Badruddin Umar, Chairman, National Liberation Council, a veteran political theorist, thinker, and politician, has been involved in politics and research for more than five decades. He has authored over a hundred books on history, politics, society and culture. Recently he discussed the ongoing student movement and its potential future impact with Bonik Barta. Interviewed by Anika Mahjabin

Could you share your thoughts of the current student movement and the overall situation?

We are currently witnessing a significant and widespread mass uprising against Sheikh Hasina in Bangladesh. To understand the true nature, causes, and potential consequences of this uprising, one must look at the historical uprisings in this region. Without this context, the current uprising cannot be fully comprehended. Notably, Bangladesh is the only region in the Indian subcontinent where such mass uprisings have occurred several times. The first was in 1952, the second in 1969, the third in January 1971, and the fourth against H M Ershad in the 1990s.

Each of these uprisings led to a change in government. Although the government did not change directly in 1952 Language movement, political parties began to form in Pakistan around this time. Following the 1952 movement, the Muslim League government fell apart in the 1954 elections, and the Muslim League was routed from East Bengal. The 1969 uprising resulted in the removal of Ayub Khan's government, although the military government remained. The mass movement that began in January 1971 created a situation where the government could no longer function normally, leading to direct military rule. After the war began on March 25, not just the government but the state of Pakistan was shattered. Such was the strength of the uprising and the people's movement at that time. In independent Bangladesh, a significant movement against Ershad also occurred. However, this was not a nationwide movement; I referred to it as an urban uprising, as it was concentrated in Dhaka and other urban areas. This urban bourgeois uprising led to the fall of Ershad's government. It is evident that after the previous four uprisings, there was a change in government, and the 1971 uprising culminated in the liberation war and the dismantling of the state of Pakistan.

The current mass uprising has created a situation where it will be difficult for the government to survive. This uprising is more extensive than any previous one. It has spread not only in Dhaka and other urban areas but also throughout the rural areas. The government's attack on students, instead of engaging in dialogue with them during the quota movement, has caused this movement to spread among the general populace. People have joined the movement in support of their respective causes. It is essential to note that the students' movement cannot be seen solely as a quota movement. The prolonged grievances of ordinary students against the terror and oppression by the Chhatra League in public universities have contributed to this movement. This cannot be viewed merely as a movement about quotas or jobs. The situation in the universities has influenced the quota movement. The government's attacks have transformed the quota movement into a situation akin to an uprising, spreading like bonfire across the country.

The general public has joined the uprising not only because of the oppression of the students but also because their lives have been severely disrupted. The prices of essential goods have skyrocketed, and the costs of oil, gas, electricity, and everything else have risen uncontrollably. The government has suppressed freedom of expression and speech. It is not possible to criticize the government, especially the head of the government, in the newspapers. A situation has arisen where people have no confidence in the government. The start to believe that as long as this government remains, rampant price increases, money laundering, and theft from government projects will continue unabated. Hence, an uprising has occurred.

The government claims to have brought the mass uprising under control, but it is evident that they have not managed to bring the situation under control, as curfews are still being imposed. Internet access is restricted or cut off to control the flow of information. This indicates that they have not yet fully controlled the situation. It is surprising that the government is still arresting and torturing the student leaders and activists of the quota movement. The consequences of this are yet to be seen; it remains to be seen whether another wave of protests will arise. There are protests against government repression not only in the country but also worldwide. Students, intellectuals, writers, and diplomats from 14 countries in Dhaka have issued statements condemning the repression and calling for an investigation and justice for those responsible. While the confirmed death toll is over 200, the actual number may be higher, as many deaths outside hospitals have not been accounted for. The public has united against these senseless killings. It cannot be said that the situation has returned to normal. The way things are, there is a complete possibility of another movement or shock. The future will reveal the impact of such a shock on the government.

You witnessed the 1969 mass uprising. How do you compare it with the current movement?

