This was such a massive movement—an upheaval of great magnitude occurred in the country. In the hundred-year history of Bangladesh’s mass movements, this one was unique. It is essential for such a movement to have an official narrative. There was a shared expectation, both inside and outside of politics, that there should be a citizen's declaration—something that outlines the background of the movement and reflects the public’s aspirations. A considerable amount of hype had built up around this. People were asking: why is it taking so long?
When the movement began, its nature and momentum were of one kind. But through its actions and reactions, the movement kept evolving, and by its final stage, it had transformed into a movement calling for the government’s fall. Given the suddenness of events, it didn’t feel necessary at the time to have a clear set of demands or a formal document—like the 11-point charter of the 1969 mass uprising.
We saw something similar in 1969. What began as a student movement turned into a tidal wave of public protest. Each death not only devastated a family but also drew millions emotionally and politically into the movement. I remember—the student movement began on 17 January by defying Section 144. On 20 January, Asad was shot and killed, which further intensified the protest. Then on 24 January, when schoolboy Matiur and several others were killed by police gunfire, the movement exploded like wildfire. Everywhere—marches, slogans, rallies. It felt like the entire city had poured into the streets.
We saw the same scenes repeated in July 2024. People, like ants, poured into the streets in defiance of trucks, lorries, water cannons, and helicopters—and died. So many bullets, so much blood, so many deaths—we hadn’t seen anything like it since 1971.
But what did the people want? Just one simple thing: to live in peace, comfort, and joy. For that, a supportive environment is needed—an enabling socio-economic and political system. The aspiration with which this country gained independence was already betrayed at the very beginning. Since then, much water has flowed down the Buriganga. Many governments have come and gone. But no sustainable political system has taken root.
The 2024 movement saw the masses rise up in hope—for an open environment, where they could breathe freely, move about, and work without fear. That is an eternal aspiration. In the past, this dream has been shattered time and again. People have been deceived, again and again. This time, there must be a final resolution.
People wanted the state to make a commitment — one that would reflect their aspirations and dreams. That’s why a Citizen's Declaration was necessary. At last, we received it on a rain-soaked afternoon, this past Tuesday.
The Constitution says that the people are the true owners of the state. We had hoped that the July Declaration would be inclusive — a document of ownership representing people from all classes and professions, regardless of gender. But what we saw was the spotlight mainly on the chief advisor and political party leaders. So the question remains: who will speak for the vast population outside the political parties?
What does this declaration contain?
This 1,068-word document uses the word “Whereas” 21 times and “Therefore” 5 times, followed by just two points of resolution. It is clearly modeled after the Declaration of Independence that was read at the oath-taking ceremony of Bangladesh's first government on 17 April 1971, in Mujibnagar. While the structure is nearly identical, the message is different. The document is divided into 28 clauses, which can be summarised as follows:
The people of Bangladesh, through mass resistance, declared independence on 26 March 1971, against 23 years of deprivation, exploitation, and genocide by Pakistan’s autocratic rulers, and established the state of Bangladesh with the aim of national liberation.
The people made the ultimate sacrifice to realise the dream of a liberal democratic state based on equality, human dignity, and social justice as declared in the Proclamation of Independence.
The post-independence Awami League government failed to fulfill the public aspirations of the Liberation War due to flaws in the formulation, structure, and misuse of the 1972 Constitution.
On 7 November 1975, a unified revolution of soldiers and people replaced the one-party BAKSAL system with multi-party democracy, freedom of expression, and judicial independence.
After a prolonged nine-year struggle by students and the public against military dictatorship, the 1990 mass uprising led to the restoration of parliamentary democracy in 1991.
The 1/11 political conspiracy opened the door to Sheikh Hasina’s absolute power, dominance, and authoritarianism in Bangladesh.
Under Hasina’s leadership, a deeply anti-people, authoritarian force turned Bangladesh into a fascist, mafia-controlled, and failing state, violating human rights.
At the peak of intense public protests, Sheikh Hasina resigned and fled the country on 5 August 2024.
On 8 August 2024, following the Supreme Court’s opinion, an interim government was formed under the leadership of Dr. Muhammad Yunus.
The declaration expresses the intent to establish the rule of law, human rights, a corruption- and exploitation-free, egalitarian, and values-based society — and a democratic state — through a free, fair, and impartial national election and necessary constitutional reforms, in line with the people's expectations.
The declaration concludes by stating that it will receive constitutional recognition, and that a future elected government will include it in the schedule of the Constitution. The current head of government, Muhammad Yunus, is mentioned once, while former Prime Minister Sheikh Hasina is mentioned multiple times. This could have been avoided. After all, we are not merely seeking a change in individuals — we want a change in the system. A declaration of this kind should be impersonal and objective, especially if we want it to remain relevant across generations.
Since the declaration was presented, it has sparked much discussion and criticism. Although the emphasis is on political consensus, the reality is that political parties are rivals — at times, even enemies. Each party has its own agenda, and its own version of history. People are lamenting what was left out of the declaration. But many fail to understand that a declaration like this is not a white paper. Secondly, merely inserting it into the Constitution doesn’t mean rivers of milk and honey will start flowing. Our original Declaration of Independence glows with words like equality, human dignity, and social justice — yet the country has moved in the opposite direction. We glorify words, but we don’t change our mindset or behaviour.
Two things come to mind when reading the choice of words and tone of this declaration. First: The Awami League is portrayed here as the sole culprit. But the problem isn’t just from the last fifteen and a half years — it is the accumulation of 54 years of dysfunction and decay, which isn’t clearly acknowledged. Second: While constitutional reform is heavily emphasied, reform within political parties receives far less attention. Yet political parties are the catalysts for change. If they don’t change — if the behaviour and character of political actors remain the same — no matter how noble the words in the Constitution, the situation will not improve.
In the past 54 years, we’ve seen no shortage of movements. And who’s to say there won’t be more?
What we truly need is a sustainable political settlement. For that, the first step is changing ourselves. The people are watching the politicians. They remain suspended between hope and despair.
*Mohiuddin Ahmad is a writer and researcher
*Opinions expressed are the author’s own