THE announcement of the Students Against Discrimination and its National Citizens’ Committee that the proclamation of the July uprising would be made at the Central Shaheed Minar on December 31 sparked widespread discussion and criticism in political and intellectual circles. Firstly, even if delayed, we do need a written expression of the people’s political aspirations in the form of a proclamation for July mass uprising. Ideally, this should have been announced between August 5 and August 10. Any major event requires a proclamation. Without it, the event occupies a smaller place in history as an incomplete narrative.
I do not merely call the July uprising a mass uprising. It was a mass uprising full of revolutionary potential. However, this potential was stifled from the outset when leaders of the movement such as Nahid Islam failed to announce a clear political framework for the post-regime scenario at Shahbagh or the Central Shaheed Minar. Once the Shahbagh or the Shaheed Minar space was bypassed and Bangabhaban became the site for political settlements, the revolution was effectively hijacked. Secondly, politicians and unthinking intellectuals ensured that the largest mass uprising in Bangladesh’s history was constrained within an authoritarian constitution, thereby preventing it from evolving into a revolutionary force.
This led to the empowerment of all fascist elements within the structure of the fallen regime, including bureaucrats. These same elements obstructed Yunus’s government from consolidating power. When the announcement, Nahid Islam’s proclamation, was made at the Shaheed Minar on August 3, calling for the dismantling of the fascist system, we saw the intellectual community, along with the deep state, systematically working to preserve the old structures. The Bangladesh Nationalist Party, the Bangladesh Jamaat-e-Islami, the Jatiya Party and a handful of others, instead of supporting revolutionary change, collaborated to maintain the existing system step by step. Efforts were made to block the removal of the president and resist the drafting of a new constitution. Bureaucratic reform was obstructed with covert support for the bureaucrats.
Even now, some are reluctant at allowing necessary reforms. Most political parties, for instance, advocate superficial reforms to hastily conduct elections, their main objective being to cross the election bridge and reclaim power while leaving the old systems and structures intact. If the July proclamation had been declared in August 5–10, many of the actions could have been thwarted. Without restructuring the state of Bangladesh, they merely wish to govern its people, a scenario that we can no longer accept. This is why we need a new constitution. This is why we need a revolutionary overhaul of the decayed systems to establish a democratic structure. And this is why the proclamation of the July uprising is essential. But in the meantime, the chief adviser’s office announced that the government would issue the July proclamation in consultation with all political parties and students to reach a consensus.
Some fear that the proclamation that the students were set to announce on December 31, which could have carried a certain vitality and spirit, might lose its revolutionary potential if the government, along with the deep state, and political parties issued a consensus proclamation instead. Many believe that the deep state is now pushing the government to ensure the issuance of such a proclamation to undermine the revolutionary possibilities that have emerged with the prospect of the students declaring their own proclamation, thereby reigniting the revolutionary spirit of the July uprising to some extent.
The government can certainly issue the proclamation of the July uprising. However, after five months, given how various groups in the movement, including political parties, have become entangled in power struggles and ideological conflicts, it remains to be seen whether a proclamation made by the government in consultation with everyone truly reflects the intent of the people’s July uprising. The proclamation should include a separate declaration by the students, who were the main architects of the movement. This separate declaration will keep the spirit of July alive and give their politics a distinct identity.
Struggle/demonstration does not only mean occupying the streets. It also involves capturing the essence of the street battles in words. The way this is articulated determines how vividly the memory of the struggle is preserved. If the government, after consulting with all political parties, incorporates only what everyone agrees on into the proclamation, it will no longer remain a proclamation of July. Instead, it will become a document of what the political parties, the government and the military want to take from July. It will not be a document of the people’s uprising.
July is not being called a classic revolution, but it is not merely a mass uprising either. It is something in between. July is primarily an anti-fascist and anti-neocolonial aggression, post-modern mass uprising, which, if successful, could evolve into a new form of democratic revolution. This can be understood by those who serve as vanguards of this uprising. The deep state and political parties are now trying to reduce this mass uprising to a mere regime change, aiming to proceed with superficial reforms of the old system. As a result, any consensus reached with them in drafting the proclamation will essentially be a document of compromise and a co-opted revolution. Those who do not wish to transform such a monumental mass uprising as July into a ‘democratic revolution’ and, instead, continuously portray it as merely an uprising to overthrow Hasina, thereby protecting the fascist system and oppressive structures, are unlikely to produce a proclamation that can truly capture the essence of July.
The essence of a revolution is to remain elusive and unattainable. The extent to which we can capture that elusive revolution in the constitution, governance, systems, consciousness and actions is our true achievement. If the Students Against Discrimination and the National Citizens’ committee issue a proclamation on reaching a consensus with those obstructing this effort and it fails to reflect the people’s power and aspirations of July, it will be a historic mistake. Rather than compromising, it is better to leave July open to interpretation and analysis.