There are similarities between the 1969 movement and the current one. Ayub Khan ruled Pakistan for ten years. The entire nation was united against Ayub Khan, expressing their frustration and demanding a change in government. Although development was touted, the accumulated grievances against the exploitation and oppression under Ayub Khan could not be hidden away. Despite development, people's resistance against exploitation and oppression had reached a point where they did not consider development but rather how much they had been oppressed. Ayub Khan's development did not benefit the masses but rather the ruling class. Similarly, the current government loudly proclaims development, but the situation is worse than during Ayub Khan's era. Large projects today are synonymous with large-scale theft. Billions of dollars have been spent on these projects, with members of the ruling party, government officials, and beneficiaries looting thousands of crores. As a result, the benefits of development have not reached the people. As prices have risen, wages have not increased accordingly, reducing people's actual income. People who used to eat three meals a day now survive on two or even one meal. The consumption of fish and meat has also decreased.

How much have these large infrastructure projects benefited ordinary people? The lack of sufficient investment in education and healthcare is affecting the people. Just as Ayub Khan could not escape criticism despite talking about development, the current government is unlikely to get away with it either.

The government blames the BNP-Jamaat alliance for the current situation. How do you describe this?

The Awami League is now desperate to blame someone for the current situation. In this case, they see nothing but the BNP-Jamaat alliance. They do not realise the people's ability to stand against their wrong steps. This blame-shifting does not help the Awami League. The BNP-Jamaat alliance has indeed participated in this movement to some extent, which is not wrong. In such an uprising, would Jamaat or BNP, as political parties, stand aside? We believe these parties did not participate as much as they should have. Due to their own weaknesses, the BNP and Jamaat did not engage as they should have. They needed to be more involved, but they lacked the capacity. Now, the Awami League blaming them does not benefit the Awami League. Instead, it glorifies the BNP and Jamaat, attributing actions they did not deserve, thus increasing their strength. This is the pinnacle of the Awami League's ignorance and bankruptcy. The call by Obaidul Quader for Awami League leaders to take to the streets was futile. Local Awami League leaders did not respond to his call, and no one took to the streets. Quader himself admitted this in a statement recently. Some committees in Dhaka's wards were dissolved for not participating. This shows that even Awami League members did not stand by their party. The government is supported only by the police, RAB, BGB, and the Army.

Why do you think Awami League activists are not taking to the streets?

They are not taking to the streets to defend the government because, while the top leaders may not understand the situation, the grassroots workers do. General workers and those at the lower tiers of the party understand where the Awami League's weaknesses are. Therefore, they have no enthusiasm for the policies pursued by Awami League leaders. They see that these policies are turning the people against them. They are afraid of being attacked and are uncertain about their future prospect. Awami League workers fear they will face difficulties if the party loses power.

How do you view the role of India, China, Russia, and Western countries in the current movement?

India remained completely silent during this movement, although Mamata Banerjee, the Chief Minister of West Bengal, spoke against the repression. The Indian government has remained silent because the Awami League depends on India. However, Western countries have criticized the situation. Students, intellectuals, writers, professors, and political leaders from various universities have expressed concern over the situation in Bangladesh. Even though the Indian government remains silent, many Indian intellectuals have protested.

Recently veteran political thinker, theorist, and politician Badruddin Umar spoke with Bonik Barta regarding the 2024 mass uprising and the future of the country's politics. Interviewed by Anika Mahjabin.

Could you shed light on the fate of the heads of government during mass uprisings in Bangladesh's history?

Bangladesh has witnessed two mass uprisings during the eras of Ershad and Hasina. During Ershad's rule, the uprising led to his resignation without much resistance. He stepped down quickly and left. Moreover, the public's anger against Ershad wasn't as intense as it is now against Hasina. We saw that in 1990, despite the uprising, Ershad contested five seats and won all five. If Hasina were to stand in an election now, it’s doubtful she'd even secure one percent of the vote. Her situation was such that she had to flee the country. If she hadn't escaped from the Ganabhaban within an hour or so, she likely would have been beaten to death. There's no doubt about that. The public's wrath against Ershad was never this severe. It can be said that Ershad didn't engage in the kind of brutal repression and killings as Hasina. Ershad, as a dictator, was far weaker than Hasina. Sheikh Hasina has recklessly killed people.

What is your assessment of the loss of life during past mass uprisings compared to now?

During Ershad's time, the mass uprising didn't see such widespread loss of life. Students were killed by running them over with a truck during Ershad's regime. However, he didn’t orchestrate mass shootings. So far, around four hundred deaths have been accounted for. But the real number is likely over a thousand. Nothing like this happened during Ershad's reign. What occurred now is unprecedented in world history. Netanyahu is carrying out similar atrocities in Gaza. What Israel is doing in Gaza, Sheikh Hasina has done to her own people. As a result, the loss of life has been massive. There's no comparison between 1990 and 2024.

