Part 1
“Mahfuz Alam is the Special Assistant to the Chief Adviser of the interim government formed after the student-popular uprising. He was the coordinator of the liaison committee established to maintain communication between students, citizens, and the interim government after the uprising. A graduate in law from Dhaka University, he played the role of a political-intellectual collaborator in the movement. Prothom Alo’s Executive Editor, Sajjad Sharif, interviewed him regarding the thoughts of the students on the movement and the social and political transformation. The first part of this two-part interview was published, Wednesday. “
Prothom Alo: Let’s start with the movement. How did the students manage to lead such a significant movement?
Mahfuz Alam: There were two major movements before the 2018 elections—one for safer roads and the other for quota reform. During these movements, it became evident that a segment of students and youth took to the streets to fill the political void.
In the 2018 elections, the BNP and the people of the country were deceived once again, just as they were previously. In the following two to three years, due to various crises, students and youth could not rise again.
The primary crisis was the lack of a political direction. The students and youth were divided along several significant lines in politics. They could not envision anything beyond the Awami League, BNP, Jamaat-e-Islami, and the weak strands of leftist politics.
It was clear to us that the narrative created by the Awami League around the liberation war could never defeat the Awami League while maintaining the status quo.
A major failure after the Liberation War was the inability to achieve national reconciliation due to the Awami League. The Awami League has always portrayed a significant portion of the population as enemies. While we may only see Jamaat and Shibir at face value, a large section of the population has always been oppressed in their name.
We were grappling with some questions: Why did so many students come out for the quota reform movement, and why did older generations join? Why did women come forward during the Daksu elections? After the safe road movement, why didn’t we see school students anymore? Why is no one from among them in politics now? Why couldn’t they dream of a state?
We observed that ideological and cultural fault lines have been drawn to divide Bangladesh. Various players have played roles along these dividing lines. Therefore, our thought was about how to erase these dividing lines and how to resolve them. This issue has not been settled in the last 50 years, but we have been trying.
Prothom Alo: What efforts did you make?
Mahfuz Alam: We organized some reading circles and cultural events. Under the banner of Jhonaki Goli, we engaged in film activism. Nasiruddin Patwari, the current convener of the citizens’ committee, sat at the Raju Sculpture for 54 days demanding an end to border killings. In support of that sit-in, we published booklets and newspapers.
We also proposed eight points regarding the murder of Abrar Fahad. The essence of these points was to discuss how Bangladesh as a state can become stronger without merely opposing India.
Many of us studied together, wrote, and took various initiatives; during the COVID-19 pandemic, we even held some online reading circles. I realized that this was not enough.
In October 2021, we started a reading circle called ‘Gurubar Adda.’ Initially, there were four of us, including Nahid Islam, and later three more, including Abu Bakar Majumdar, joined.
Our adda (gathering) would take place on Thursdays. We would ponder various questions—about the state, society, philosophy, history, and theology, which many often overlook. We read Kamruddin Ahmed’s writings as well as discussions on Lenin and the realities of Islamic state thought. We discussed Rabindranath, Vivekananda, and Iqbal.
In this way, we tried to bridge the gap between thought and cultural politics as much as possible. Most of these events were organized somewhat discreetly. We didn’t want to be seen as a thorn in the side of the student league. We participated in various student movements and also tried to provide theoretical grounding for major movements. Later, through ‘Gurubar Adda,’ several intellectual and cultural organizations, including Chhayachakra and Rasik Adda, worked toward the same goal.
Prothom Alo: How did the movement start? How did you become involved?
Mahfuz Alam: On September 24, 2023, we organized a seminar on behalf of the Purbo Paksha magazine. From the platform of Purbo Paksha, we stated that we want a society based on duty and care.
Many might think we are making these statements impulsively, but that’s not the case at all. We had already written about the civilizational transformation of the state last year. By then, we had held about 60 discussions. Based on those discussions, we felt we could propose a new politics and present ourselves in society.
At this time, there was a kind of crisis within Nurul Haque Nur’s organization. The Dhaka University faction of his organization decided to not engage in sycophantic politics and joined us. This was a convergence of thought and activism.
On campus, the student rights council was active as a political organization, while we were at the intellectual level. The combination of the two formed the Democratic Student Power. Instead of getting involved in the politics of student power, we practiced thought and culture through Purbo Paksha, Ronpa, the Sineyog newspaper, and those discussions. The intellectual-cultural activities and political activities were separate. We conducted writing or research in the background to create a political narrative.
Prothom Alo: The movement began with the demand for quota reform. At one point, it escalated to a demand for Prime Minister Sheikh Hasina’s resignation. Was there a hidden agenda behind the movement’s progression to that point?
Mahfuz Alam: Our initial aspiration was to expand student power across Bangladesh. If the quota reform movement gained traction on campus, it would create opportunities for student council elections at many universities. We could also bring forth some leadership. However, the long-term goal of overthrowing the government was always there.
We thought that student power would first become strong, and then we would emerge politically. We aimed to be involved in all spheres: cultural space, industries, and educational institutions.
From June 5 to July 1, during the movement, members of student power organized efforts throughout Bangladesh. However, from July 1 to July 14, we did not receive any political or even intellectual support.
We approached various political parties and intellectuals, but no one was enthusiastic. They suspected that there was surely some conspiracy behind it. But due to our innovative programs, the strength of the movement was gradually increasing on campuses and in urban areas.
We were contemplating whether we could transform this into a major student-citizen movement. Our target was 2026, but if an opportunity arises, why wait until then?
Prothom Alo: When did you realize that the opportunity had come?
