Veteran political thinker, theorist, and politician Badruddin Umar has been involved in politics and research for 53 years, carrying a legacy of political heritage. He has authored over a hundred books on politics, sociology, culture, and various other subjects. In an interview with Bonik Barta, he shared his views on elections, interim government, and other pressing political issues in the country. The interview was conducted by Anika Mahjabin.
When do you think would be the right time for the election?
This government should hold elections as soon as possible. They can’t carry out all the necessary reforms. The reforms in the banking sector are good, but implementing all the recommendations from the commissions they’ve formed isn’t feasible. Their primary responsibility is to reform the electoral system. Holding elections without delay should be their duty. Otherwise, given their current position, they won’t be able to achieve much. The longer they delay, the more their popularity will decline.
How would you evaluate the interim government’s performance over the past six months?
Forming the interim government was the right decision. After Sheikh Hasina fled and the Awami League government collapsed, there was a power vacuum that needed to be filled as quickly as possible. At that time, students and other groups came together to establish this government. If that hadn’t happened, the only alternative would have been a military government, meaning the army would have had to take control. In that sense, it was reassuring that this government took charge instead. It came into power through a massive mass uprising, which also raised public expectations significantly. However, the government’s capacity is limited.
First, their limitations stem from the fact that they didn’t emerge out of nowhere. They are part of this society, not separate from the ruling class. And who constitutes the ruling class? It is a segment of the middle-class business elite. Since 1972, this business class has grown and solidified its position, and no one has challenged them—not even the recent mass uprising. After all, the uprising was not a social revolution. It didn’t change the production or distribution systems; everything remains intact. The interim government has come to power within this framework. So, we must acknowledge the limitations imposed by this ruling class. Expecting them to grant workers their full rights or implement major structural changes is unrealistic because that’s not what this ruling class will do. The government must operate within this structure. There may be good and bad individuals within it, but they are all bound by the framework of this ruling class. This is the first thing to keep in mind.
Second, this government was formed in a way that lacks the ideological unity seen in a party government or even a coalition government. The members were selected from various backgrounds, so there is no unified political vision among them. One person moves in one direction, while another moves in a different one. This is why class dynamics play a crucial role here, and there isn’t much they can do about it.
However, they have taken some actions, such as introducing new currency notes featuring Sheikh Mujib’s portrait. The design should have been updated as quickly as possible. They argue that there are already a massive number of banknotes in circulation with Sheikh Mujib’s image, which is fine—those can be gradually withdrawn. But why print new ones with the same design? There are many similar actions being taken.
Meanwhile, workers demanding fair wages are being beaten with batons. There are no trade unions here. There is no legal mechanism for tripartite negotiations with the government. That’s why workers still have to take to the streets, just as they did under the Awami League government. What other option do they have? There is no system for negotiation. This government cannot completely break away from the previous system. So, blaming them won’t change anything. They were put in place knowingly—they weren’t appointed as angels. When we consider their class character, it’s clear that they can’t take revolutionary steps to break away from past governance. Expecting them to do so would be unrealistic.
What is your assessment of the commissions?
This government has done some good work, one of which is forming several commissions. Sheikh Hasina had left the entire country in turmoil and had effectively institutionalized corruption. To address these issues, the government has set up multiple commissions. However, it is noteworthy that two of the most crucial and neglected sectors—health and education—have not received adequate attention. Both sectors receive less than 1 percent of the GDP, and even that amount is not utilized properly. Ideally, these sectors should receive 6-7 percent of the GDP.
Despite forming multiple commissions, the government has not set up any commission to address the severe crisis in education and healthcare. Even more surprising is that students, who are directly affected by the education system, have not demanded an education commission despite their massive movement. They have neither criticized nor even realized the absence of an education commission. This is quite astonishing.
Speaking of education commissions, it reminds me of an incident. During Nurul Amin’s cabinet, Fakir Abdul Mannan was the education minister. When asked what they had done to improve education, he simply replied, “We have increased teachers’ salaries.”
Do you think the demolition of Sheikh Mujibur Rahman’s house at Dhanmondi 32 was justified?
Whenever an incident occurs, writers, intellectuals, and journalists in this country jump into debates over whether it was right or wrong. However, instead of analyzing why the event happened, they focus only on judgment. That’s where the real investigation should begin.
For example, after the demolition of Sheikh Mujib’s house at Dhanmondi 32, even some leftist intellectuals criticized the act. But before making a judgment, we must first ask—why did this happen? On August 5, the public set fire to Sheikh Mujib’s house. This was not done by a single individual; it was a collective act. After Sheikh Hasina fled, people across the country set fire to various houses and destroyed hundreds of Sheikh Mujib’s statues, which had been built at the expense of millions in public funds.