The general populace of Bangladesh is one of the most resilient and determined in the world. Time and again, they have fought for liberation and the history of this country is a history of uprisings. Yet, the absence of a liberal democratic framework and system is less the fault of the people and more the responsibility of the educated elite and intellectuals. Their lack of political understanding, disinterest in revolutionary change and complicity in siding with domestic and foreign agencies against the masses during historical turning points have repeatedly led to failures in building the state and its institutions.
Despite fighting harder than the people of the United States, who initiated a democratic revolution in 1776, the people of this country remain crushed under extreme authoritarian rules. The US proclamation, based on the principle that all people are born with the Creator-endowed rights to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness became the foundation for their constitution and governance system. In contrast, despite the sacrifices and heroic struggles in 1857, 1947, 1971, 1990 and 2024, the people of this country have yet to secure their rights to life, liberty and happiness. How could they? A colonial-style bureaucracy continues to weigh heavily on the people. The members of the parliament act as feudal landlords. And, the police and security forces operate within a colonial framework. In such a system, protecting life and liberty is impossible, let alone ensuring happiness.
Corruption and looting dominate the education and health sectors, enabled by the implementation of neoliberal policies designed to facilitate such plunder. Now, after the bloody uprising of 2024, political parties are relentlessly pushing for a mere change of power through elections, leaving the old oppressive systems, exploitative mechanisms and looting apparatus untouched. While superficial reforms may be offered to placate the public, the revolutionary systemic change that we envisioned has been replaced with hollow discussions of reform. Even, those superficial reforms are now being obstructed. Politicians, obsessed with the prospect of power, seem eager to taste its rewards before the grass even grows on the graves of the martyrs.
In this context, a July proclamation, even if delayed, is necessary. However, it must not propose superficial reforms but rather declare revolutionary changes. This means dismantling the colonial and fascist state apparatus, including the bureaucracy, the police, security forces, military, universities, local administration and government structure and announcing the reconstruction of the state as the central demand. If the proclamation merely seeks to legitimise this government and propose sugar-coated reforms under the guise of consensus, it will reduce the July uprising to the level of 1990, a missed opportunity for true systemic transformation.
The 1776 US Declaration of Independence states that governments are instituted with the consent of the people to secure their rights to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. Furthermore, it asserts that whenever any government becomes destructive to these ends, the people have the right to alter or abolish it and to establish a new government. In essence, according to the US constitution, a revolution against a government that violates and destroys people’s natural rights is legally justified. In contrast, in Bangladesh, those who demand that the protection of people’s rights should be declared the primary focus of the constitution, call for a new constitutional framework and advocate a revolutionary change in the oppressive systems that strip the people of their rights are being labelled as ‘reckless.’
However, such principles should have been embedded in the constitution following the liberation war of 1971. Some intellectuals claim that the 1972 constitution addresses the rights of the people. But it did not place sufficient emphasis on securing these rights and the proposed power structures left room for their violation. These same intellectuals fail to mention that unlike the US vonstitution, which makes the protection of people’’s rights the foundation of government and recognises revolutionary resistance as legitimate if those rights are violated, the Bangladeshi constitution includes no such provisions.
The important question now is: what will be included in the July proclamation announced by the government? If this proclamation declares a revolutionary transformation to dismantle the fascist structures of the state and establish people’s sovereignty — meaning sovereignty resides with the people, or more specifically, the individual, rather than the government or the parliament — it would be groundbreaking. To ensure the dignity and development of individuals and to enable the full potential of their bodies and souls, a people-friendly policy, structure and system must be developed across all sectors, including public administration, education, health care, justice and the economy. A new constitution must be framed with this goal in mind. If the framework for state-building and the political aspirations of the people are reflected in this proclamation, the July proclamation could become a charter of dignity and liberation for the people.
In Bangladesh’s constitution, sovereignty has been vested in the government or the parliament, making the stability of the government or security of the state the priority, rather than the protection of people’s rights. This has led to laws and regulations that undermine basic rights under the pretext of ensuring government stability or maintaining state security and order. Thus, the July proclamation must explicitly state that sovereignty belongs to the people, not the government or the parliament. Establishing popular sovereignty should be the central focus of the new constitution and political practices. The existing system of parliamentary authoritarianism and constitutional fascism must be abolished to declare popular or individual sovereignty.
The state apparatus and government must be prohibited from enacting or enforcing laws that oppose the rights and development of its citizens. If the government violates citizens’ rights, a people’s revolution against such a government must be constitutionally justified. The July proclamation must also address the issue of class. The current constitution, laws and structures of the country do not provide a structural framework to protect the rights of the working class and the lower strata of society.
Therefore, this proclamation must include a clear framework on how the rights of workers and subaltern groups will be protected. It should also contain specific guidelines on ensuring the political and social rights of minorities and indigenous communities and how to build trust with these groups. Additionally, the July proclamation should address the protection of national independence, the development of the economy and the equitable distribution of resources. These aspects must be part of the declaration to make it comprehensive and effective.
Ìý
Dr Zobaer Al Mahmud, an associate professor in the clinical pharmacy and pharmacology department in the University of Dhaka, is a political thinker.
