Bangladesh Student League members attacked Dhaka University students protesting against violence on women on campus in a similar fashion that the Chattradal (BNP’s student wing) attacked protesting students in 2005. But dissimilar to the 2005-bout, a new rhetoric of apoliticality from the student protesters has emerged. Posting the photos of a BSL activist attacking her, a female activist of the student’s movement wrote on Facebook: “ I want you all to know that I am not a leftist, not Chattradal, not Shibir and not BSL member. I am a non-political student of this University. Actually, my father was a candidate for Awami League in the election of 1994.” The nature of her non-political claim is gives us a general understanding of the general consensus of our university students. The demands for justice are only valid insofar as they come from people who are not affiliated with any anti-AL political party (and who are instead slightly pro-AL in some ways). The text of non-political students’ movement is, therefore, parlayed over a subtext of non-competing stance with the current political establishment. As if beating up political opposition is very natural, as if you deserve to be attacked if you are a leftist.
That is why the ‘non-political’ tag of the protest and its protestors is not completely honest. It is actually not possible to have a non-political movement because movement require organizing people, crafting a platform and planning demonstrations: all of which are political actions by definition. But the only reason the movements still insist on remaining “non-political” is that they have some investment in not rattling the current political establishment so much that it brings any trouble upon themselves. The current political establishment has become so entrenched an institution that students think that if they can stay silent at the right times and make the right people happy, the establishment will get them a well-paying government job. But they still have to take to the streets when their ingroup is hurt. So they voice their grievances in a manner that is unchallenging of the status quo. That is only possible in the space that the non-political identification provides.
But this is the central mistake of student movements. As they insist on remaining apolitical while striving to reach a political end, they risk political cooptation. Because the non-political movement leaders are so inexperienced in political organization that the leadership (almost naturally) falls in the hands of those who are politically savvy (i.e partisan politicians). And if the marked Chattraleague or Chattradal are deliberately kept outside of the so-called non-political movements, the leadership comes into the hands of those who are the third (or fourth) most experienced: the leftists. That is why like many non-partisan movements before it, the anti-violence movement at DU has also been tagged as a leftist movement by its antagonists and that is why the non-leftist movement leaders are fighting so hard to prove that they are not interested in any major political change (i.e not leftist). They want all of us to know that they are not here to challenge their authority. They just want their piece of the pie. They are not interested in baking a bigger pie or a different pie. The only reason that they are on the streets is that their ingroup has somehow been hurt. And as soon as that pain gets resolved, they will quiet down. They are not worried about the inner viruses that cause these recurring pains.
The worrisome phenomenon of our student politics is that the ingroups that the students are willing to mobilize for are becoming increasingly smaller. In the golden age of our student politics, the independent student movements used to call themselves all-party movements rather than non-political movements and mobilized around national grievances (e.g the Sarbadaliya Chhatra Sangram Parishad of 1969). But today’s university students are so conscious of the elite class interests that they cannot identify with the national problems anymore. The only problems they can mobilize around are the ones that directly affect their miniscule ingroup, which is now their institution-based cults.
The students who are now protesting against the violence committed against the violence committed against their comrades originally mobilized around the inclusion of seven colleges into the Dhaka University system. They did this so that none but they can lay claim to the elite status of the institution. The movement that came before this was from the students of the seven included colleges who were demanding a resolution of the administrative deadlock and semester stopgaps (partly due to the DU administrators zeal to protect their eliteness). That movement demobilized when the authorities acceded to their demands and published a routine for their examinations. All swiftly forgot about the protester who lost his eye in the hands of the police. Even the victim himself stopped demanding justice once he was handed a government job in return for his eye. Nobody saw a problem with justice being reduced to tokenism.
This has now become the goal of our non-political student movements: causing enough annoyance (not pressure) on the authorities so that they are tempted (no forced) to give away some tokens. And that is exactly what they get. Instead of a different pie, they keep getting crumbs that fall off of the elite’s cheeks. And they seem to be happy with it, as they all want to become the elite one day and that is only possible by keeping the elite happy and protecting their eliteness. If this trend continues, we will not see any change in our political landscape in the decades to come. Power will continue to reside in the hands of the same people. Even a DUCSU election will not be able to change the sorry nature of our student politics if the non-partisan students remain hell-bent on remaining non-political. Complicity cannot create change. If there is no independent non-partisan leadership, there can be no independent non-partisan movements. All student movement, at least insofar as they engage with the broader problems of the status quo, will soon turn into partisan squabbling or be demobilized every time the master throws out a bone.
Anupam Debashis Roy