Why ‘anti-discrimination coordinator’ adviser and politician show district bias

Asif Mahmud Sajib Bhuiyan became Adviser to the Local Government through the Anti-discrimination Student Movement. But after being appointed adviser, he himself has been engaging in discriminatory behaviour, showing clear favouritism towards his own district. The cabinet secretary is also linked to this.

According to news published on Thursday (25 September), the Local Government Engineering Department (LGED) is taking up a project worth Tk 2,400 crore for road and rural infrastructure repair and development in Asif Mahmud Sajib Bhuiyan’s district, Cumilla. The largest allocation within this project is going to his own upazila, Muradnagar (Tk 453 crore).

The second largest allocation is for Debidwar upazila (Tk 338 crore), the home constituency of Hasnat Abdullah, Chief Coordinator (South) of the National Citizen Party (NCP). Reports suggest that Cabinet Secretary Sheikh Abdur Rashid is moving in the same direction. In his home district Satkhira, the LGED is undertaking a project worth Tk 2,198 crore, in which Sheikh Abdur Rashid himself played a role. Sources at the Planning Commission stated that LGED has never before undertaken such a large single-district project.

The quota reform movement eventually turned into an anti-discrimination movement, which drew in students and eventually led to the mass uprising of July last year. But since the uprising, it has become evident that the very coordinators of the movement are themselves engaging in discriminatory practices. Many have taken senior positions in government, while others have joined political parties and availed various privileges. This has led to growing misunderstandings and disputes among the coordinators themselves.

When the mass uprising was led by young students, particularly under the banner of the anti-discrimination movement, ordinary people had been hopeful that finally better days might come. They believed inequality would be reduced. In recent years, inequality had been growing across all areas—whether in government or private institutions, including the education sector. It had gripped the country’s administrative, institutional, and economic structures like a genie out of the bottle. The widespread participation in the anti-discrimination movement reflected people’s hope that such inequalities would be reduced. But in practice, the opposite seems to be happening.

Those from whom we expected time-appropriate leadership—who we hoped would fight hard to reduce inequality at every level of society and state—have, after assuming major responsibilities, started behaving just like the powerful figures of the past. This has deeply disheartened the people. The latest revelations are the clearest example of that disappointment. Why did two coordinators—one now serving as a government Adviser, and the other a senior political leader—pull state allocations towards their own districts? This is not only district-based favouritism, but also nepotism.

We also know that many local contractors benefit directly from such development projects, often taking the lion’s share. How these projects will ultimately be completed remains uncertain. With elections ahead, will these projects even remain effective after a new political party comes to power? We believe there is scope to reconsider these projects in light of the actual situation. Why LGED has taken up larger local projects than ever before must be made transparent.

We expect that the coordinators of the anti-discrimination movement, who have become leaders within government and political parties, will refrain from actions that will later call their integrity into question.