By Abu Ubaida

KUSHTIA, August 4, 2025 (BSS) - Muklasur Rahman Sweet, a frontline activist in the historic July mass uprising of 2024, asserts that students and the general public are still on the ground demanding their rightful causes. In an exclusive interview with Bangladesh Sangbad Sangstha (BSS), Sweet emphasized that any future attempt by the Awami League to reassert authoritarian control will be met with united resistance, transcending all divisions among students.

The 2024 quota reform movement ignited campuses across the nation, and Islamic University in Kushtia was no exception. Students rallied against inequality under the slogan “Let the whole of Bengal hear—bury the quota system!” At the heart of this protest stood SM Sweet, a student of Folklore Studies (Batch 2017–18), whose courage and leadership became symbolic of the larger struggle.

In this installment of the "July Awakening" series, BSS correspondent Abu Ubaida speaks with SM Sweet to reflect on the genesis, experiences, and future of the movement.

In the interview, Sweet shared his experiences and the internal dynamics of the anti-discrimination student movement—detailing decisions, clashes, sacrifices, state repression, and the boundless courage of the student masses. Here is the full interview…  
 

BSS: How did you begin your journey as a coordinator in this movement? How did you connect with the central leadership?

Sweet: I have always been vocal against injustice. While many of my peers doubted the impact of such movements, I believed that whether or not we succeeded, we have to try. I was actively involved in the 2018 quota reform movement and wanted to contribute to the 2024 movement as well. Through some friends at Dhaka University, I got in touch with the central coordinators. We had an initial Zoom meeting where Nahid Islam, Asif Mahmud, and others joined. We discussed organizing strategies and maintained communication—especially with coordinators Abdul Hannan Masud and Arif Sohel. Hannan Bhai regularly sent updates via Messenger.
On July 7, a 65 member central coordination committee was announced, and I was included as Co-Coordinator. I stayed in constant contact with the central coordination body, even during our protests on campus.

BSS: Did you initially perceive this as just a quota reform movement?

Sweet: We were first deceived in 2018 by the farcical move to "abolish the quota system." Later, in 2024, when the High Court ruled in favor of reinstating quotas, the student community rejected the decision outright. Inspired by that spirit, I too became actively involved in what began as a movement for quota reform.
However, the relentless repression and brutality of the then-Awami League government gradually made it clear to me that this movement would not remain limited to just quota reform. On July 15, pro-government Chhatra League cadres launched violent attacks on nearly 400 students across the country, including on the Dhaka University campus. That was the turning point for me—I realized that this movement could no longer be appeased through partial reforms. We would not leave the streets without justice.
Then came the shooting of Abu Saeed—an act that, to me, marked the beginning of Sheikh Hasina’s political downfall. From that moment on, I no longer saw this as merely a demand for quota reform. It had transformed into a mass uprising—a people’s resistance against the injustices of an authoritarian regime. 

BSS: How long did the protest continue on your campus?

Sweet: At the Islamic University, the movement effectively began on July 2. Gradually, it gained momentum. On July 14, we submitted a memorandum to the President through the Deputy Commissioner of Kushtia. That day, alongside fellow students, we held a nearly five-kilometer-long march from Chourhas intersection to the city. The protests continued on campus afterward. On July 17 and 18, large numbers of students participated in demonstrations. However, the movement temporarily lost pace due to an internet shutdown.
Despite this, on July 21, we reignited the spirit of the movement by organizing fresh programs on campus and reconnecting with the student body. There were several attempts to coordinate joint actions with the city of Kushtia, but logistical challenges and administrative surveillance prevented full implementation. Eventually, from August 1, a new wave of spontaneous participation by students gave fresh life to the movement on our campus. It culminated with the fall of the Sheikh Hasina government.
 
BSS: How did political student organizations respond early on?

