One year into the 2024 July Uprising, which toppled the once-impregnable Sheikh Hasina regime, Saikat Arif, general secretary of Students’ Federation of Bangladesh, has shared his insights into the existing student politics in the country, and the ongoing fight for democracy with Taufiq Hossain Mobin of TIMES of Bangladesh.
Q: How do you evaluate the demand to ban student politics before and after the July uprising, particularly from some students at Dhaka University?
A: Historically, student politics was the driving force in Bangladesh. From the 1952 Language Movement to the fall of Ershad in 1990, students led major political changes. Many governments, including Ershad’s, tried to ban student politics. But he failed. Rather, he was removed from power by same students he tried to silence.
Since 1990, there has been a long-term investment in undermining student politics, depicting it as violent by portraying the negative activities of ruling-party student wings.
During the July Uprising, some people suddenly demanded that student politics be banned without any discussion with organisations spearheaded by students. We believe it was not random, rather a political strategy by some underground groups, once banned, to make room for their return in campus politics.
Q: What do you mean by “underground organisations”?
A: After the fascist government fell, some unknown faces suddenly became student leaders. Many of them were from Chhatra Shibir. These people had hidden their political identities, some even joined rallies of the currently banned Chhatra League.
After the uprising, most of them started demanding a ban on student politics, still hiding their identities. Hence comes the term “underground”, also proven by a recent incident at Titumir College. By introducing this divisive demand, they derailed the possibility of a long-overdue, qualitative transformation of student politics.
Q: Can student union elections improve student politics?
A: Yes, absolutely. Elections give students a chance to choose real leaders. In the past, even most violent groups were more careful during elections, because they had to face voters. Without elections, student leadership depends on satisfying senior party figures, creating a toxic culture of obedience and encouraging violence.
Restoring regular elections under an academic calendar would redirect leadership ambitions toward student service and reduce external interference.
Q: Why didn’t student organisations lead the July uprising openly?
A: The uprising started with the quota-reform movement. It was not planned as a big political revolt. Anti-fascist student groups worried that if they joined openly, the government would paint it as political conspiracy.
So, they helped without visible participation.
They gave shelter, support and helped organise protests behind the scenes. After the July 15 crackdown, many came out more publicly.
Q: Now that Hasina is gone, is fascism over? Or can it come back?
A: Fascism didn’t emerge overnight—it was sustained through polarisation. Since the 2014 uncontested election, we have lived under a regime where political factions failed to unite due to deep mistrust.
Hasina exploited this division. The Anti-fascist Student Unity, formed in 2023, shattered this divide for the first time, uniting student groups across ideological lines.
But fascism was both a political narrative and a structural arrangement, not just any political settlement. It’s a system—an unfair economy, a biased culture.
We need deep changes, not just new faces. Unless we address economic inequality and cultural reform as well, dismantling just the regime won’t be enough, fascism can return.
Q: What happened to unity among student bodies after the uprising?
A: At first, we were united. Even when the demand to ban student politics came, nobody spoke against it—because we didn’t want to break the unity.
After the interim government was formed on August 8, we believed it was very important to keep the student unity alive, because it had brought down a dictatorship. We held a meeting on August 12 with other student groups and said, “Let’s protect this unity and run the new platform (anti-discrimination movement) together.”
But later, some leaders tried to use the uprising to push their own politics, as if only their group mattered. Also, groups like Chhatra Shibir started claiming the success of the uprising was only due to their efforts.
We also suggested creating a shared goal for all student groups, since we all joined the uprising for different reasons. But that never happened. Instead, some tried to say their own political ideas were the real aim of the uprising. These made the unity fall apart.
Q: What role can student organisations play in national politics?
A: In Bangladesh, most national leaders come from student politics. This shows student politics is strong. But it also shows a problem—workers, farmers and poor people are not getting leadership opportunities.
During the July uprising, the strongest protests didn’t come from universities. They came from poor areas like Basila, Ashulia, Jatrabari, Uttara and Dakkhinkhan. These are working-class neighbourhoods.
But no labour leader became a main face of the movement. That’s because the system doesn’t let poor people become leaders. It’s not just unfair—it’s class hatred.
One example: a girl’s body was found after the uprising. People thought she was a private university student, and everyone got emotional. But when they found out she was a garment worker, the topic disappeared from social media.
This shows how deeply our society looks down on the working class.
Q: So, is it good or bad that student politics dominates national leadership?
A: It’s bad if only one class produces leaders. A healthy democracy needs voices from all groups—students, workers, farmers and more. Right now, student politics dominates because the others are ignored. If we don’t fix that, we won’t have real democracy.
Q: To your eyes, how successful has the Students’ Federation of Bangladesh been?
A: Politically, we have led many important movements—be it for the Sundarbans, for safe roads, quota reform and against fascism. We lost our comrade Zulfikar Ahmed Shakil in the uprising. Many others were hurt. We were there on the frontlines.
Organisationally, we’re growing, though slowly. But we’re committed to going further.
Q: What is Students’ Federation of Bangladesh’s plan if student union elections return?
A: We want student politics to be about ideals, not muscle power. After the uprising, we suggested writing down common rules—like no violence between groups, more debates instead of fights. That plan didn’t work out initially, but we’re still pushing for change and watching the state closely.
Q: What is the interim government’s attitude toward student politics?
A: No government likes student politics—because students are brave and speak truth to power. This interim government is the same. Some of their people even helped push the plan to ban student politics. But we all said no to the ban. Still, they haven’t changed the mindset.
Q: Can you give examples of how they tried to stop student politics?
A: After the uprising, talks about banning student politics became loud. No adviser, not even those who used to be student leaders, stood up strongly to stop it. Only Nahid Islam made a mild comment. Why? Maybe they didn’t want to lose power or upset powerful people behind the scenes.
The silence from top interim figures enabled efforts of the idea pushed by those with ties to banned political groups.
Under past regimes like Ershad or caretaker governments, attempts to ban student politics reflected elite fears of youth-led transformation. The current chief adviser himself publicly opposed student politics many times during past caretaker regimes.