IN 2025, Bangladesh’s 54th anniversary of Independence Day cannot be observed by bypassing the July 2024 movement. Some people may not endorse the epithet ‘second independence’, the outcome of the student uprising that ended Hasina’s autocratic rule and created a ‘new’ Bangladesh. They may have a reason. It may be that they compare the second with the first independence in 1971 and flag significant differences between the two in terms of context, scope, and cost.
However, not all independences in a nation’s history can be of the same colour and substance; not all of them are secured from enemies outside. Some will be snatched from enemies within who can be equally or more pernicious than their foreign cousins. In fact, achieving independence from enemies within can be more complex because they operate under a veneer of public legitimacy. How can one mobilise against such intimate, official, and established authorities?
The goal of the July uprising could be penned in many ways, referring to many hopes and aspirations. However, if we were to voice a single aim, it couldn’t be anything but independence. Yes, it was a popular demand for independence in an independent country! This was so because the first independence was lost to its self-declared architect, at home and in the region.
Hasina’s autocratic rule corrupted the semantics of independence. People were forced to put aside socially agreed definitions and embrace her imposed meanings. They were asked to deny their own selves, surroundings, thinking, and wellbeing. With the help of its timid and self-serving media and the obliging intelligentsia, the regime tried to establish that our independence was synonymous with Hasina’s. That no future of the nation could be imagined without her. That she had no alternative was a discursive refrain. That we could have only one friend, which was the ‘sponsor’ of our first independence from Pakistan.
The July movement dismantled such mythmaking. It secured a hard-earned opportunity to reinstate the lost meanings of independence, democracy, and respect. Are Bangladeshi citizens able to harvest the dividend of the new independence in the new country since Hasina’s fall and her dastardly flight to her political and ideological refuge? The independence that was stolen for over 15 years can’t be restored in eight months. And it’s so much easier to take away than to give back! Nevertheless, based on personal experience and reflection, I would like to catalogue some key areas where people may be enjoying the fruits of the independence regained.
Ìý
Relative personal security
MY PERSONAL experience and observation tell me that there is a greater sense of security among people now. They feel much safer, thinking that they are unlikely to be picked up by plainclothes men from their homes or other places for ungiven reasons. Enforced disappearance seems to have disappeared together with crossfire. Police harassment of people in the name of searching Yaba tablets or other objects in their belongings has stopped. There hasn’t been any incident of the police or members of a political entity searching anyone’s mobile phone for data of interest. It’s very unlikely that anyone will be arrested or tortured for expressing their views against the unjust foreign policies of a neighbouring country.
The phenomenon of security encompasses many aspects and dimensions. It’s never easy to guarantee it, even for the majority. However, the regime change has contributed to its positive perceptions and experiences among people. This is a significant achievement in a volatile social and political environment. The evil forces of the fallen regime have kept exerting themselves in all potential ways to undermine security and create an environment of fear and insecurity. They seem to have all-out support from their master in the neighbourhood in advancing their agenda. This calls for investing untiring efforts and vigilance by law enforcement agencies, media, and citizens so we don’t lose the sense of security that has been achieved.
Ìý
Freedom of expression
THE freedom of expression as an ideal may have lost its meaning given the double standard of the Western world in relation to its scope and exercise. Nevertheless, such freedom cannot be valued less or given up. As a Bangladeshi, I was proud of the freedom of expression – with certain limitations – that we had in the country before the inception of the autocratic regime in 2009 following the deep political crises and the 1/11 military-backed government.
I first came to Australia in 1999 as a postgraduate student, and I lived in a homestay family in Melbourne. This was a mini-international house which accommodated a small group of students from Asia, Africa, and Australia. Doing intercultural dialogues at the dinner table or in the TV lounge was an occasional event, and we represented our own country and national values. I remember I used to emphasise our free media and expression in those days.
That freedom wasn’t fully lost even in the first few years of the current century. Looking back, it may be hard to find a day when corruption stories involving the ruling Bangladesh Nationalist Party’s so-called Hawa Bhaban were not covered in Bangladesh’s mainstream media.
However, the practice of free media was shelved when the Awami League formed a government headed by Hasina. There have been countless cases of harassing and punishing writers, journalists, and academics for alleged ‘discursive crimes’. Examples include the gruesome murder of the journalist couple (Sagar Sarowar and Meherun Runi) in their bedroom, arguably for their investigation of high-profile corruption, and the incarceration and torture of editor Mahmudur Rahman for reporting sleaze involving Hasina’s son. The enactment of the Digital Security Act empowered the authorities to teach anyone any lesson that they thought fit and would serve the interest of the regime.
Practising self-surveillance was common for writers during the Hasina time. I remember every time I wrote an opinion piece, I had to read it several times to make sure my critical tone remained at a tolerable level and did not instigate the government’s media panopticon. Asking friends for feedback and assurance was common. Nevertheless, some other friends occasionally reminded me of the risk that I was taking by writing on what I wrote. Fortunately, the English language might have worked as a security screen, as only a tiny fraction of Bangladeshi readers, including those in the government, would read things written in English. And I wouldn’t assume I attracted a sizable proportion of this fraction.
Thanks to the August 2024 regime change, I don’t have to continue self-censoring my content and perspective. This seems to be the case for many other writers too. Although a perfect condition of media freedom or free expression of thoughts may not exist anywhere on earth, the welcome change needs to be highlighted.
Perhaps the most popular form that freedom of expression has taken in the past months is related to people from all walks of life taking to the street and placing their demands for a salary rise, or upgrading colleges into universities, or changing professional status, whether spontaneous or instigated by vested interests linked to the fallen regime. While not all such demands can be justified, it’s assuring that people have the freedom to speak and have an audience. This public speakership and the right to be heard were very restricted during the Hasina regime.
