The University Teachers’ Network (UTN) has strongly criticised the recently-signed July Charter, terming it “questionable.” The teachers also termed Chief Adviser Muhammad Yunus’ speech “objectionable.”
“The chief adviser attempted to highlight the significance of the charter but instead dragged in many unnecessary and irrelevant points,” said a statement issued on Sunday.
Although the July Charter signing ceremony took place on Friday at the South Plaza of Parliament with much fanfare, there was little public interest in the event from the outset due to widespread questions on the process and scope of its drafting, it mentioned.
The teachers’ network also noted that the interim government’s approach to forming various reform and consensus commissions, holding dialogues, and preparing the charter “has disappointed many of the key stakeholders of the mass uprising.”
The teachers have alleged that the government has become “so disconnected from the people” that the voices of many sectors – such as education and health – as well as genuine public aspirations, were excluded from the final recommendations.
They added that the charter lacks any real commitments for women, gender minorities, and indigenous communities.
“The government excluded multiple groups from the final process to appease a select few, while disregarding the demands of students, the largest stakeholder in the uprising. This so-called ‘unity’ was exposed on the very day of the signing when a faction of ‘July fighters’ protested, and police carried out a disgraceful attack on them,” the statement read.
They further alleged that while many political parties did not attend the signing ceremony, the government and the consensus commission were “eager to push through a specific political agenda.”
As a result, the charter “failed to unite the nation and has become questionable,” potentially leading to a new political crisis, they warned.
The organisation also pointed to the chief adviser’s nearly 30-minute speech, saying it reflected these divisions.
“He introduced a highly objectionable and controversial topic, which is not only politically charged but also sociologically and philosophically reactionary,” the statement concluded.
