The quota reform movement has led to widespread protests,
conflicts, and violence across the country, creating instability for the
citizens. More than two hundred people have already lost their lives. Curfews
are still in place nationwide, and law enforcement agencies are deployed. In
the midst of ongoing protests, there have been clashes between the police and
protesters, with numerous people being detained. Initially started by students,
the movement has garnered solidarity from teachers, who are now also
participating in various activities. An interview with a leading university
professor involved in these activities provides further insight.
Dr Abdul Hasib Chowdhury is a professor in the Department
of Electrical and Electronic Engineering at Bangladesh University of
Engineering and Technology (BUET) and a former president of the BUET Teachers'
Association. He recently discussed the students' quota reform movement and the
subsequent violent situation in an interview with Bonik Barta. Interviewed by
Sabidin Ibrahim.
The death of over two hundred people, including around
113 children, at the hands of government forces in an independent country—what
does this signify for us?
It feels like we are not in a free country. Bangladesh
seems to have been occupied. It resembles occupied Palestine
or Kashmir. Many have been killed—whether by sniper fire, pellet gun injuries
to the eyes, or internet shutdowns and block raids. Such scenes have not been
seen in past mass movements. We have instead witnessed such news from occupied
Kashmir. One report mentioned that 429 people had come to the National
Institute of Ophthalmology and Hospital (NIOH) for treatment of pellet gun
injuries to their eyes. It appears as if a conquering force has fired on our
students and citizens—firing with the intent to kill recklessly, mercilessly,
directly aiming at the head, neck, chest, and back. How could they fire on
their own people in such a manner if they were not effectively acting as
occupiers? In 1971, the people of this country faced such attacks from
Pakistani occupiers. And now we are witnessing this in independent Bangladesh.
Killing children and teenagers in this manner means they see this young life as
the greatest threat. They cannot tolerate a vigilant and vibrant youth. The
message students and the youth have received is that the government considers
them as enemies. This has been self-destructive for the government.
Before the shock of large-scale loss of life could even
settle, new fears have emerged among students and their parents—fears of
arrest, detention, and disappearance. The total number of arrests stands at
more than 10,000 as of July 31. What is your comment on this situation?
After much delay, following the court's decision on quota
reforms, students— including children—are being arrested en masse. It appears
as if the government is taking revenge on the student and youth community for
their protests and resistance. Such vengeful repression was not seen during the
1969 mass uprising or even during General Ershad's military regime in the
1980s. Many older individuals are comparing the current situation with those
times and are reaching more negative conclusions about the current government.
It is unreasonable to think that this will subdue students. The fear and
apprehension among the younger generation regarding arrests, imprisonment, and
legal issues are gradually diminishing. This is not just an individual
experience for those arrested but also a collective experience. And as you
know, courage is contagious.
How does the academic community view the imposition and
extension of a curfew by a civilian government?
Imposing a nationwide curfew for such an extended period
by a civilian government is unprecedented. One reason for this might be that
the government believes the situation is not under sufficient control. Another
reason is that a curfew is very convenient for conducting block raids.
Additionally, by controlling the timing of the curfew, the government can
unilaterally regulate the rhythm of public life. Events like weddings and
various social gatherings have been canceled after dark. For the government,
this serves as a way to demonstrate its power without directly confronting
anyone. In the past, military rulers used such measures in this manner.
Overall, it is clear that the government is now in a politically extremely weak
position and has become much more reliant on state security forces than on its
own political strength.
A segment of the teaching community has taken to the
streets in recent days. Have any of the teachers with banners in different
colors (white, blue, purple) on campus participated? In raising voices against
the killing of children in the country, are teachers also calculating
politically?
It is natural for a teacher to have political preferences
or affiliations, and one can also be a member of a political party. However, I
oppose the trend of forming groups in educational institutions that act as
political appendages. Those of us who are protesting against the abuse of
students are doing so as educators. We are not participating in protests based
on any political calculation.
In 1969, when Professor Shamsuzzoha of Rajshahi
University faced the Pakistani army and was martyred by their gunfire, he did
not do so based on political considerations. This tradition of protest among
teachers is a part of our heritage. We are the successors of Martyr Professor
Shamsuzzoha.
As for those with banners in various colors—white, blue,
purple—I do not know them well. Therefore, I cannot say whether any of them
have participated.
The statement was issued while the movement coordinators
were in DB custody, and many were even picked up from hospitals. What is your comment
on this?
