is that? It means the president is always right. Just as in Ershad-style parties, all decision-making power rests with the chairman\u2014in Santu Larma\u2019s \u201crevolutionary democracy,\u201d it\u2019s the same: the president\u2019s view is final. Those who believe that a party should have only one leader and all others are subordinates inevitably have such a constitution and such a distorted form of democracy.<\/p>\n On this point, I ask Nipon Babu: have you actually read your party\u2019s (i.e., JSS Santu Group\u2019s) constitution properly? I suspect you haven\u2019t. The constitution isn\u2019t even available on your party\u2019s website. I get the feeling that Santu Larma hides it from general members. (For the record, I learned about this clause from a UPDF political class.)<\/p>\n Three.<\/p>\n This ultimate weapon\u2014clause 7 of article 17 in Santu Larma\u2019s constitution\u2014was experienced firsthand by Chandra Shekhar Chakma, Rupayan Dewan, Sudhasindhu Khisa, and Raktotpal Tripura, who suffered its consequences. Eventually, unable to digest Santu Larma\u2019s version of \u201cdemocracy,\u201d they were forced to leave his so-called revolutionary party. And as for what ultimately happened to Chandra Shekhar Babu\u2014well, everyone knows. Another victim of the two tigers can\u2019t share one forest policy.<\/p>\n The truth is, anyone with even a shred of self-respect\u2014anyone who despises servitude\u2014could never remain in the party of a dictator and autocrat like Santu Larma.<\/p>\n ———-<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":" Sohel Chakma, Assistant General Secretary, Hill Students\u2019 Council Nipon Tripura, who identifies himself as a former president of the student organization of the JSS (Santu Group), made a Facebook post yesterday (August 2, 2025). While sharing his opinions on leadership, he misrepresented the leadership style of Lenin, Ho Chi Minh, and Fidel Castro. In doing […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":3,"featured_media":5088,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[34],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-5086","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","has-post-thumbnail","hentry","category-commentary"],"yoast_head":"\n
\n
\nNipon Tripura<\/strong>, who identifies himself as a former president of the student organization of the JSS (Santu Group), made a Facebook post yesterday (August 2, 2025). While sharing his opinions on leadership, he misrepresented the leadership style of Lenin, Ho Chi Minh, and Fidel Castro. In doing so \u2014 perhaps unknowingly \u2014 he ended up revealing the fascist nature of his own party\u2019s leadership.<\/p>\n