Mahfuz Alam: After declaring the Bengal Blockade on July 6. If you analyze the Bengal Blockade program, you will see that it had significant public involvement. Together, we drafted a concept paper for student power. Initially, we referred to this uprising as the student-citizen uprising.
At its core was the idea of student power and citizen solidarity. The program for the Bengali Blockade was organized according to that solidarity plan. If you analyze the program, you’ll see that students went to various parts of Dhaka city, and citizens joined in. This hadn’t been possible in the past 16 years.
Prothom Alo: When did you realize that ordinary people felt a sense of solidarity with you?
Mahfuz Alam: We understood this in the week following the Bengal Blockade. Our plan was to bring the people to our side. For the past 15 years, we had been unable to establish a connection between the political parties and the public.
Through the Bengali Blockade, we were able to garner public support in Dhaka. Those who had been unable to protest until then began to raise their voices. The government had not yet been able to directly intervene against the students. We seized that opportunity.
By then, solidarity among various political student organizations had started to grow. Members of student organizations began to join us not just as representatives of their political identities but as coordinators and workers. We wanted everyone to be involved; we aimed for a mass movement.
We were concerned that if this movement failed, how student power would survive! Therefore, through the movement, we created our slogans. Our plan was to make those slogans acceptable at the national level. Otherwise, we wouldn’t be able to sustain ourselves politically in the future.
Prothom Alo: Many different levels of people—students, workers, indigenous people, women—were involved in the student-citizen movement. As a participant and citizen, what lessons did you draw from that?
Mahfuz Alam: I see this mass uprising as a resolution of many issues—cultural questions and ideological questions. This big surge may have spread the resolutions in various directions. However, the uprising itself was a significant resolution or arrangement.
Prothom Alo: Let me ask the question differently. Any uprising has two aspects—one is the fall, and the other is the rise. The first has been achieved. In terms of the rise, various aspirations of the citizens have been expressed in this movement. If I were to ask you, what is the unspoken manifesto of this movement as a whole?
Mahfuz Alam: The aspirations were not always vocal. Many desires were latent. In the new Bangladesh, many want to see various changes. Young people primarily seek representation—not just in elections but in every sphere of life. They demand freedom of speech. Democratic artists and writers want to express themselves. Day laborers want their daily wages. The indigenous community also has its own aspirations. Although they didn’t come forward initially, later on, religious scholars joined in. They have been oppressed as a group for the past 15 years.
During the complete shutdown of the movement, we saw a significant number of workers. They have been oppressed as a class for 15 years. Last December, four workers were killed. They were agitated after incidents like the Tazreen Fashion fire or Rana Plaza collapse. Everyone was seeking liberation from a state of utter confinement. Otherwise, would anyone willingly stand in front of bullets to die?
The involvement of women in this movement was immense. Though many may forget now, it is true that this movement would not have succeeded without women. Despite having only a 10% quota, women came forward and said they didn’t want quotas. Why? Because it hurt their sense of dignity. Dignity is a crucial issue. Sheikh Hasina had shattered the dignity of the common people in the country.
This struggle was also about restoring dignity. When the protesters chanted slogans calling themselves ‘Rajakar,’ it was because their sense of dignity was attacked by being labeled as ‘Rajakar.’ Therefore, you can see this movement as a project for the restoration of dignity, as well as an expression of various class aspirations and representation.
Prothom Alo: There are talks of a new political arrangement. What kind of state do citizens wish to see in the post-uprising phase?
Mahfuz Alam: There’s an upper aspect of the state and a grassroots aspect. The grassroots dictate the upper aspect. Therefore, trying to fix the upper aspect without addressing the grassroots means merely laying a new cover over old filth. I don’t think people want that, and neither do I.
People desire significant change—not just a change of power, but a change in the power structure itself. They want self-respect and a state without inequality or disparities. They seek a resolution to the politics of division in cultural and ideological spaces. They want an environment where everyone can voice their opinions, where every voice can be heard. They want to enjoy fundamental human rights and civil rights without any conditions or exceptions.
These are the expectations of the citizens. Ideologically, politically, culturally, and economically—there needs to be a complete overhaul of the previous government’s arrangements in these four areas to move towards a new arrangement.
Prothom Alo: You are saying that if elections are held while maintaining the old system, even if another party comes to power, it will adopt an undemocratic form. In this situation, how do you view the positions of the political parties in the country?
Mahfuz Alam: BNP and Jamaat have faced significant oppression over the last 15 years. Naturally, they will want to claim their share of power. On the other hand, those who have engaged in the mass uprising for a new political landscape in Bangladesh will also demand inter-party reform; that is also natural.
The question is, what is the structure of the movement? Some are claiming that they were the only ones involved in this movement. But there was no single entity. The movement was like a flowing river, with various currents merging into it. Now, the streams of the Jamuna and Meghna are separating into their distinct flows.
However, there is still a unity among them. Political parties will want to maintain their old habits and culture. Yet our declared goal has been to change the political culture and leadership in Bangladesh, and to increase the representation of young people in the parties.
Young people do not want the club politics prevalent in Bangladesh. They desire a far-sighted politics. They are thinking about how to unite the broader population in the political arena. If our well-wishers and comrades form political parties, we can call on them, as well as every political party, to move beyond mere competition for power and bring a vision for state-building.
Previously, the competition was about who could seize power first and engage in looting. Now, the competition should be about who can elevate the country to greater heights. Politics should be organized with Bangladesh in mind.
Reforming the state alone will not be sufficient. Reform is also needed within the parties. The process of how political leadership is selected should be reformed. Economic reforms are also necessary. There must be social pressure to purify the parties. So many people did not sacrifice their lives to keep the old political culture and bad habits alive.
