The assault of a Dhaka University teacher, long known for his open alignment with the Awami League on campus, has once again exposed the entrenched and troubling nexus between university teachers and partisan politics in Bangladesh.
Although violence against a teacher is indefensible under any circumstance, the incident has revived an uncomfortable truth: for decades, academics have allowed party loyalty to overshadow their commitment to scholarship, institutional integrity, and the intellectual independence that should define higher education.
The victim, Sociology professor AKM Jamal, himself was recruited on political considerations during Sheikh Hasina’s first tenure, drawing major controversy as he allegedly did not meet the required eligibility criteria. This serves as an example of the political manipulation of appointments—a practice every government in Bangladesh has pursued, often at the expense of qualified candidates.
Jamal and many like-minded teachers supported the Hasina regime even after the mindless killings of hundreds during the 2024 student-led movement. Some, like Jamal, were later assaulted, while others became inactive after her fall. However, this shift ultimately paved the way for teachers leaning toward BNP and Jamaat to take control of Dhaka university campus.
Bangladesh’s public universities were envisioned as spaces of free inquiry, critical thinking, and rigorous research. Yet, over time, many teachers have drifted from these ideals, becoming foot soldiers of political parties rather than guardians of academia.
Whether aligned with the Awami League, BNP, or Jamaat, a significant portion of faculty members have treated their campuses as political battlegrounds—actively participating in party programs, mobilizing student organizations, and using their influence to shape campus politics.
These activities are rarely incidental. They are calculated moves designed to curry favour with ruling parties and secure coveted administrative posts—such as vice-chancellorships, deanships, or the politically influential roles of university proctor and dormitory provost.
This phenomenon is neither new nor confined to any single party or public university. Successive governments have rewarded loyalists with key posts, embedding patronage so deeply that many teachers now view political engagement not as a deviation from academic responsibility but as a parallel career path.
A vicious cycle sustains itself: teachers join political networks; political parties rely on them to consolidate campus control; and once in power, parties repay loyalty with institutional authority. The result is a university culture where merit is overshadowed by political allegiance, and administrative decisions often reflect partisan calculations rather than academic need.
This politicization has taken a heavy toll on teaching quality and research output. Many university departments struggle with irregular classes, delayed examinations, and limited scholarly contributions, while some teachers are far more visible at political events than in lecture halls.
Students bear the brunt—trapped in a system where academic excellence is secondary to political patronage, and where teachers who should be mentors often become political brokers.
The moral cost is equally severe. The dignity historically associated with the teaching profession has eroded as teachers themselves blur the line between academic leadership and partisan activism. The very individuals who should be shaping critical, independent minds instead reinforce polarization. When teachers publicly chant party slogans, join street processions, or actively seek political appointments, they undermine not only their own credibility but also the sanctity of the institutions entrusted to them.
The assault on the Awami League–aligned teacher is symptomatic of this corrosive environment. It illustrates how deeply universities have become entangled in political competition so much so that teachers are no longer respected as educators but are targeted as political actors. Violence must be condemned, but so too must the underlying system that normalizes political dependency among those responsible for nurturing the nation’s intellectual future.
Restoring dignity to academia will require a collective reckoning: teachers must reconsider their priorities, and political parties must recognize that long-term national progress depends on scholars who teach, research, and inspire, not on those who serve as party poodles.
