Mass uprising of 2024 did not fulfill people's aspirations

The departure of a patriarch does not mean the end of patriarchy. Dismantling patriarchy requires a social revolution—something that has yet to happen in our country. Equality of rights among people has not been established; nor is there any immediate hope of decentralizing power. Securing the fulfillment of people’s basic needs still remains a distant dream. And because social ownership has not replaced private ownership through a social revolution, the real foundation of inequality remains intact.

What about independence? We've received it again and again—once in 1947, again in 1971, and now it's said that we’ve achieved it once more on August 5, 2024. But have we truly gained real independence? Let us remember: true independence means liberation—primarily, economic liberation. That liberation is nowhere in sight. Inequality reigns supreme, and its guardians are capitalism and imperialism. Fascism is merely capitalism’s ugliest form.

The most significant slogan of the 1969 uprising was the establishment of a sovereign democratic East Bengal. It seemed that goal was within reach, especially since socialists were the primary force behind the uprising. But a people’s state was never realized. State power ended up in the hands of the bourgeoisie. And these bourgeois elites have sunk so low that their love for the country has steadily declined—like water flowing downhill. Wherever they saw land, rivers, forests, or banks, they looted and exploited for personal gain or for smuggling wealth abroad. The development they brought about through capitalist means left the laboring masses—those whose work made it possible—not only deprived but also crushed under the weight of that development.

The crisis facing Bangladesh today stems from the bourgeois state system and its ruling class. These rulers are devoid of patriotism and obsessed with self-interest. The emperors have no clothes. The people see everything but cannot speak out—because they lack any political power of their own.

The mass uprising of 2024 was in many ways different from previous ones. Although students initiated it, its strength and momentum came from the spontaneous participation of a massive number of people. In 1969 too, students began the movement and workers and the general populace joined in. But the extent and spontaneity of participation then was nowhere near what we’ve seen now. Nor did it spill as much blood. The 1969 uprising was starting to spread from cities to villages, but the bourgeoisie—fearing a social revolution—shut it down.

The groundwork for the 2024 uprising didn’t emerge suddenly either. On one hand, public dissatisfaction was mounting, supported by years of groundwork from opposition parties. On the other, the previous government's unprecedented reign of terror kept fanning the flames. The terrain was being laid out through conflict.

The Prime Minister was a woman, but her regime was thoroughly patriarchal. No other leader in independent Bangladesh matched the level of repression she unleashed. She would have gone even further if the armed forces had not refused.

H.M. Ershad couldn’t maintain his patriarchal rule for even fifteen years—he fell after just over a decade. He too tried to use military force and bloodshed to hold power. But the armed forces didn’t consent, and he was forced to surrender. He couldn’t flee the country—unlike the recently ousted Prime Minister. Even in her final moments, she wanted the military to use more force. But the top generals declined. They couldn’t justify drowning the land in blood drawn from the very people they were meant to protect.

This time, the uprising was far more widespread and spontaneous. The cry against inequality was almost universal. Students rose up against discrimination in job quotas, but their parents carried that same cry within them, as they too had been wounded by various forms of injustice. The people who came to rallies and marches understood deeply what inequality meant. No one can deny that the “grand architecture” of our state and society is built upon inequality. Those who built that structure through their labor do not enjoy its comforts; they live in the cracks and ditches it created. The entire capitalist system rests on the shoulders of the dissatisfied and tearful deprived masses. If those at the bottom begin to stir, the whole structure risks collapse. So, they are suppressed and silenced by every means possible.

A hallmark of any uprising is the breaking of fear. That happened again this time—because of unity, and because of youthful courage. A memorable symbol of this youth power was Rokia University student Abu Saeed, who stood tall with arms wide open and chest forward in front of a police gun. No one will ever be able to destroy that statue, because it’s made of unbreakable material and engraved in the pages of our collective history.

The state fears the youth. Society doesn’t really welcome them either. The state routinely makes arrangements to suppress young people, and society joins in. One seemingly small issue that’s actually very significant is the absence of student union elections at universities. Student wings of ruling parties dominate with an iron grip. Democratic training for youth should begin with educational institutions and student councils. Once, these unions existed—even during military regimes. But after the fall of autocrat Ershad in 1991, when so-called democratic governments began rotating in power, student unions disappeared. In their place came the autocracy of ruling-party student organizations.

What does this “progress” mean? It means the state has become more authoritarian, and is moving toward fascism, the apex of which we saw in the feudalistic conduct of the last Prime Minister. The rulers are happy if youth become thugs, addicts, or gang members—because the more youth lose their vigor and potential, the more secure the rulers feel. It’s simple arithmetic.

The cry against inequality isn’t new. It’s an ancient war cry of the deprived. But it must be repeated again and again—because inequality doesn’t go away unless the system changes. And if the system stays the same, inequality only worsens, as it has. After the system-shaking uprising of 1969, Maulana Bhashani roared in his unmistakable youthful voice, “Some will eat, others won’t—this won’t do, this won’t do.” Like the opening line of a world-renowned poem. During that same 1969 uprising, when Bhashani supporter Asad was martyred by the police under Ayub Khan’s patriarchal regime, his comrades chanted, “Asad’s mantra is people's democracy.” The same voice, in different words. Even Asad’s predecessor, Language Movement martyr Barkat, came from that same political lineage—a lineage rooted in the struggle against inequality, starting with the fight for our mother tongue.

That lineage never achieved victory. Nor has it this time. That’s why we keep needing movements, new uprisings. But though the people bring about uprisings, it is the bourgeoisie who end up in power. They come dressed in new clothes, under new names, with new language—again and again. Each new ruler becomes more brutal than the last. Bourgeois rule will never end unless the capitalist system itself is dismantled.

In our politics, there are many parties—but only two streams. One belongs to the bourgeoisie, the other to the people. The bourgeois stream dominates. Awami League, BNP, Jamaat-e-Islami, Hefazat-e-Islam—all are part of it. Both the ultra-polite liberals and the deeply conservative hardliners belong to this stream. No matter their outward appearance, deep down they all believe in private ownership, personal profit, and they all support capitalism.

Opposed to this is the people’s stream—the socialist one. Its aim is to establish social ownership of property. The main weakness of socialists in our country is their lack of unity. Capitalists don’t have that problem. Yes, they fight among themselves—even kill each other—just like family feuds over inheritance. But they remain united on one core principle: keeping the capitalist system alive. And their common enemy is socialism.

Socialists aim to replace private ownership with social ownership through revolution, to establish equality of rights and opportunities, to humanize and sustain social relationships—to preserve and nurture humanity. The bourgeois strive to crush that socialist movement through exploitation and repression.

That drama of conflict continues, and uprisings keep happening. But inequality persists, and power remains in the hands of the exploitative bourgeoisie. The only change is in hands and tricks, like a card game. And to hold on to power, the bourgeoisie want to turn the state machinery into a monster. Brutality increases because the number of angry people grows, and they protest, they rebel, and the possibility of anti-capitalist struggle becomes real.

Socialists in our country have always been present in every uprising—they’ve often been its driving force. But due to division and confusion, they’ve failed to lead. And the bourgeoisie seize that opportunity. This time was no different.

Sirajul Islam Chowdhury: Professor Emeritus, University of Dhaka