It has been almost three months since the interim government took office. During this period, it has taken several notable steps, including the formation of various commissions to begin the reform process of key sectors and suspension of the indemnity law in the energy sector—steps largely viewed as positive. However, there are many other tasks that it should prioritise. It is surprising that to this day, there has been no official list of the deceased and injured from the July uprising. The student-led protests evolved into a broader people’s movement, with citizens from all walks of life joining in. Participation of the working class was particularly significant. Many among the victims are from the labour force. Many of the injured are now struggling to carry on their medical treatment. They expected support from the state. More prompt actions should have been taken in this regard.
There seems to be a tendency to overlook the pivotal role of workers during the uprising, as their demands has not received the attention it deserves. For example, after the 18-point agreement among the employers, garment workers and the government, it was clearly stipulated that all outstanding wages would be cleared. But many factories have not fulfilled this commitment; some factories have even shut down without warning. When workers raise their concerns and demand their dues, they are often met with violent responses, such as shootings, which lead to casualties. A 25-year-old female RMG worker, who had joined the ongoing protest demanding payment of wages pending for several months, was recently shot and died from her injuries later. Even yesterday, two garment workers were shot during a violent clash with law enforcement forces in Dhaka’s Mirpur area. It is disheartening to see that while any student-led mobilisation receive a degree of sympathy from the government, workers are met with force when they demand their rights. It is hoped that the government will take adequate steps to address these concerns.
Meanwhile, political complexities seem to have diverted the current administration’s focus elsewhere. One such issue involves recent statements made by the president. A clear response to his remarks might have been the publication of Sheikh Hasina’s resignation letter. If this is not feasible, then a resolution must be sought through dialogue with political parties. Some state run organisations have also made demands and put forth claims, indicating that internal contradictions may be brewing. Rather than allowing instability to grow from these contradictions, the government should swiftly engage in discussions with political parties and take decisive actions with consensus.
While the BCL members who engaged in criminal activities should undoubtedly face justice, it is also crucial to hold accountable those in the previous regime who empowered the BCL for their own benefit. However, the current process of prosecuting individuals associated with the previous regime lacks transparency. Cases are being filed where the main culprits are not being precisely identified, leading to the possibility that the actual wrongdoers may escape justice, or that the gravity of the allegations may get diminished.
One such swift decision was the recent ban on the Bangladesh Chhatra League (BCL), student wing of the Awami League. This ban was a demand of the anti-discrimination student movement, which called for BCL’s dissolution. Often perceived as a militant arm of the Awami League, BCL gained a reputation for engaging in criminal activities—extortion, tender manipulation, harassment of university students, and even operating torture cells in dormitories. The organisation’s presence in many communities became synonymous with oppression, serving the Awami League’s interests to maintain power, and this image was deliberately cultivated by the Awami League government.
While the BCL members who engaged in criminal activities should undoubtedly face justice, it is also crucial to hold accountable those in the previous regime who empowered the BCL for their own benefit. However, the current process of prosecuting individuals associated with the previous regime lacks transparency. Cases are being filed where the main culprits are not being precisely identified, leading to the possibility that the actual wrongdoers may escape justice, or that the gravity of the allegations may get diminished. This approach raises questions about the credibility of the judicial process.
The decision to ban a political entity could prove to be self-defeating too. Banning a political group does not eliminate its ideology. While the organisation may no longer be legally active, its ideas and activities could continue underground, with the potential for resurgence. For example, during Sheikh Hasina’s tenure, Jamaat-e-Islami was not officially banned but faced similar restrictions in practice. But its ideology persisted, and today it has re-emerged even stronger. Thus, simply banning an organisation does not eradicate its influence; instead, it obscures its true nature and may even create sympathy among the public.
Politics in our public universities has also shown that whichever party comes to power, its student wing becomes dominant and oppressive, using the university administration to further its goals. The government uses these student groups to exert control over campuses, as seen with the Awami League’s BCL, the BNP’s Chhatra Dal, Jamaat’s Islami Chhatra Shibir, and the Ershad-era’s Chhatra Samaj.
To prevent a return to authoritarianism or fascism, strengthening democratic processes is crucial. This includes fostering democratic dialogue, ensuring transparency and accountability in governance, and upholding the rule of law. When institutions are made functional and accountable, and when exemplary punishment is meted out to offenders, the foundation for authoritarianism weakens. Moreover, increasing public participation in governance can create a resilient barrier against any potential return of undemocratic forces.
If the government ignores the demands of the majority working class population or the calls for justice across various social divides, and relies solely on coercion, it risks paving the way for authoritarianism. Heavy-handed tactics, threats, and coercive laws only contribute to the re-emergence of undemocratic practices. The key aspiration of the uprising was to build a “discrimination-free new Bangladesh,” and to achieve this, the focus must shift towards necessary reforms.
Reducing the price of essential goods and ensuring they remain within reach of ordinary people is very important at the moment. Scraping anti-people agreements in sectors like energy is essential for laying the groundwork for this new vision of Bangladesh. This should not simply be about replacing one version of BCL with another. A true transformation means breaking away from the trends that have been synonymous with oppression.
