'Lack of people’s participation biggest weakness of reforms'

You were very active as a teacher during mass uprising in July-August last year. The mass uprising has marked one year. To many people, the main aspiration of the mass uprising was democratic transition of the state. How much advancement has been made in this end, in your view?

Abdul Hasib Chowdhury:

The main objective of the mass uprising was not actually the democratic transition of the state; that may have appeared separately or in parallel, but during the uprising these issues were not discussed much. The very clear objective of the mass uprising was the overthrow of Sheikh Hasina’s fascist government.

In July–August last year, brutal attacks were carried out on the people, killings took place. Those who committed these acts had a political identity; at the same time, the government that carried them out was a client of India. After unleashing attacks and mass killings on the people, they became occupiers. The core aim of the mass uprising was to oust that occupying government.

If we talk about democratic transition of the state, then that has to be part of the programmes of political parties. The biggest weakness of the 2024 mass uprising is that it had nothing of this kind. If we look back at the 1990 mass uprising, we can see that there was some consensus among the political parties, and there were many clear points. From the platforms of students, workers, lawyers, physicians, engineers, and women, there were also specific demands and programmes.  Those may not have been implemented—that’s another matter—but at least they existed. This time, however, there were no such agreed-upon demands or programmes. This is the biggest weakness of the 2024 mass uprising.

A common characteristic of most student movements and mass uprisings in Bangladesh has been anti-imperialism. But this time that element was absent. This too is a weakness of the mass uprising.

The interim government formed a total of 11 commissions for reforms in different sectors. But it did not form any commission on education. Does that mean our education sector does not need any reform?

Abdul Hasib Chowdhury:

We don’t actually know on what basis these 11 commissions were formed. It is also not clear with what purpose and to achieve what goals the government wants to carry out reforms. One may also ask how much public interest was taken into account in forming these commissions. Education and health—these are highly people-oriented issues; at the same time, they are complex and problematic sectors. Perhaps in terms of immediate reforms, the government did not prioritise education.

When it comes to education reform, the first question we need to ask is what is the purpose of education? In the capitalist system, the purpose of education is that after completing the process of education, students will actively participate in production. But in our country, the education system is still not able to prepare students to be active in the productive sector. The existing education system cannot adequately equip students to be useful for production.

The question of reform in the education sector is not related solely to education in isolation, and there is really no such thing as “education for education’s sake.” To reform education, it must be aligned with the overall economy of the country. In this regard, we are in fact falling far behind.
Our economy has some particular characteristics. Here, sections of politicians, bureaucrats, and businessmen have become owners of wealth through bank looting, bribery, corruption, terrorism, land grabbing, and extortion. This is unearned wealth. Many have become owners of capital and property without being active in the productive sector in any way. If this trend of the economy continues, then in reality, appropriate reforms in education will not be possible either.

Even so, the interim government could have carried out some small reforms in the education sector. In our budget, the allocation for education as a share of GDP is the lowest among South Asian countries. The interim government could have increased this budget allocation. That would have set a positive precedent. If that had been done, it would have been difficult for subsequent governments to deviate from that path.

Let’s talk about a bit about culture alongside politics and economy. Mob violence and culture of tagging have become pervasive in Bangladesh in recent years. How do you see this matter?

Abdul Hasib Chowdhury:

The culture of tagging that you see did not emerge suddenly. Tagging has been going on for a long time. The previous government often used to tag its opponents as BNP–Jamaat. The idea was that opposing the government automatically meant you were BNP–Jamaat. Even after the mass uprising, this tagging culture has continued. Although there has been a sudden change, various forms of instability remain in the country, and many features of the old era are still seen. However, I believe these will not last long.

The issue of mobs needs some explanation. Historically, among our people there has always been a sense of deprivation and injustice. From the time of British colonial rule, many killings and acts of oppression were carried out by the state, for which the people never received justice. Given how the legal framework and justice system here developed, it has been difficult for ordinary people to get fair justice. As a result, whenever the opportunity arises, people sometimes try to take the law into their own hands. When the policing system of the state becomes weak, such incidents occur more frequently.

However, some mobs are actually organised and premeditated. If people regain confidence in the justice system, these planned mobs will also stop. Because, generally speaking, such activities do not enjoy public support.

After the killing of Abrar Fahad, student protests led to a ban on student politics on BUET campus. As a teacher and a politically aware individual, how do you interpret this ban on student politics?

Abdul Hasib Chowdhury:

The ban on student politics at BUET has a very specific background. An unimaginable and inhuman incident took place there. Some students of the university beat to death one of their fellow students, their own hallmate. Those who carried out this brutal act had a partisan identity. They were affiliated with the Chhatra League.
During the rule of the past government, what passed for student politics at BUET and other educational institutions was not really student politics—it was the politics of the Chhatra League. So when BUET students demanded that student politics be banned, in reality they were calling for a ban on Chhatra League politics. They made this demand based on their collective experience at the time. This is not a permanent matter.
In July–August last year, when it was necessary to take to the streets, these same students did not hesitate to join the movement. That was, in fact, political action. What they rejected was the old style of student politics, where student organisations acted as musclemen for political parties to enforce partisan agendas.