Sheikh Hasina fled the country in the face of the student-led uprising. India is providing her refuge and various forms of assistance. How do you view this?

Obaidul Quader used to boast loudly that Sheikh Hasina could never leave; she is the daughter of Bangabandhu and other such rhetoric. But now we see Hasina has fled. Where will she go after fleeing? She went to India first. She has stayed in power by kneeling down to India, handing everything over to them. I've said before, it's not accurate to say she sold out to India. Because in a sale, there's usually some exchange. Bangladesh received nothing in return; it just gave everything away, including its interests. In such a situation, India would provide her with temporary shelter. It is natural. But India won’t grant her any political asylum. India will never grant her permanent political asylum. India knows that offering permanent asylum to someone as anti-people as Sheikh Hasina, against whom there has been a massive popular uprising in Bangladesh, would only sharpen and deepen opposition against India in Bangladesh. This will ultimately harm India's interests. Thus, India won’t provide her with permanent refuge. The United States has already revoked her visa. The UK has said it won’t grant her asylum. No European country will take her in. So, where will she go? For now, India has provided her temporary shelter so she can find an opportunity to flee elsewhere.

This criminal is finding no safe haven in the world. America and England have all turned her away. India won’t keep her. She may end up living out her days alone in places like Lithuania, Latvia, and Estonia. She has to stay far from her son, her sister. Had England offered her asylum, she would have gladly stayed there. But she’s lost that opportunity. Despite having relationships with many countries, no nation is willing to accept her. Because they know the extent of the opposition she faces from the people of Bangladesh. Offering her refuge would mean losing Bangladesh. No one wants to lose Bangladesh, not even India. So India won’t give her shelter.

After the assassination of Bangabandhu in 1975, Awami League returned to power in 1996. What do you think the future holds for the Awami League after Sheikh Hasina's fleeing in 2024?

After Sheikh Mujib's assassination in 1975, the Awami League fled. Awami League was on the verge of collapse, struggling to survive as an organization. It was only later, when Ziaur Rahman permitted all parties to operate, that the Awami League, Jamaat-e-Islami and others re-emerged. In 2024, however, with Sheikh Hasina’s escape, there seems to be no future left for the Awami League. This time, the situation is far more severe and destructive for the party than in 1975. The current state of the Awami League can be compared to the Muslim League’s situation in 1954. Following the shock of the 1952 Language Movement, leading to the Muslim League’s ouster in the 1954 elections. Similarly, in the 2024 movement, the Awami League has been effectively eradicated as a political party. I don't see the Awami League recovering much in the future. In the upcoming 2024 elections, the party might not even win a single seat. Contrast this with the 1991 elections when Ershad alone secured five seats, and several of his party members won as well. Even the Muslim League won nine seats in 1954. I don't believe the Awami League will secure a single seat. This effectively means the party has been wiped out as a political force. The fractures within the Awami League are already evident. Obaidul Quader urged people to take to the streets, but they didn't respond. Even Obaidul Quader himself admitted as much. The Awami League's president has now fled the party. Sheikh Hasina neglected her own party in her complete reliance on the state machinery. She was offering the party members only perks and privileges. Essentially, she allowed them to loot and loot more. They have become like a well-fed house cat that no longer hunts mice. Awami League leaders have been fed by Sheikh Hasina in such a way that they no longer want to catch mice. Now, with the current shockwave, those same leaders, having gorged themselves, have quietly withdrawn. I don't see any potential for the party to reorganize. It’s almost extinct as a political party.

How will the economic and political benefits exchanged between Bangladesh and India during Sheikh Hasina’s rule impact Bangladesh’s future India policy?

The agreements between Bangladesh and India were made at the governmental level. Predicting their future is difficult. These were bilateral state agreements, which can't be easily revoked overnight. Domestic matters, like releasing Khaleda Zia or bringing Tarique Rahman back to the country, or prisoners being released could be quickly addressed. However, bilateral treaties are a different matter, these cannot be revoked overnight. These agreements will likely be reviewed and scrutinized in the future. However, it’s unlikely that any future government will be as accommodating to India as Hasina's administration was.