Why did people across the nation rise in such a spontaneous wave of anger against Sheikh Mujib? The reason is that Sheikh Hasina used her father’s legacy to shield her own crimes—corruption, murders, and various misdeeds. She branded everything with Sheikh Mujib’s name, elevating him in a way that linked her own rule directly to his image. As a result, when the public rose against Sheikh Hasina, they also turned against Sheikh Mujib. This was entirely due to Sheikh Hasina’s actions. If she had not positioned her father in this manner, people would not have reacted this way against him.
Now, why was Sheikh Mujib’s house demolished six months after it was burned? Because on February 5, six months after the August 5 incident, Sheikh Hasina gave a virtual speech that reignited public anger, leading to further attacks. If she had not made that speech, people wouldn’t have reacted in this way. Therefore, one cannot evaluate the Dhanmondi incident without considering Sheikh Hasina’s speech.
After Sheikh Mujib was brutally assassinated on August 15, 1975, not a single person took to the streets in his support. Instead, people celebrated, distributing sweets. Even sweet shop owners gave away sweets for free. Why did this happen? This is the real question. In 1972, when Sheikh Mujib returned to Dhaka on February 10, millions of people greeted him. He was given a grand reception on the streets and later at a massive gathering in Suhrawardy Udyan. But on August 15, 1975, not a single person came out in his defense. We need to understand why this happened.
Was the public to blame for this? Or was it Sheikh Mujib himself? Did the people of Bangladesh become corrupt in just three and a half years while Sheikh Mujib remained an angel? Or did he make decisions during his three and a half years in power that completely alienated him from the people? The most important thing is to analyze why these events occurred. That is the true essence of scientific investigation.
Some people are suggesting confiscating the properties of those associated with the Awami League. Do you think such actions should be taken?
In Germany, many steps were taken. The German government confiscated the property of fascists. Hitler was labeled a fascist by the government, but here, that hasn’t happened. In fact, the level of fascism during Hitler’s time in Germany never reached that point here, and therefore, their properties were not indiscriminately confiscated. But, since they engaged in corruption, individual cases have been filed against each of them for theft, corruption, terrorism, etc. These are not organizational cases. These cases are currently ongoing. What will happen with them is a separate matter.
However, there is something else to mention. Some left-leaning intellectuals have said that it was wrong to demolish Sheikh Mujibur Rahman’s house. What happened in Germany? Since Hitler was in his bunker, there was no question of demolishing it. But Hitler’s close associate, Rudolf Hess, was not executed during the Nuremberg Trials. He was held in a grand fortress-palace in Berlin. Rudolf Hess lived for almost a hundred years. After his death, the German government demolished the grand Spandau Prison. Their reasoning was that if it remained, Nazis would gather there, making it a sort of pilgrimage site. Therefore, it was entirely demolished. Our government didn’t take such action. In our case, it wasn’t the government but the people who demolished Sheikh Mujib’s house.
Many cases have been filed against Sheikh Hasina and others involved in her administration. How do you assess the chances of justice in these cases?
Firstly, it must be said that most of those who have been arrested were not caught for their real crimes. They were arrested for crimes they didn’t commit in such a way. Many were arrested on charges of murder or killing. While they may have been with Sheikh Hasina during the time of the crimes or supported her, arrests cannot be made on that basis alone. Therefore, these individuals, like Rashed Khan Menon, who is a corrupt person, were arrested for murder accusations. But proving the murder case is not easy. If the case is about murder, he should be released. However, there should be cases against him for corruption and other criminal acts, where he amassed thousands of crores. The same type of cases should be filed against Hasanul Haq Inu.
Now, Salman F Rahman has also been arrested for murder. However, the money laundering and corruption that resulted in billions of dollars of stolen funds should be the basis for his punishment. But until now, there’s been no news that their cases are being restructured. With the current situation, it’s uncertain what will happen with the cases. But it’s possible they may drag the case for another ten years.
Even though six months have passed since the mass uprising, Sheikh Hasina is still in India. What is your assessment of India’s role in this situation?
One reason India gave shelter to Sheikh Hasina is that no other country would accept her. She tried to go to England, the United States, and other places. She even tried the Middle East, but no country would take her in. Not even Lithuania and similar countries. It’s not just that she’s hated by the people of Bangladesh; she’s despised globally, which is why no nation wanted to offer her refuge. Since she ended up in India, what else could they do? If she were sent back to Bangladesh, she would face a trial and likely be sentenced to death. Therefore, India was, first and foremost, compelled to offer her shelter. If she had been sent elsewhere, India would have been happy.
Secondly, India has a sense of obligation towards Sheikh Hasina. She has given them everything they wanted, while in return, India has provided nothing to Bangladesh. It’s a one-sided relationship. There’s a saying in English—`obligation.’ India feels an obligation to provide her shelter. But that doesn’t mean India is pleased about it. They didn’t have a choice.
[This interview was originally conducted in Bangla and published in both the Print and Online editions of Bonik Barta. It has since been translated for the English edition.]