Ishfak Farhan SiyamAugust 5, 2024—A jubilant crowd filled Ganabhaban, the official residence of Bangladesh’s prime minister. Just hours earlier, Prime Minister Sheikh Hasina had fled to India following weeks of intense, bloody protests. Across the country, iconic landmarks, including the parliament, were taken over by the people. However, Ganabhaban held particular significance: it was from this very residence that Hasina had ordered the violent crackdowns that claimed thousands of lives in recent weeks. Even on this day of victory, over a hundred lives were lost.
Her 15-year rule was marked by suppression of dissent, electoral manipulation, and rampant corruption. Despite some favorable economic indicators, rising authoritarianism and corruption overshadow these achievements. Moreover, doubts remain as to whether these economic gains truly improved the everyday lives of ordinary citizens.
From the outset, Hasina’s political adversaries took to the streets but were consistently suppressed by the regime’s security forces. She managed to complete two additional terms through deeply flawed elections. Although opposition parties failed to unseat her in 15 years, Hasina’s regime ultimately collapsed under the pressure of the July uprising, despite her just starting a fresh term.
The July uprising, led by apolitical students, distinguished itself from past efforts. Initially, it was known as the Quota-Reform Movement. 56% reservation in government jobs triggered widespread frustration among the students. Although the issue was resolved in 2018, a legal writ sought to reinstate the quota and mobilized them once more.
Initially, demand was to crap the quotas at 5%. Student leaders clarified that they would return to their studies as soon as it was met. However, Hasina’s perceived ego, authoritarianism, and miscalculation soon pushed them to transform the anti-quota protests into a movement demanding Hasina’s resignation.
This article will analyze the key factors that led the shift and made this movement different from previous ones.
Background of the Student Leaders
The key figures of the quota movement were not affiliated with any political party. However, they were politically conscious and experienced of doing student politics. Many of them had previously been tortured and imprisoned for speaking out against government corruption, election rigging, and the violent activities of the ruling party’s student wing, Chhatra League.
With firsthand awareness of human rights abuses, the regime’s authoritarian tendencies, and its dubious legitimacy, these student leaders shared a deep-seated desire for systemic change. When the opportunity presented itself, they seized it.
Brutal Crackdown by the Government
Being habituated to suppressing dissent with harsh crackdowns, Hasina attempted to do the same with this movement—a significant miscalculation. Unlike previous opposition-led efforts, people, particularly the youth gathered behind the quota movement in huge numbers. When the regime responded with violence, public anger surged nationwide. Given the significant loss of life, the leaders deemed the quota reform demand insufficient.
With this price paid, they aimed for the highest, getting rid of the fascist regime completely. Although 9-point demands were initially made it was an implicit call for Hasina’s step down. As brutality increased severely over time, on August 4, they presented a singular demand: “Step Down, Hasina.”
Despite 15 years of numerous attempts opposition parties failed to secure Hasina’s resignation. This time, politically inexperienced student leadership made it through. Several unique factors led to this completely different outcome.
Participation of Common People
Ordinary citizens were frustrated by rising authoritarianism, inflation, and disenfranchisement. However, they saw the opposition-led movements as political power plays, not for their freedom The student leaders’ nonpartisan stance and clean reputations presented this uprising as a genuine opportunity to overthrow an oppressive regime.
For the first time, people from all ages and walks of life took to the streets. Madrasa students, who felt the government was hostile toward Islam, joined and sacrificed their lives in large numbers, as did the working-class communities oppressed by local Awami League leaders. The movement’s broad base and inclusivity transformed it from a protest into a full-scale uprising.
Support from Opposition Parties
Witnessing the groundswell of support for the student-led movement, opposition parties saw a rare chance to get rid of the regime that had suppressed them for years. Although provided crucial logistical and tactical support, they refrained from openly using their banners, fearing it would alienate the public.
The student leaders recognized the strategic advantage and accepted the assistance. This combination of mass public participation and unwavering commitment from political activists created a force that Hasina’s government could not contain.