Bangabandhu's statues are being destroyed during the movement. How do you view this?

This movement isn't just against Sheikh Hasina. It’s also against Sheikh Mujib. Now, they are tearing down Sheikh Mujib's statues. They’ve even set fire to his house in Dhanmondi. This indicates that people have realized that it’s not only Sheikh Hasina but also Sheikh Mujib who bears responsibility for the current situation in Bangladesh. It’s this growing sentiment among the people that has led to such actions. They have effectively dismantled his legacy in the so-called month of mourning.

Sheikh Hasina was so foolish that after surviving the first wave of the mass uprising, she managed to regain some control. But driven by her arrogance and pride, she assumed she still held immense power. Consequently, when she began making derogatory remarks against students and the public, the second wave of the movement erupted within days, forcing her to flee the country.

Fifty-three years after independence, the public celebrated Sheikh Hasina's resignation on August 5 as the moment “Bangladesh became truly independent”. Do you think the same?

The people are euphoric after ousting an autocratic tyrant like Sheikh Hasina. They believe that by driving her out in such manner has brought complete independence to the country. The power is now in the hands of the people. Maybe this is what they believe. This sentiment may reflect their immediate emotions, but it also reveals a general lack of maturity in their thinking.

Independence can be understood in two ways. One is freedom from foreign control. The other is a governance system that truly serves the people, listens to them, and acts in their best interest. Regarding the first, there's no reason to believe that Bangladesh has freed itself from foreign influence just because Sheikh Hasina was ousted. The internal conditions of the country and the long-standing foreign relations will not simply disappear. But it is true that India's control, as it was under Hasina’s rule, may not persist. However that doesn’t mean India’s influence will vanish. As a neighbouring powerhouse, India will continue to exert influence over Bangladesh. Bangladesh cannot operate without considering India. Moreover, other countries have extended significant loans to Bangladesh. For example, China. Even if the relationship with Hasina no longer exists, China’s influence will remain due to its financial ties. China cannot simply withdraw, given its massive investments. They will consider their investment in this country; thus China cannot simply leave. They will consider their interests, investment. Thus, it’s inaccurate to say that Bangladesh will now be entirely independent, able to control its internal and external policies at will. Because the situation that has been created in Bangladesh for a long time will remain. It is not possible to overcome this dependence. Particularly given the substantial loans Bangladesh has taken from various countries and international organizations, which will undoubtedly have an impact. Therefore, it's incorrect to claim that Bangladesh has achieved full independence from foreign control.

Secondly, the idea that Bangladesh's governance will now be directed by the working class, the farmers, labourers, and ordinary citizens, is also misguided.

Since 1972, the country has been under the rule of a specific class. Every regime has been authoritarian. Sheikh Mujib's government was fascist, culminating in the Awami-Baksali regime. Then came Ziaur Rahman’s military rule, followed by Ershad’s military dictatorship. After 1990, Bangladesh witnessed the civilian autocracies of Khaleda Zia and Sheikh Hasina. The nation has seen a succession of one fascist government after another, with Sheikh Hasina’s being the most oppressive. The fascism she displayed is unparalleled in the region; except during her father's rule. Except for 1974-75, Sheikh Hasina's rule has no comparison. It can be said that Sheikh Hasina's regime is worse than 1974-75 causing a more widespread repression.

So, after her departure, the common people might believe that they’ve finally achieved freedom and that such oppression won’t return. But this belief is not entirely accurate. In some respects, the public may indeed enjoy a bit more freedom. Because those who come to power next won’t be able to impose the same level of oppression immediately. However, given the state of the country, it cannot be expected that the need for security laws, the potential for exploitation, repression, and imprisonment will not persist.

The future rulers will not be true representatives of the people either. The same ruling class that has been in power since 1972, who have been exploiting the country, will remain. The fact that 70-80 percent of the national parliament is made up of businessmen and their interests indicate that this class won’t simply disappear. They cannot be removed through this movement. They will remain. They will continue to govern according to their own interests. Thus, even from this perspective, it's incorrect to claim that Bangladesh has fully gained independence. While removing a criminal and fascist like Sheikh Hasina might bring some relief, it’s naïve to think that this will last forever. There is no reason to think that Bangladesh will be independent from the rule by a specific class in both of these senses.

Click here to return to the October 2024 index.