It has been one year since the July mass uprising. If we look back at these past 12 months, how will you define the achievements of this uprising?
Asif Mohammad Shahan: It is rather difficult to exactly define the achievements of the uprising. Everyone who participated in the July popular uprising did not have the same expectations or goals. We now see many political parties strongly asserting that the main objective of the July uprising was the fall of Sheikh Hasina. According to them, that goal having been achieved, their mission is complete.
But if we look back, the uprising actually began around the quota reform movement. In its early days, that movement was not about regime change or toppling the government. It was focused on a specific demand. However, when the government began suppressing the movement with extreme force, and especially when that repression turned brutal with incidents of killings, the nature of the movement gradually changed. Eventually, it evolved into a one-point demand: the resignation of the government.
If we then look at the protests of 2, 3, or 4 August last year, particularly the mass gathering at the Shaheed Minar on 3 August, we see that the movement's objective had extended beyond merely removing Sheikh Hasina. Protesters were declaring their vision of a state where no future Sheikh Hasina or authoritarian ruler could return to power. In other words, by that stage, the aspirations of the movement had become much broader. It had come to express a desire for a state system that would not strip citizens of their rights, suppress freedom of expression, or disregard the wishes and aspirations of the people.
It started off as a students' movement and then the teachers joined in. Later, readymade garment industry workers, rickshaw pullers, people from all works of life joined in too. They weren't there for the quota in government service issue. They certain had aspirations. They aspired for a change in the way their lives were being lived. They wanted the state to give importance to their views, their opinions, their wishes.
Broadly speaking, the aspirations of the 2024 popular uprising can be viewed from three perspectives. First, the fall of Sheikh Hasina. That goal has been achieved. Second, the transformation of the state system, meaning the desire to move away from a fascist regime and ensure it doesn’t return. Here, the extent of our success remains debatable. In various discussions, we find debates around whether the current government is strong or weak, but the core question is being sidestepped. We have yet to reach a consensus on how much authority the state should wield. In this respect, the achievement is partial at best. Third, when it comes to public participation and shared ownership of the state, we have not been able to bring about any tangible change whatsoever.
Does that mean there is more failure than achievement?
Asif Mohammad Shahan: I wouldn’t say the failures outweigh everything else. I’d rather say that the conversations and debates that have begun are, to some extent, moving us toward political maturity. However, it is also essential to identify the core area of failure.
We are calling this transformation a mass uprising. It was not an uprising initiated by discussions and consensus among the elites -- political, economic, social or those in power. Instead, we can compare the participation of people from all walks of life to a powerful storm. Through that storm, the public sought to break the elite consensus and establish a new kind of state system. But the government that came to power as a result of the uprising did not create space for public participation or a truly democratic arena. Rather, it forged yet another kind of elite consensus.
We can say that only the faces of the elite have changed. One group of political elites has been replaced by another. In the realms of business and bureaucracy, there has been no change. So once again, we find ourselves under an elite-led, elite-controlled government. As a result, the people, in their search for participation, have grown weary. One segment has completely withdrawn from the process. Another segment, what we often refer to as “the mob”, has come to the forefront. In some cases, the elites are even patronising or sheltering these mob elements. As a result, the entire process has now turned into an elite-driven reform effort.
It is important to remember that the 2024 popular uprising was not controlled by political parties. In a sense, it was an uprising driven by social forces. The student leaders of the anti-discrimination movement represented students; the teachers who joined represented the academic community; and the workers and people from small towns represented various social groups. Had this social movement been able to consolidate itself as a significant force, it might have brought about real changes in the power structure of the state. The failure to build such a social movement, the inability of these social forces to find space within the political arena, is one of the major shortcomings of this uprising.
Why did the social forces fail to hold on to their space? You representatives of the Teachers Network had long been carrying out a movement. It is not as if this was a new experience...
Asif Mohammad Shahan: We will have to keep searching for the answer to this question for a long time. It’s not something that can be answered simply or in one sentence. The question is whether the various social forces that took part in the uprising have been given a place in the ongoing process of state-building. The second question is whether the government has provided them with any political space.
If we look at the actions of the interim government, two things become clear. First, the government has failed to formally recognise these social forces. Second, when it comes to engaging with them, the government has adopted a policy of "pick and choose."
For example, when incidents occur at the Bangla Academy book fair or when there are protests around the demands of women or ethnic minorities, the government quickly resorts to a repressive stance. Yet, at the same time, when others take demands to the chief advisor’s residence in Jamuna, many of which actually violate the fundamental principle that the state must ensure the safety of its citizens’ lives and property, the government welcomes them.
The government has adopted this pick-and-choose policy because it was formed through a consensus among certain elites whose interests are at stake. Elites act to serve their own interests. They provide space to those who align with those interests, and exclude those who do not, or worse, suppress them.
What’s missing entirely from the discourse is a clear statement that every citizen of the state has the right to fundamental freedoms, the right to work, to express themselves, to live with dignity. As a result, our entire political discourse is revolving around the right wing
Prothom Alo :
When the issue of reforms is raised, terms like "bicameral parliament," "proportional representation," arise. But the common people want to see what changes have come about in their daily lives. At this point, does it seem that the common people have been more of less side-stepped in the reform process?
Asif Mohammad Shahan: If we had been able to organise the social movements and forces, then the nature of the current discussions around reform could have been entirely different. It’s not that ordinary people don’t understand the concept of power balance. But political forces never once tried to explain to the public why a bicameral parliament might be necessary.
