Sarbamitra backtracks on resignation

University Correspondent Dhaka University
Published: 1 February 2026, 12:09 PM | Updated: 1 February 2026, 12:11 PM
Sarbamitra backtracks on resignation

Sarbamitra Chakma, executive member of the Dhaka University Central Students’ Union (DUCSU), has withdrawn his resignation and decided to remain in his post, citing strong support from the student body.

He had initially announced his resignation on Monday, January 26, following widespread backlash over a viral video showing him forcing several outsiders to sit while holding their ears at the Dhaka University Central Physical Education Centre.

Speaking to Jago News on Sunday morning, Sarbamitra emphasised that student opinion takes priority. “Even those not involved in politics have urged me not to yield to provocations from political opponents and have expressed their full support,” he said.

He also pointed to incidents over the past two days in which several female students were reportedly harassed by outsiders, creating growing distrust toward the university administration. “Students have realised the administration’s shortcomings and do not want me to step down,” he added.

When asked whether his previous controversial actions might be repeated, Sarbamitra said, “While some of my actions sparked debate, the students have acknowledged my commitment and responsibility. Based on their feedback, they want me to continue in my role.”

Meanwhile, Sarbamitra Chakma received a legal notice from Nurul Gani Sagir, vice president of the Dhaka branch of Jatiya Chhatra Shakti, over a Facebook post concerning illegal campus shops. 

The notice accused him of making defamatory statements and spreading misinformation, warning that failure to apologise within 10 hours could result in criminal proceedings.

Despite 18 hours passing since the notice, Chakma said he had not read it as it remained in his office and he was unaware of its contents.

Commenting on the matter, he said, “I welcome him. Whether he called me or not, he knows. He claimed ownership of the shop he intervened for, although he could have said it belonged to someone else.”

FAR/MHK