From Mohammad Tariqur Rahman
In early June, students in Bangladesh, under a non-political banner, began a peaceful protest against the 30% quota for government jobs reserved for the descendants of freedom fighters.
The provision for a temporary quota-based recruitment in government jobs is enshrined in the nation’s constitution, but it is intended for unprivileged groups, including women, tribal groups, and people with disabilities.
As a gesture of gratitude, respect, and need, freedom fighters and their descendants were awarded certain privileges after independence, leading to the quota provision for government jobs.
Practically speaking, the children of the youngest freedom fighters from 1971 would exceed the age limit to enter a government job by 2024. Hence, the beneficiaries of the 30% quota would be the grandchildren of the freedom fighters, which is logically questionable.
Furthermore, their estimated number would not exceed 0.5% of the total population, and many of them do not belong to unprivileged groups in the country.
Ironically, after deducting the quota for other groups, less than 45% of the jobs in the same category are available to those qualified based on their performance in the lengthy and rigorous evaluation process for recruitment.
Amid a student protest in 2018, the 30% quota for the descendants of freedom fighters was cancelled. Apparently, the then prime minister (who is also the current prime minister) cancelled the quota provision out of frustration or annoyance. This act was questioned since the prime minister is expected to act without anger, grief, annoyance, or prejudice.
Recently, the High Court’s verdict declared the 2018 cancellation of the quota by executive order illegal. The High Court’s verdict was not welcomed by the current students.
Thus, the rise of the 2024 Quota Reform Movement resulted in the Bangla Blockade. Gradually, but at an unprecedented pace, the protest under the umbrella of the “Anti-Discrimination Students’ Movement” gained momentum across the country.
For logical reasons, the movement is supported by the masses, irrespective of their political or other affiliations.
Initially, the general students’ protest was foolishly countered by the Bangladesh Awami League’s student wing, Chhatra League, allegedly under the command and protection of the ruling party. Chhatra League is known for its violence against general students and student wings of other political parties.
Failing to suppress the massive and firm student protest, leaders and activists of Chhatra League from university dormitories had to flee. General students started to pay a deadly price for standing against the High Court’s decision and for humiliating leaders and activists of Chhatra League.
On July 16, Abu Sayed, a student of Begum Rokeya University (Rangpur), stood unarmed in front of the police with his hands extended in the air. Police shot him dead. The protest took a twist and now has resulted in more than 50 deaths, mostly university students, with the number increasing daily, if not hourly.
After initially denying the demands for quota reform, the law minister of the country offered a dialogue. However, it was perhaps too late for those who lost their friends and loved ones. The situation became more volatile.
The government continued the crackdown in an autocratic manner. The country is now literally disconnected from the rest of the world. Any form of network has been blocked by the government. Immigrants from Bangladesh living in different parts of the world are unable to contact their family and relatives for more than 24 hours.
No one knows what is happening in Bangladesh. Can the rest of the world do something about it?
Prof Mohammad Tariqur Rahman is associate dean (continuing education) at the Faculty of Dentistry, Universiti Malaya, and an associate member of the university’s Centre for Leadership and Professional Development.
The views expressed are those of the writer and do not necessarily reflect those of FMT.