Ordinary people do understand that there needs to be a change in government. They know that when one person or one party remains in power for too long, it leads to serious problems. But when it comes to the "how", to the mechanisms of that change -- such as bicameral legislature or proportional representation -- those concepts are not clear to them. This is a significant failure. These mechanisms were never explained to the general public.
At a certain point, people began to feel that the reform discussions were going over their heads. And when they went to the union parishad to get a birth certificate, or to the police station to seek legal help, and still had to pay bribes just as before, they withdrew from the political space altogether.
If you talk to ordinary people now, you’ll see a paradox. Ask them if they want elections, they’ll say "yes". Ask them if elections will bring any real change, they’ll say "no".
The popular uprising had brought with it a real opportunity for revolutionary transformation. That opportunity has been lost. If we could have ensured people’s participation, a new possibility could have emerged. If we had been able to organise and engage the public, then perhaps this revolution could have taken shape 5, 10, 15, or even 20 years down the line.
It is the political parties who have the greater responsibility to draw involve the people. Why have the political parties failed to do so despite such a large mass uprising?
Asif Mohammad Shahan: It is because no one really thought in the long term about how to engage the people, how to make them understand that these changes are essential for their lives. I often say that every political party is pragmatic. They constantly calculate which method or process will make it easier to come to power, and which path will help them stay in power longer.
This isn’t necessarily about good or bad, right or wrong. It’s simply how political parties think. The question of public engagement and participation poses a major challenge for them once they are in power and seek to consolidate it. If an ordinary citizen regularly holds their elected member of parliament or union parishad chairman accountable, then the political party’s patron-client system and rent-based economy come under serious threat. This, in turn, makes it harder for them to hold on to power in the future.
So, what incentive do political parties have to change this structure? The same holds true for BNP, and it’s equally true for Jamaat-e-Islami. The unfortunate reality is that even NCP, which emerged from the popular uprising, is slipping into the elite consensus.
As a result, political parties will never voluntarily create democratic public space. There needs to be pressure on them to do so. The interim government could have created that pressure.
Prothom Alo :
Women’s participation in the uprising was exceptional. Yet from the very beginning, we have seen women, especially those on the front lines, being targeted, both online and offline. Recently, we witnessed two horrific incidents of sexual violence in Bhola and Muradnagar. Why are we not seeing any strong measures being taken to ensure the safety of women?
Asif Mohammad Shahan: Women are being targeted in two ways: one is offline, through physical abuse, and the other is online, through cyber-bullying. Among those who are relatively more secure in society, the level of offline abuse may be lower, but even they are being silenced through relentless online attacks. In other words, those who had a voice of protest are being silenced.
Why is this happening? Two issues come to the forefront here: the role of the interim government and the role of political parties.
When incidents like those in Muradnagar or Bhola occur, we immediately point fingers at political parties. We get caught up in debates about whether the accused is affiliated with BNP, or whether they were once with Awami League and later joined BNP. If the individual is connected to BNP, they are expelled from the party. Then they are arrested.
But my question is, why are we only pointing fingers at political parties? The finger should also be pointed at the interim government. A political party expelling someone is not a form of justice. And it’s not even the responsibility of political parties to deliver justice. At most, a political party can hand the accused over to the police. Though, given the nature of our political culture, even that is perhaps too much to expect.
The government claims to be taking action, but is it doing what is necessary to create real deterrents? In many cases, we’ve seen the government retreat. The government formed a women’s commission. When that commission submitted its report, it was praised as excellent work. People may have differing views on the report itself, but when those who served on the commission were attacked with abusive language, did the government say even once, "this is our report"? Did they say that while debate and discussion are welcome, such attacks are unacceptable? The government has failed to send that clear message
Even though the Sheikh Hasina government has fallen, Bangladesh’s fascist structure has not been dismantled. In this context, many fear the possible rise of a new form of fascism, particularly right-wing fascism. Given the social realities of Bangladesh, how likely is this?
Asif Mohammad Shahan: None of us can entirely dismiss the possibility of a right-wing fascist rise. If we look at the political spectrum, beginning from the liberal tradition, we see that BNP consistently claims to be a centrist party. While BNP professes belief in liberal democracy, it doesn’t necessarily take a truly liberal stance when it comes to issues of people’s rights, largely because the party houses people of varying ideologies.
NCP, from the outset, has stated its intent to follow a centrist path. That means the political center is already a crowded space. And the farther right one moves from the center, the more crowded the political field becomes. But when we consider the liberal or left space, it is now virtually empty. Those who once represented that politics have become completely irrelevant. As for the communist parties, what exactly they are trying to say is unclear to many.
The basic question, that the state must guarantee the minimum fundamental rights of every citizen, regardless of identity, whether based on nation, religion, gender, or race, is becoming increasingly blurred the more we move from the center to the right. Some say they don’t want to engage in binaries, some say nothing at all, and others say quite plainly: this is a country where 90 per cent of the population is Muslim, and that must be accepted.
What’s missing entirely from the discourse is a clear statement that every citizen of the state has the right to fundamental freedoms, the right to work, to express themselves, to live with dignity. As a result, our entire political discourse is revolving around the right wing. Compounding this is the alignment of the bureaucracy, the police, and other authoritarian structures with that rightward shift. Our bureaucracy, in truth, has no genuine political loyalty. It merely aligns itself with whoever holds power.
Prothom Alo :
Thank you.
Asif Mohammad Shahan: Thank you too.