The student protests in Bangladesh which began in June, in Dhaka, quickly spreading to other cities such as Chattogram, Comilla, Rajshahi, and Sylhet, have taught numerous lessons to all pillars of the state— political parties, civil society, and students.
The students should understand that if they perceive injustice, their genuine rights being usurped, meritocracy being trampled, or positions and vacancies being filled through nepotism and favoritism, they must come forward and demand justice, meritocracy, and a fair distribution of national resources in a peaceful and non-violent manner. They must remain steadfast in their demands, even if it requires enduring physical abuse, unconstitutional arrests, or even death at the hands of the state’s oppressive arms.
They should bear in mind that if their demands are just, their narratives powerful, and their commitment unwavering, they can compel the government, the parliament and the judiciary to accede to their demands and force even the most powerful and entrenched rulers to step down or flee the country in total disgrace.
In Bangladesh, the history of the student agitation against nepotism is very long and tortuous. Initially 50 percent of the job quota was reserved for the privileged groups and marginalized communities, such as the descendants of freedom fighters from the 1971 Independence War, along with quotas for women, ethnic minorities, and disabled individuals. The breakup was 30 percent of the jobs reserved for the descendants of freedom fighters who participated in the 1971 Liberation War, 10 percent for women, 10 percent for disadvantaged districts, 5 percent for ethnic minorities and 1 percent for individuals with disabilities.
The first mass scale agitation was started in 2018 by the students. Their narrative was simple; that the system was outdated and favored certain groups disproportionately, often those with connections to the ruling party; therefore, they demanded the quota system to be abolished altogether. The government of Hussina Wajid succumbed to the pressure and announced abolition of the quota. Later the government turned away from its commitment and caved in to the pressure of the vested interests and did not translate its promises into reality.
The matter was later taken to the Supreme Court which also succumbed to the pressures and reinstated the quota system in its totality on June 5. This move triggered widespread anger among students and young graduates, who felt the system undermined merit-based recruitment. The protests started at Dhaka University and quickly spread to other educational institutions across the country, gaining momentum through social media. By mid-June, tens of thousands of students were participating in demonstrations, blocking major roads and intersections, and disrupting daily life nationwide.
The government’s response was harsh, deploying police and security forces to disperse the demonstrators using tear gas, rubber bullets, and batons. A nationwide curfew and internet shutdown were imposed to stifle the protests. This violent crackdown resulted in over 114 deaths, thousands of injuries and eleven among the protesters, with numerous arrests and reports of mistreatment. The death of Abu Sayed, a prominent protester, symbolized the brutality faced by the movement.
What the government and the judiciary did not realize, the Army realized: that once the government no longer had the people’s support, it was not obliged to defend it anymore. It became imperative for the Army to preserve its dignity and honour by facilitating a transition of power to a government chosen by the people, and the sooner this transition happened, the better.
This unrest prompted the Supreme Court to expedite the hearing originally scheduled for August and, on July 21, reduced the quota of freedom fighters from 30 percent to 5 percent and maintained 2 percent for other disadvantaged groups.
Even this move of the Supreme Court was rejected by the students and they further intensified their protests and demanded complete abolition of the quota system terming it against the meritocracy. In addition they demanded broader reforms, unconditional release of arrested students, accountability of the government and accountability of the state apparatus responsible for the violence against the students.
The Supreme Court learned a bitter lesson about the importance of balancing public sentiment with judicial decisions, particularly regarding affirmative action and meritocracy. The court realized that it is not merely a tool in the hands of those in power but has a greater responsibility to serve the public good. It understood that its duty is to protect the interests of the entire population, not just the vested interests of a few. The power of public wrath was also evident; when the public is determined to achieve genuine objectives, even the court must yield to their demands. The Supreme Court acknowledged that it exists because of the general masses, not because of a select few.
The government of Bangladesh learned several critical lessons. It realized that forgetting those who brought it to power was a grave mistake. The government came to understand that the very people who mandated it to power also had the capability to bring it down if their genuine demands were not met. The use of the kinetic arms of the government against its people would inevitably result in facing the people’s wrath. The energy and determination of the populace could overpower even the most powerful arms of the government, leading to the administration stepping down in total disgrace.
In Bangladesh, the institution that played an exemplary role was the Army. It promptly recognized the popular sentiments of the people and timely realized that the government of Sheikh Hasina had lost the mandate of the people and no longer represented them. The Army understood that once the populace, which had brought the government to power, withdrew its support, the government lost its mandate, legitimacy, and credibility to remain in power. The Army aptly recognized that the entire state’s power, including all its pillars and institutions, whether civilian or military, is subservient to the masses. If any pillar loses the people’s support, it is doomed to fail and collapse.
What the government and the judiciary did not realize, the Army realized: that once the government no longer had the people’s support, it was not obliged to defend it anymore. It became imperative for the Army to preserve its dignity and honour by facilitating a transition of power to a government chosen by the people, and the sooner this transition happened, the better.
