Misunderstandings behind Bangla student protests

The student protests in Bangladesh seem to be a result of deep misunderstanding and a misplaced hardened stance on the part of Prime Minister Sheikh Hasina’s government of the Awami League.

On Tuesday, there were clashes between the protesting students on the one side, and the police and the Bangladesh Chhatra League (BCL), which is the student wing of the ruling  party.  Six students were dead.

The protests are about the quota system in government jobs. About 56 per cent of the jobs are marked out for descendants of the freedom fighters of 1971, for women, for the differently-abled and for ethnic minorities. These were announced in 2018, and there were protests then as well. The government in a sudden turnaround, abolished the quota system.

But the Bangladesh High Court had ruled that the quota system cannot be abolished, but the system can be reformed. The protesting students want a reform in the quota structure. But the government’s response is intended to polarise the situation.

Many in the government, including Prime Minister Hasina, raised the counter-argument whether instead of reserving jobs for the freedom fighters should they be reserved for the collaborators or ‘razakars’ who helped the Pakistan army in the 1971 war. This was an incendiary remark, making the students to be on the side of the enemies of Bangladesh. And they defied the government by crying, ‘Yes, we are ‘razakars’’.

It has been pointed out in the Bangladesh media that the students took a wrong turn. The others said that the students’ counter-slogan was meant to be sarcastic, and it was not to be taken literally. But in the heat of political exchange, the subtleties and the contexts are lost out.

The quota system as it exists becomes an issue because of the ‘jobless growth’ of the Bangladesh economy. The economy is growing but the young people are without jobs. Those who can are leaving the country. But the people who are not able to, and who do not want to, leave the country are forced to challenge the government’s job policy. What was needed was tact on the part of the Awami League government, but the government seems to have only hardened its stance.

But there is a change in the approach of the government which was reflected in Prime Minister Hasina’s televised address to the nation. She adopted a more conciliatory approach in contrast to the attitude of the government of the last two days. She asked protesting students to keep faith in the judiciary, and she said that the court will deliver justice. She condoled the death of the students killed in the police firing, and she warned the students from getting misled by miscreants.

The government had taken the stance that the matter is before the court and there is not much it can do. The question is whether the government is trying to pass the buck to the courts, or does it feel that it should act only after the final decision of the court. The High Court had already hinted that the quota system can be reformed.

Will the protesting students be mollified by the words of the prime minister? The troublemakers will have enough room to play mischief. It becomes necessary for leaders of the protesting students to accept the prime minister’s assurance at its face value, and give her the elbow room to step back. Political unrest is not the best atmosphere to create jobs. The government on its part, whatever be the court’s verdict, must address the issue of unemployment. Creating jobs is the responsibility of the government when there is a social crisis in the country. The courts cannot do much about it.