The anti-fascist mass movement in July-August last year was an uprising and not a revolution, but it still is markedly more significant than previous mass uprisings in modern day Bangladesh.
Firstly, the movement was led by apolitical youths seeking massive state reforms, secondly, it saw more public participation than any other previous political movement in the country.
In my view, though a movement reaches the hype of a revolution when it causes societal shakeup, establishing equal rights and opportunities for all, decentralising power and making public representatives of all levels fundamentally accountable. The changes are being and will be hindered by opposition politicians, not the least of BNP, as they seek to reclaim their unchecked power and bourgeois mentality.
Last year’s movement was more like a limited-scale political revolution that saw the departure of an extremely fascist government but kept the previous pro-fascist capitalist state structure intact. The state structure could not be amended even after the 1947 independence from British rule and the 1971 Liberation War. Instead only the nationality of rulers changed.
The changed local rulers kept the up the looting-oriented policies of the previous regimes. In the meantime, the national economy did progress, but maximum 20% people benefitted from the gains, building on the successes of the deprived 80%.
The ousted prime minister established her rule of terror and mass looting in partnership with the law enforcers and corrupt business community. It was unthinkable how the police, funded by the people, fired on the same people on Hasina’s order, replicating the genocidal mentality of Pakistani occupying army in 1971. The protests began to reveal the people’s hidden grief and anguish – and all these would have again remained suppressed had the army too responded to Hasina’s massacre order. But Hasina’s regime was even worse than the Pakistani rule on the scale of fascist policies.
The uprising of students and the general populace has highlighted another truth: the power of youth. By nature, youth can achieve what old age cannot. In our country, the older generation has already given what they could; it is the youth who can bring something new. This is because the youth possess courage and sensitivity—qualities that do not grow with age but instead diminish.
In politics, the dominant forces are the bourgeoisie, both secular and those exploiting religion. Their goal is to protect private ownership of property and increase power for their own benefit. Until the youth become infected by bourgeois ideals, they strive for societal change and have the courage to stand up. Our state language movement was akin to an uprising, symbolized by the martyr Abul Barkat. This led to the 1969 mass uprising, represented by Asaduzzaman, a communist activist, both of whom were students of Dhaka University. Similarly, the symbol of this recent uprising, Abu Sayed, is also a student, though not from Dhaka but Rangpur.
The Pakistani rulers were capitalists, but the government against which this uprising occurred was not only capitalist but had turned entirely fascist. A key difference between this uprising and the previous ones is the significant participation of the general populace. The movement initially sought reform in the quota system for government jobs. It did not demand the government’s downfall or even the abolition of the quota system. However, a movement with such limited goals transformed into an uprising due to multiple reasons, the foremost being the government's brutality. Fascist regimes know no boundaries and continually push limits, which eventually leads to their downfall. Hitler committed suicide, Mussolini was captured and killed by revolutionary socialists, and Sheikh Hasina fled to a neighboring country to save her life.
The former prime minister insulted the protesting students by calling them the grandchildren of collaborators. This deeply humiliated the youth, who immediately took to the streets at midnight to protest. Then came the second blow: the prime minister’s spokesperson stated that the student league alone was enough to handle these so-called "grandchildren." The Chhatra League's president, looking for an opportunity, declared, "We are ready." His group attacked the protesters, sparing not even the women. Then came the police, followed by the RAB, the BGB, and finally, even the army was seen patrolling. The result was the opposite of what the government intended. The students did not back down, and ordinary citizens, fueled by their own anger and humiliation, joined in. This frustration would have been expressed through an election if one had been possible. With that avenue blocked, the frustration erupted into this uprising.
The public’s sympathy lay with the youth, akin to the care parents feel for their children. Seeing university students lead, other young people joined in, even the son of an influential minister was seen in the protests. A storm brewed in their hearts, and they stood firm. The uprising became inevitable.
The courage of the youth was bolstered by the public's sympathy and trust in them. People have observed the actions of prominent political leaders, and instead of trust, a deep-seated distrust has grown toward them. The large crowds that once responded to BNP's calls were driven less by support for the party and more by dissatisfaction with the rule of the Awami League. When BNP leaders were arrested, their movement lost momentum, owing to a lack of public confidence and the party's own organizational weaknesses.
Politicians have failed before, and this time is no exception. This could have been an opportunity for self-reflection on their part. However, it is certain they will not seize this chance.
Writer: Professor Emeritus, University of Dhaka
