The Gains, Rejections and Sacrifices of the July Uprising

Dr. Sayantha Shakhawat

The July Uprising is an important chapter in Bangladesh’s political history. It was not merely a change of political power; rather, it was a socio-political awakening rooted in opposition to discrimination, abuse of power and the crisis of accountability, and in the aspiration to establish citizens’ rights. At its core was the dream of a state where citizens’ dignity, freedom of expression, rule of law and justice would be ensured.

BNP leaders and activists faced imprisonment, persecution and, in many cases, death while fighting to restore democracy and voting rights. Many were subjected to enforced disappearance and killing. The fascist government used state forces in such acts. Justice was also difficult to obtain through the judiciary, where some judges even described themselves as politicians bound by oath. The BNP sought to protect the judiciary from such misconduct.

The fascist government had turned constitutional institutions into instruments for retaining power. Through Vision 2030 and its 31-point state reform plan, the BNP sought to inspire young people and present a vision of a reformed state. Eventually, many of these demands became demands of the people.

The ultimate expression of these aspirations was the mass uprising of July 36, 2024. Nearly 1,500 people lost their lives, while many others lost their eyesight. By sacrificing their vision, they gave the nation an opportunity to envision a new Bangladesh. Yet questions have since emerged: have we preserved the aspirations, spirit and unity that brought people to the streets, or are we gradually sacrificing them?

The participation of ordinary people was decisive. Students, young people, workers, professionals, women and men came together around a common aspiration: to build a state where the interests of the people would stand above those of individuals or political parties.

The aspirations behind the uprising were multifaceted. First was the demand for an accountable state. Political influence over state institutions, administrative inefficiency and questions about judicial impartiality had created deep public frustration. The uprising became an expression of popular anger against these failures.

Second was the restoration of citizens’ rights. Freedom of expression, political participation, equal application of the law and the rebuilding of public trust in state institutions were among its central objectives. Third, the uprising represented the political emergence of a new generation. Young people demonstrated that the state is not the exclusive property of political parties but an institution collectively owned by the people. Thus, the spirit of July is fundamentally about institution-based state-building rather than personalities.

The uprising has produced several positive changes. New discussions have emerged on state governance, electoral reform, administrative reform, judicial independence, corruption, human rights and civil liberties. Young people, many of whom had become disillusioned with politics, are showing renewed interest. Issues long ignored, including proposals previously put forward by the BNP, have entered the centre of national debate. Above all, awareness of citizens’ rights and demands for an accountable state have grown stronger.

However, a troubling reality has also emerged. Soon after the uprising, political parties, social organisations and various groups began competing to claim credit for it. Some sought to portray it as their political victory, while others tried to present it as the exclusive success of their ideology. As a result, a movement whose strength lay in unity and universality has gradually faced division.

When the spirit of July is treated as the property of a particular party, ideology or group, its universal character is weakened and the contributions of ordinary participants are pushed into the background. History belongs to the people, not to any individual or party. When history is turned into political capital, distrust, rivalry and division grow among the very forces that supported the movement.

Another concern is that some actions carried out in the name of July are inconsistent with its original aspirations. The uprising taught that the state belongs to the people, not to any individual or party. If state decisions are judged primarily by party loyalty, or if revenge takes precedence over reform, public expectations will remain unfulfilled. People wanted more than a transfer of power; they wanted fundamental changes in political culture, administrative behaviour and governance. Without such changes, the achievements of the uprising may gradually fade.

Preserving the spirit of July therefore requires that the movement not be claimed by any single person or party. It was a movement of the people, and its credit belongs to the people. Political competition must give way to a culture of democratic cooperation. Reform must be institution-based rather than centred on individuals or parties, so that the state’s fundamental principles do not change with every transfer of power.

The July mass uprising created an opportunity to build a new Bangladesh through public participation. Anything that obstructs that goal should be rejected, but the aspirations of the people must never be sacrificed. The foremost objective must be to build a sustainable democratic Bangladesh.

Theda Skocpol, in her 1979 study States and Social Revolutions, showed through her analysis of the French, Chinese and Russian revolutions that the redistribution of power after a revolution can weaken its declared ideals when institutional reform loses out to political competition.

Similarly, Turkish-American economist Daron Acemoglu and British-American economist and political scientist James A. Robinson argued that sustainable political change requires inclusive institutions. Otherwise, only the outward distribution of power changes while the fundamental character of governance remains intact. The path Bangladesh’s new leadership chooses will therefore be crucial to observe.

Writer: Physician, author and political analyst.