July uprising: Who gains if the unity is cracked?

The July uprising" is an exceptional chapter in the history of Bangladesh. Since the liberation war, there have been various movements at various times aimed at establishing democracy and good governance. Pro-democracy political forces united in a common struggle against Hasina’s authoritarian rule.

Over the course of this movement lasting over a decade and a half, thousands of people became victims of enforced disappearances, extrajudicial killings, torture and politically motivated arrests. The movement reached its culmination in July and August, when people from all walks of life, political ideologies, professions and gender took to the streets.

Universality was one of the defining features of this uprising. People set aside differences to come together and even sacrifice their lives. Students from public and private universities, schools and colleges, English-medium students and madrasa students alike took part in the uprising. Girls in burqas marched alongside those in jeans and t-shirts. Teenagers from the streets built resistance shoulder to shoulder with the youth of upscale Banani and Gulshan areas. The presence of women across different age groups added a new dimension to the movement.

This spontaneous and diverse participation from every social and professional background rendered Hasina regime’s oft-repeated “terrorism” narrative ineffective. People no longer believed in the projected spectre of terrorism because the public itself was a stakeholder in this uprising.

The power of July lay in its unity. People from diverse backgrounds and political affiliations took to the streets in July in support of democracy, for a new system of governance, and against plunder, to assert their right to speak and to secure their basic needs . A key element in the formation of any collective identity is a “common enemy.” During the anti-colonial movement, colonial rulers served as the common enemy around which nationalism took shape in this land. Prior to that, there was no strong sense of ethnic or national identity. Similarly, Sheikh Hasina came to embody the common enemy that gave July its collective identity.

After the fall of the Hasina regime, it became necessary for key stakeholders in the July uprising to come to a mutual understanding in order to preserve this newly formed identity. But such an understanding never materialised. On the contrary, a jarring scramble for power has emerged, so intense that it now threatens the very unity that had once driven the anti-Hasina movement.

Just a year after the fall of the Hasina government, we find ourselves face to face with this worrisome scenario. It is crucial to analyse how we arrived at this point. We also need to consider who stands to gain and who stands to lose if this broad-based unity falls apart.

Despite the absence of security forces, particularly the police, after 5 August, there was no major breakdown in law and order, thanks to the spontaneous unity of ordinary citizens. Yet, even months into the formation of the interim government, we continue to witness a disturbing negligence or reluctance in taking effective steps to ensure public security.

Mazars (shrines) were attacked under the government's nose, women's football tournaments were attacked or halted, there were attacks on those with differing views, on dissenters. Given the circumstances after the uprising, the people were forced to take law and order into their own hands. But once the government was formed following the uprising, it is certainly a massive failure, even a crime, if incidents of mob violence occur and it fails to control such incidents. In certain instances, terror groups rise up, taking advantage of this reluctant and weak position of the government. Many of these groups were even released from jail.

The very democracy that inspired the July uprising is now being portrayed by extremists as a "dysfunctional system of governance." School and college students are being mobilised for rallies and processions where banners and placards openly denounce democratic rule. In the past, under any government in Bangladesh, there has never been such a public stance against democracy.

Many may hold the weak and ineffective stance of the interim government responsible for the failure to realise the immense potential that the July uprising had ushered in. Prolonging the election timeline and actively encouraging depoliticisation in various ways have also contributed to the erosion of the unity forged during the uprising. On social media, campaigns advocating for this government to remain in power for five years, along with the vilification of mainstream politics and political leaders, have encouraged public support for depoliticisation.

But at the end of the day, the responsibility of running a state and government lies with politicians. Any attempt to manage governance in exclusion of them, leads to administrative failure and also accelerates conflict, resentment, and power struggles.

The meeting in London between the chief advisor Professor Yunus and BNP’s acting chairman Tarique Rahman helped significantly reduce the prevailing uncertainty. However, a certain faction viewed the normal process of transferring power through a public mandate with suspicion. Instead of fostering stability, they began working to sow seeds of discord and division among the pro-July forces.

The consensus on the election timeline began to take shape and the Consensus Commission is expected to arrive at an acceptable position within a month. But fresh attempts are being made to stir unrest across the country. In recent days, there has been a gruesome killing in front of Mitford Hospital, the brutal shooting and tendon-slashing of a young man in Khulna, and an attempted assassination of an imam.

All top BNP leaders have called for exemplary punishment in these cases. Typically, in such instances, protests hold the ruling government accountable for failing to ensure justice. But in this case, we noticed a different approach: the focus was placed solely on the Mitford killing, while the Khulna murder and the imam attack were largely ignored. Moreover, instead of blaming the government, protesters targeted BNP’s acting chairman Tarique Rahman, holding him responsible. The rallies included personal attacks and abusive slogans against him.

Disproportionate attention was given to a single murder case. The focus was turned away from justice and instead to linking Tarique Rahman to the killing as part of a business rivalry. This was accompanied by abusive rhetoric. This has given rise to resentment among BNP’s rank and file. Many believe that this smear campaign was orchestrated by a particular faction aiming to exploit the incident to generate widespread anti-BNP sentiment and damage Tarique Rahman’s personal credibility.

It is important to remember that preventing such crimes requires both organisational resolve and goodwill of political parties, as well as the government's capacity and courage to take effective action. Political parties are not responsible for law enforcement or judicial processes, and therefore their ability to act is limited to organisational measures.

Recently, NCP has been conducting grassroots political programmess across various regions. This effort to engage with the public and understand their concerns should be welcomed. However, an analysis of NCP’s post-July uprising activities reveals a clear tendency toward populist politics. As part of this populist turn, their inclination toward mob violence, depoliticisation and religion-based politics has become noticeable. Even in the aftermath of the Mitford murder, this populist orientation is evident in their social media posts and public speeches.

NCP's demands for reforming the state structure should be pursued as part of their long-term political vision. A state's framework cannot be transformed overnight with the wave of a magic wand. Hasty and poorly-considered reforms can push the country further backward. As part of its effort to evolve into a centrist political force, NCP should focus on choosing the right allies and ensuring that the July alliance does not fall apart. If this unity collapses, it will not only pave the way for the return of a fallen autocracy but also allow extremist factions to strengthen their positions.

* Dr Saimum Parvez is a university teacher and the special assistant on foreign affairs to the BNP chairperson.

*The views are of the writer's own.