Why July gave Bangladesh its psychological liberation

To classify Bangladesh’s watershed political transformations in July 2024 requires looking past the conventional binaries of contemporary political analysis. Was the uprising a right-wing, Islamist surge, or was it a secularist correction? 

The reality is that it was neither. 

To understand the true anatomy of the July Uprising, one must look beyond these neat ideological labels and interrogate the profound undercurrents of grievance that drove citizens from all strata of society into the streets. 

The immediate objective was undeniable…the dismantling of Sheikh Hasina’s increasingly brutal, fifteen-year authoritarian regime. Yet the deep-seated anger that fueled this mass mobilization was directed at an even more consequential legacy of the Bangladesh Awami League (BAL). 

Under Sheikh Hasina, Bangladesh had effectively been reduced to a “client state” of its overbearing neighbor, India, a geopolitical reality that systematically eroded the country's sovereign democratic institutions.

For over a decade and a half, the ruling apparatus maintained its grip through the standard tools of autocracy—enforced disappearances, extrajudicial killings, and the ruthless suppression of dissent. But its most sophisticated mechanism of control was what can be termed a "discursive hegemony." 

This ideological scaffolding was sustained by a cozy, metropolitan axis of secular, politico-bureaucratic, and cultural oligarchs. Leveraging sympathetic elements of the national media, this elite manufactured a narrative that legitimized the regime’s excesses while shielding it from democratic accountability. 

At the absolute center of this ideological project was the weaponization of the Ekattorer Chetona, or the "Spirit of 1971." Originally a symbol of liberation, the narrative was transformed by the ruling elite into a lucrative ideological industry. 

It became a cudgel used to marginalize the vast majority of the population—a culturally Muslim, non-elite demographic that fits the classic definition of the "subaltern." By framing any critique of the state as an assault on the foundational myths of 1971, the regime effectively disenfranchised the populace and surrendered national autonomy to its regional patron.

The July Uprising was, fundamentally, a convulsive rebellion against this suffocating hegemony. The intellectual revolution that catalyzed the movement originated among the long-silenced subaltern masses. 

This was crystallized in an extraordinary act of linguistic defiance that echoed across Dhaka’s universities: “Tumi ke, ami ke? Razakar, Razakar!” (Who are you? Who am I? Razakar! Razakar!). 

For decades, the term Razakar—denoting wartime collaborators—carried an indelible social stigma, utilized by the BAL establishment to instantly delegitimize and silence political opponents. By audaciously reclaiming and subverting this very label, the student protestors shattered the foundational myth of the regime's ideological monopoly. 

It was a moment of profound psychological liberation; the ultimate weapon of exclusion had lost its teeth, unsettling the entire edifice of Indian influence in the process.

Yet, despite the visible participation of conservative elements, classifying this uprising as a right-wing revolution misreads the dynamics of mass mobilization. According to classic sociological resource mobilization theory, successful social movements require structural assets: leadership, communication networks, funding, and logistical capacity. 

In the face of a hostile, secular establishment, right-wing political platforms undoubtedly provided these crucial organizational resources, sustaining the momentum of the street protests when state repression intensified. 

However, a mass movement does not inherit the ideology of its logistical facilitators. The July Uprising possessed neither a singular political program nor a unified leadership under a specific partisan banner. It was an organic, student-led, people-powered mass movement of ordinary citizens united by a shared desire for liberation from an oppressive oligarchy.

The historical significance of this moment cannot be overstated. The uprising offered Bangladesh a rare, historic opportunity to correct the structural distortions that have plagued its national discourse for over half a century since independence. 

It opened a new window through which the country could finally conceptualize its sovereignty unburdened by external tutelage. For the first time, the subaltern masses gained a voice in a national conversation long dominated by a narrow secular elite.

The tragic price of this awakening is illustrated by the fate of a young martyr of the revolution, Sharif Osman Hadi. Hadi, like thousands of his peers, dreamed of establishing a new republic anchored in insaf—genuine structural justice. 

His dedication to ensuring that the marginalized could speak made him a prime target for the desperate forces of the old order. The external anxiety surrounding this structural shift was made plain by regional political actors, such as West Bengal’s Chief Minister Mamata Banerjee, whose warnings underscored the geopolitical stakes of Bangladesh's internal realignment. 

Hadi was killed by the dying gasps of the hegemonic axis, but his final defiance—“Jaan dibo, tabu July dibona” (We will give our lives, but we will never surrender July)—remains the defining ethos of the movement.

The July Uprising remains an unfinished revolution. While the immediate authoritarian superstructure has collapsed, the deeper cultural and bureaucratic networks of the hegemonic axis persist. If Bangladesh is to truly emerge as a fully sovereign state, these lingering structures of elite dominance must be thoroughly dismantled. 

Without such structural transformation, the profound sacrifices of ordinary citizens and the blood of its martyrs risk being reduced to a mere footnote in a cyclical struggle for power.

—

Abu Taib Ahmed, PhD, is a US-based researcher. He is a former political reporter