Dipen Dewan’s Resignation: A Warning Sign for the Chittagong Hill Tracts

I have been asking myself: Is Dipen Dewan’s resignation simply the departure of a minister, or the beginning of a much larger plan?

Over the past few days, I have seen posters, protests, rallies, meetings, and demonstrations both in the hills and on the plains demanding justice for Dipen Dewan and calling for his return.

But I believe protest alone is not enough. Before reacting, we must first understand why he was removed.

I do not view this merely as the resignation of a minister. I see it as a political signal about the future of the Chittagong Hill Tracts (CHT).

The most important question is this: How much value does a political tradition that once supported settler resettlement in the hills and opposed the CHT Peace Accord place on having a strong Indigenous minister representing the region?

If Dipen Dewan was already a full minister, why was there a need to assign additional responsibility for hill affairs to Helal Uddin? If there was complete confidence in the minister, why was such an arrangement necessary in the first place?

To me, the answers to these questions help explain the reality behind Dipen Dewan’s resignation.

For the last two years, I have been raising concerns about a broader issue. Many people dismissed those concerns. Yet recent developments appear to be moving in the direction of the very fears that some of us have been discussing.

Bangladesh remains burdened by the Rohingya crisis. Instability continues along the Myanmar border. Indigenous residents in the hill regions have repeatedly become victims of landmines and insecurity linked to the ongoing conflict. At the same time, public debate has intensified over reports of people being pushed across the India-Bangladesh border.

The question is simple: If future governments face pressure to accommodate or relocate additional populations, where will those people be settled?

My concern is that the Chittagong Hill Tracts may once again be viewed as the easiest solution.

History provides a reason for that concern. Whenever population transfers or resettlement policies have been discussed, the hills have often been treated as if they were an empty space waiting to be occupied. Yet the CHT is not empty land. It is home to Indigenous peoples with their own history, identity, and rights.

The long-term consequences of past settler resettlement policies are still felt across the region today. The Rohingya crisis has added another layer of uncertainty. Under these circumstances, it is not surprising that many Indigenous people are increasingly worried about the future.

In that context, Dipen Dewan may have represented an inconvenient obstacle. An Indigenous full minister can raise questions, challenge policies, and speak on behalf of the people of the hills. At the very least, he is not expected to remain a silent observer.

For Indigenous peoples, political representation is never merely symbolic. In regions where communities face demographic pressure and competing political interests, representation often serves as the first line of defense for land rights, cultural survival, and political participation. This is why leadership changes in the CHT cannot be viewed in isolation from broader demographic and political developments.

For that reason, I do not see his resignation as an isolated event. I see it as a political message.

That is why I believe the question is bigger than simply demanding, “Bring Dipen Dewan back.”

The larger question is: What is the long-term plan for the Chittagong Hill Tracts?

When a minister loses his position, one individual suffers. But when demographic changes weaken the political strength of an Indigenous people, the consequences can affect entire generations.

This is why the Indigenous peoples of the hills must think beyond one politician or one office. They must think about their future.

History repeatedly teaches us that nations and communities that fail to recognize warning signs early often find themselves protesting after the most important decisions have already been made.

Whether Dipen Dewan was forced out may remain a matter of political debate today.

But the question that should concern us tomorrow is this:

Has a decision already been made about the future of the Chittagong Hill Tracts?

Perhaps the most striking aspect of this story is the timeline itself.

On 13 February 2026, Dipen Dewan won the Rangamati parliamentary seat in Bangladesh’s 13th Jatiya Sangsad election with a strong electoral mandate. Four days later, on 17 February 2026, he was sworn in as a Member of Parliament and appointed Minister for Chittagong Hill Tracts Affairs in the new government.

Yet by 1June 2026, news emerged that he had submitted his resignation, officially citing health reasons, after serving for little more than three months.

In politics, such a short journey from electoral victory to ministerial resignation is unusual. Whether the explanation is personal, political, or something in between, one question remains: how did a minister who entered office with such a strong public mandate leave so quickly?

The future of the Chittagong Hill Tracts will not be determined by a single minister, a single government, or a single political party. It will be determined by whether Indigenous peoples are able to defend their rights, preserve their identity, and participate meaningfully in decisions that shape their homeland.

The answer to what happened to Dipen Dewan may ultimately reveal more about the future of the Chittagong Hill Tracts than about Dipen Dewan himself.

---