Ìý
Unity, rather than division
A CARDINAL feature of Awami rule was to divide politics and society and destroy what may be called ‘political ecology’. One key mission of its authoritarian politics was to break political parties apart and prevent their unity and cooperation. At the same time, domesticating political parties and setting them up as opposition in the parliament were ridiculous political innovations.
It is only after the fall of the regime that we found a platform where all political parties can stand together and imagine the future and the national agenda beyond their party interests. Although political rivalries, infighting, blame and counter-blame are unlikely to disappear, it is pleasing to see the return of respect among political leaders and the possibility of dialogues between them. This has been possible due to the strategies and efforts of the interim government, which is keen on advancing the reform agenda by including all major political entities. This is a significant achievement which needs to be sustained by making further investments, monitoring, and evaluation.
Ìý
Correcting the representation of the majority religion
AWAMI LEAGUE was preferred in the government by Western and regional powers due to its secular identity and Islamophobic stance. Secularism worked as a political capital for the party, which helped not only to walk to power but also to stay in power for an indefinite period. Its ally and friend in the region saw this as an opportunity to weaken the religious voice of the majority which spoke against Indian injustice and interference.
Volumes could have been written about how people were harassed for keeping the Qur’an in their bags or for being regular in masjids, especially at universities. Hundreds of armed operations were made into different houses and establishments during the regime, arguing that terrorists (read opposition political activists) were hiding in those places. Any gathering of Muslims anywhere was considered a potential terrorist threat, and therefore it could be eliminated by deploying any force.
On many occasions, women who gathered to learn the Qur’an or discuss Islam in private spaces were arrested on the grounds of their affiliation with an opposition political party. Attempts were also made to represent BNP and Jamaat-e Islami as terrorist entities and thus to give legitimacy for any action against the parties and their leaders. In some government departments, Muslim women wearing hijab and Muslim men praying five times in masjids were put on a watch list. People being forced to quit their jobs or not recruited for being practising Muslims were reported every now and then. Interestingly, despite all these, it was argued that the head of the regime was a promoter of Islam.
This situation has changed noticeably since August 2024. Muslims are now able to be visibly Muslims in public spaces and the media. Even the UN secretary-general, during his recent visit of the Rohingyas in Cox’s Bazar, presented the appearance of a Muslim who had iftar with a hundred thousand of them.
Ìý
Partial correction of injustices
THE volume of crime, injustice, and human rights violations committed by the Awami regime was unprecedented in the history of the country. There was no social, cultural, or political avenue which was unaffected by its misrule and oppression. None outside the Awami tribe were entitled to security, right, respect, or voice. Anyone could be violated any time for reasons which were known only to the government. Even the likes of Muhammad Yunus felt so helpless and vulnerable in the face of the Awami wrath.
Clearing the Herculean body of crime and lawlessness will take many years. And some of the grave crimes and injustices can never be repaired. The brutal killings of Abrar Fahad and the journalist couple, the crossfires and enforced disappearances of hundreds and the judicial killings of the Jamaat and BNP leaders cannot be compensated. Similarly, the many Aynaghar victims are unlikely to be paid full justice for their untold suffering and dehumanisation. However, it is gratifying that the politically motivated cases against many, including the BNP chairperson, have been cleared and others are on the way of resolution.
Ìý
Freedom from discursive onslaughts
AN EXTRAORDINARY kind of freedom that has been gained by the ouster of Hasina is of cognitive or epistemic nature, with social, cultural, and even religious implications. This is freedom from an avalanche of false stories, dramas, myths, and discourses that were woven around the Awami League and its people, past and present. School- and madrasa-going children were forced to adore Sheikh Mujib as more than human; Hasina’s rule was represented as nothing short of a miracle that brought the happiness of heaven on earth. It was impossible to pass a day almost anywhere in the country without being bombarded by stories of development in technology, infrastructure, education, and employment. Such post-truth onslaughts challenged people’s power to think, believe, judge, or critique. They created helplessness and dilemmas among the populace, as they could neither digest the indigestible nor regurgitate it.
The end of the regime has freed people from such epistemic excesses and impositions; stories of development and social, political and technological emancipation have evaporated. Public officials no longer need to extol anyone at meetings or other events; they can speak to the agenda straightaway.
In conclusion, this essay is not an exhaustive catalogue of the achievements of the interim government in the past eight months. I have provided only a few examples of the ways in which independence may have found traction with the public in general. This is a highly selective approach that has outlined only the general trends. There is no suggestion that all groups in society have had equal access to the independence that I have discussed. Certainly, there have been unaddressed grievances and frustrations among different groups.
My sole purpose in this writing was to highlight the freedom that was lost during the past regime and which seems to have been slowly resurfacing in the past few months. I wanted to explicate this independence on the auspicious occasion of Independence Day because of its politics and political representation. When we have freedom, we often tend to take it for granted. We may also be oblivious of independence when it is taken away. Political traders of freedom may sell bondage in the name of freedom, something that happened during the past regime. Therefore, it is important to name, claim, and harvest freedom or independence.
Independence is never absolute; it’s always partial, relational, and contextual. It’s always a work in progress. It can never be attained in full, but our dream should be full freedom, without compromise. Therefore, the fight for freedom should be an ongoing, never-to-stop battle. And the freedom fighter is everyone — you, me, the government, and you name it. 
Ìý
Obaidul Hamid is an associate professor at the University of Queensland in Australia. He researches language, education, and society in the developing world. He is a co-editor of Current Issues in Language Planning.