Involvement of the Elites
Perhaps the most distinctive aspect of this uprising was the involvement of the elite class, which had generally been insulated from the regime’s authoritarianism and economic woes. This time, Hasina’s miscalculation changed this dynamic.
As the police brutality expelled the public university students from the campuses on July 17, the next day private university students took to the streets in large numbers alongside high schoolers and diploma students. Hasina took another misstep, a grave one. Rather than letting the steams of anger out, the security forces killed the highest number of students in one day.
Many of the deceased belonged to the affluent class. This brutality shocked and angered their families, turning civil society against the regime. However, the government escalated its measures, imposing a curfew, shutting down the internet, and deploying the army. Despite these efforts, Hasina’s strategy failed.
Role of the Military
Last 15 years, the Bangladeshi military has not been used to suppress political opposition. Although the army has controversies of politically motivated promotions and corruption, political crackdowns were primarily carried out by the police, Rapid Action Battalion, and border forces.
However, as the army was deployed to enforce the curfew, they witnessed the brutal tactics used against civilians firsthand, fueling resentment within the military, particularly among junior and mid-level officers.
On July 16, some students sought refuge in the Defense Officers Housing Society (a residential area for retired military officers) after clashing with the ruling party. The ruling party thugs stormed the area and assaulted retired military officers who provided them shelter. The whole night, they patrolled the area with arms.
This humiliation created deep resentment within the armed forces. Thus, the army chief was under extensive pressure. Seeing deep resentment among his ranks and retired officers, on August 3, he declared that the military would no longer crack down on the protests.
By August 4, the army had largely ceased its operations and on August 5, as hundreds of thousands started marching towards the prime minister’s residence, the military and police chiefs made Hasina resign and leave the country.
All of these factors made the July uprising unique which overthrew the deep-rooted authoritarian regime. But the people’s sacrifice was huge. In the 21st century, no other civilian movement saw such casualty except the Rabaa Massacre in Egypt.
Foreign Involvement
Many have speculated about a foreign conspiracy, particularly pointing to the United States. Hasina herself alleged that the U.S. sought her removal due to refusing to cede Saint Martin Island. Washington firmly denied involvement, stating, “We have had no involvement at all. Any reports or rumors that the United States government was involved in these events are simply false.”
Some media outlets, especially those in India, have been keen to emphasize a possible U.S. role, though such claims rest on very tenuous links. For example, India Today highlighted a January 15 meeting between Donald Lu, U.S. Assistant Secretary of State for South and Central Asia, and Bangladesh’s army chief, adding that the army chief compelled Hasina to resign—an implication hinting at U.S. influence.
In reality, this meeting was open-door, addressing civil society representatives, with no private engagement between Lu and the army chief. This was so insignificant that, it received no media coverage. Furthermore, attributing Hasina’s resignation solely to the army chief oversimplifies matters. The decision was collectively made by all heads of the forces as crowds surged uncontrollably. In fact, it was Hasina’s son who convinced her to step down and leave.
The Biden administration was indeed very active this time in enforcing a participatory general election—by excluding Hasina from democracy summits, instituting a new visa policy, and sanctioning individuals involved in rights abuses. However, when it did not happen, the US did not take any action. This suggests that they saw greater national interest in cooperating with Hasina than confronting her. There is no circumstantial or empirical evidence to substantiate claims of U.S. or any foreign involvement in the July Uprising.
On the contrary, a leaked audio clip from November 7 reveals Hasina directing her supporters to march in Dhaka with images of Donald Trump, the newly elected U.S. president. Many followers carried out that instruction on November 10.
The July Uprising marks a pivotal moment for South Asia, showcasing the power of a nonpartisan, student-led movement to challenge an entrenched authority. Without political banners and an external hand, this grassroots revolution succeeded on the strength of collective strength, and domestic will, underscoring that even tightly controlled regimes are vulnerable to unified calls for accountability.
The movement’s success may inspire similar efforts in countries like Pakistan, Nepal, and Sri Lanka, where disillusionment with governance is rising. Hasina’s fall serves as a warning to other South Asian leaders of the risks of ignoring popular discontent. They might not know when their time will come, as Hasina did not expect it coming after winning the third consecutive election earlier this year.