This is undoubtedly a politically immature action, almost
childish and ridiculous. Prior to this, the government's law minister made
numerous attempts to engage with the students. However, after the July
killings, it became clear that this was no longer possible—something the
government realized only later. The students no longer trust the government or
are willing to obey its directives, which the government could not accept.
Accustomed to politics by force, the government, in its anger, resorted to
using the police's Detective Branch to forcibly detain and physically and
mentally torture people, ultimately achieving nothing of value beyond what the
police could offer. Addressing the students' demands through discussions was an
essential political task. The fact that this was attempted through the police
indicates how politically bankrupt the government has become and how this has
led to its instability.
Many are suggesting that the role of government officials
contributed to the peaceful movement turning violent. Is the government still
pursuing a path of negotiation, or is it continuing on a path of strict
enforcement?
I have stated elsewhere that the students' movement was
not violent at all. There was no preparation from the students' side for it to
become violent. Initially, it was a movement centered around an issue that had
no inherent impetus for violence. The students did not form any armed groups or
possess any weapons. Only the state can demonstrate the highest levels of
violence.
I believe that the sudden reinstatement of 56 percent
quotas through a court order and the timing of this action had an underlying
agenda. It seemed as though the authorities anticipated how the students at
Dhaka University would react to this order. Perhaps it was thought that they
would be able to suppress the movement with threats and intimidation. But the
government's political arrogance and attempts to cage the movement again
through intimidation acted like kindling to a spark. This was not considered by
the government.
This government has always taken a hard-line approach. It
is not inclined towards discussion and negotiation. Initially, the government
tried to suppress the movement using party goons and force. When that failed,
they used the police and then the Border Guard Bangladesh (BGB) to fire and
attempt suppression, followed by the army and curfews. In other words, they
employed all means of force and more, leading to widespread killings. Then,
there were attempts at discussion through the law minister, a swift ruling from
the Appellate Division, followed by renewed oppression, thousands of arrests,
and forced statements through the Detective Branch (DB). When that failed,
there was a sudden decision to ban Jamaat-e-Islami and its student wing, Shibir.
Overall, the government has become increasingly unstable.
The government has stated that 93 percent of government
jobs will be filled based on merit, and the quota has been reduced from 56
percent to 7 percent in one leap. The government claims that a major demand of
the students has been accepted. So why are the protests continuing? How do you
view the government's stance on this issue?
If the change in the quota system had been made within
the first ten days of July and the students had continued to protest afterward,
such a question would be valid. However, by the time the quota change was
implemented, over two hundred citizens, including a large number of children,
adolescents, and students, had been shot dead. The students have no trust in the
government for justice regarding these killings. This is evident from the FIR
submitted by the police concerning the death of Abu Sayed. Additionally,
reports have emerged indicating that there is no mention of gunshot deaths in
the cases. Thus, the students see no reason to withdraw their demands. The
government's failure to understand or acknowledge this is a political failure,
and the government will have to bear the consequences.
Clearly, the movement that began on campus has now spread
across the entire country. Has the widespread loss of life created a situation
that threatens to break national unity?
On the contrary, first, the entire student community, not
just university students but also those from schools and colleges, has united
as if they are one body, one spirit. Second, people from various classes and
professions across both rural and urban areas are broadly supporting the
students. In the past two weeks, the number, quality, and creativity of songs,
poems, rhymes, stories, cartoons, graphics, slogans, and so on have likely
surpassed anything produced in the last 50 years. It feels as though a
long-closed door has been opened, and the movement has unleashed a wave of
creativity. Young figures like Abu Sayed and Mir Mugdho will stand as examples
and role models for future generations. They are the heroes of this time.
And I especially want to mention the mothers of this
country. Today, it seems as if every mother in Bangladesh is the mother of
every child, adolescent, and young person in the country, with one heart and
one rhythm. When mothers are engaged in prayer, they are praying for all
children. If you talk to people in every home, you will see this. This is
unprecedented. This is what national unity means. National unity is not about
compromise between a few parties. Thus, national unity has not been broken;
instead, it has reached a unique height.
It seems that universities are closed indefinitely.
Students are eager to return to campus as soon as possible. How much does the
teaching community agree with the students' demands?
That's an entirely unnecessary question. As a teacher, my
very existence feels irrelevant if students are not on campus. Teachers want
the campus to reopen as soon as possible.