Because of student politics, we have seen various negative activities in educational institutions. We also know about the dependent, subservient student organisations. But are the student organisations alone responsible for these, or does teacher-politics also play a role?

Abdul Hasib Chowdhury:

The negative activities of student politics are closely tied to teacher-politics. A university teacher can certainly be a member of any political party. But if they are to engage in partisan politics, they must do it outside the university.

When it comes to managing educational institutions, prioritising partisan politics, engaging in various kinds of manipulations or criminal activities, and seeking personal benefits—these have become common characteristics of teacher-politics. None of this is acceptable. To put a stop to it, there must be clear declarations or directives from political parties. University teachers themselves also need to reflect on their role in politics.

One of the much-discussed topics in recent times is secret politics. The tactic of carrying out political activities on behalf of a particular organisation while presenting oneself as an ordinary student is being called secret politics. Many allege that such activities are taking place even on campuses where student politics is banned. What is your view on this secret politics?

Abdul Hasib Chowdhury:

Although not exactly the same, the practice of secret or underground politics has existed in this region before. During the British and Pakistani periods, the Communist Party operated underground. So this is not something entirely new. In the past, the left practiced this kind of politics, now some among the right are doing it in a different way.

What we are hearing about secret politics recently is, however, unethical for various reasons. Many are now being mentioned who engaged in secret politics while being within the Chhatra League during the past regime. If that is the case, then they must also take responsibility for the activities and misdeeds of the Chhatra League at that time. Because, even if they secretly belonged to another organisation, publicly they were in the Chhatra League, chanting slogans on its behalf.

There is no need to resist secret politics separately. It will naturally come to an end as Bangladesh is not a suitable country for secret politics. Bangladesh is a land of mass uprisings. In a country of mass uprisings, politics cannot be done in secrecy. The characteristics of this society and the way people resist are incompatible with secret politics. For this reason, such politics will not be sustainable here. To do politics here, one must go to the people, be open. One must speak about the programmes of mass uprising.

The Dhaka University Central Students’ Union (DUCSU) election is going to be held. At one time, student union elections were held almost regularly at BUET as well. Are you thinking about student union elections at BUET?

Abdul Hasib Chowdhury:

Whether student union elections will be held at BUET depends on what the students want. Within BUET’s framework, the provision for student union elections exists. So if the students want, the elections will be held. From our side, there is no obstacle in this matter; rather, we want the students to vote and elect their representatives. But if, despite the framework, the students do not sincerely want elections, then we cannot do anything.

Moving from student union elections to national elections—interim government Chief Adviser Dr Muhammad Yunus has announced that the national election will be held in the first half of February. Still, various quarters are expressing doubt and suspicion about the election taking place. Do you think there is any rational basis for such doubts and suspicions?

Abdul Hasib Chowdhury:

Each party comes with its own perspective and shapes its strategy accordingly. Different parties are saying different things about the election. This may also be part of their bargaining. Whether there is any rational basis for doubts about the election is difficult for me to say. But what I understand is that the people of Bangladesh genuinely want an election.

In the past 15 years, there has not actually been any election in the country; people have not been able to vote. This inability to vote was one of the main reasons for the 2024 mass uprising. People’s right to vote was taken away, they were made irrelevant—this was something the people of Bangladesh could not accept in any way. As a result, to restore their voting rights, the election must be held at the declared time.

I believe that the Awami League and India do not want an election in Bangladesh. The purpose of the Awami League and India is to derail the election in Bangladesh. Just as they did not allow elections in the past 15 years, they want to continue that. Because if there is no election, people’s anger will grow and an unstable situation may arise in the country. One possible answer to this is to hold a fair election.

The National Consensus Commission is holding discussions with political parties on various reform proposals. On quite a few issues there is still no consensus among the parties. If consensus is not reached on certain issues, can the election be delayed?

Abdul Hasib Chowdhury:

I see the matter a bit differently. The Consensus Commission and the political parties are discussing various issues, but do they feel the need to take the people’s consent or opinion on these issues? There should have been open nationwide discussions with public participation on these matters. Reforms could then have been carried out on the basis of people’s opinion, but that has not happened. At first glance, it seems that a few gentlemen will decide the reforms and the people will have to accept them. Such an attitude is a major weakness of the reform process.

I am not saying that political parties do not represent the people, or that all the reform proposals are bad. But there is no direct participation of the people here, nor is their opinion valued. In reality, reforms should be such that the people feel empowered. But that element is entirely absent here.

Thank you for your time.

Abdul Hasib Chowdhury:

Thank you as well.