Sweet: The movement at Islamic University began with just a handful of us—mostly members of the Chhatra Union and a few general students. In the days that followed, student participation gradually increased. All student organizations that held anti-fascist positions played their roles to the best of their ability. Although groups like Chhatra Dal and Chhatra Union had fewer active members on our campus, they contributed as much as they could. On the other hand, Chhatra Shibir already had a relatively strong presence at the Islamic University. Their entire base became involved in the movement. After the university halls were closed on July 17, the number of general students on campus began to decline. At that critical point, Chhatra Shibir played a key role in sustaining the movement’s momentum. 

BSS: What was the most dangerous or challenging period during the movement?

Sweet: The real turning point of the movement came when the university halls were shut down. Inside the campus, we had some sense of safety—but outside, there was none at all. The national situation had become terrifying. Armed goons from the ruling party’s student wing, Chhatra League, were violently attacking students involved in a legitimate and peaceful movement.
Leaving the campus to take shelter in nearby student hostels was incredibly risky. By then, Chhatra League operatives had already issued threats and were openly searching for me. Had they found me alone, they wouldn’t have hesitated to kill me. Still, despite the life-threatening risks, we chose to stay near the campus and remain part of the movement. Eventually, a national curfew was declared. All armed forces—army, BGB, RAB, and police—were deployed across the country, including in large numbers at the Islamic University. During that period, I was deeply worried about the safety of my fellow activists. Had the authorities chosen to launch an assault on us, it could have turned into a bloodbath right here on the university grounds. 

BSS: How did your family react to your role as a movement coordinator?

Sweet: As some of you may already know, I have always taken a firm stance against injustice since the very beginning of my student life. Even during the fascist rule of the Awami League, I raised my voice against the Chhatra League’s dominance on campus.
Because of that, my family was well aware of my involvement in the 2018 quota reform movement and naturally expected that I would also take part in the 2024 protests. However, when my name came up as one of the coordinators, they began to worry more seriously. As the movement gained momentum, local activists from the Chhatra League and Awami League began to issue threats to my family. Intelligence agencies also subjected them to intense psychological pressure. During this time, my family was extremely anxious about my safety.
But by then, the movement had evolved far beyond the issue of quota reform. Sheikh Hasina was clinging to power at the cost of countless lives. In light of that reality, my family ultimately raised no objections to my continued involvement. They understood that the stakes were far greater than any one individual.  My family always knew I stood against injustice. But when my name appeared as a central coordinator, they grew worried. As the movement intensified, local ruling party members began threatening them. Intelligence agencies harassed them mentally. 

BSS: Were you ever threatened or attacked directly?

Sweet: Yes, multiple times. Once, while eating near Saddam Hossain Hall, the then Chhatra League general secretary Nasim Ahmed Joy threatened to kill me. I later learned they planned an attack, but refrained due to media presence. Leaders like Faisal Siddiqui Arafat, Masud Rana, and Mejbuh repeatedly threatened  to assassinate me and assaulted other protesters.

BSS: What role did pro-Awami League teachers and officials play?

Sweet: At the early stages of the quota reform movement, we noticed that some Chhatra League activists actually joined us. However, things changed drastically after we began chanting slogans like “Tumi ke? Ami ke? Rajakar, Rajakar” in protest against Sheikh Hasina’s branding of student protesters as "Razakars" (a historically charged term for collaborators with the Pakistani army in 1971). From that point on, Chhatra League turned against the movement.
They began preparing for violent suppression. We later discovered that they had stockpiled a large cache of homemade weapons, which we recovered from their halls during raids after August 5. Sensing the massive turnout of students on July 17, Chhatra League members fled the campus by midday. That day marked a turning point—it was the moment when Islamic University was effectively freed from Chhatra League control.

Shockingly, while teachers in other universities were standing by their students to ensure safety, nearly a hundred pro-Awami League teachers, officers, and staff at Islamic University took the opposite stance. On August 4, under the banner of the "Shapla Forum," they marched against the student protesters. 

BSS: How did you motivate students to join the movement?

Sweet: This was a rational and deeply relevant movement. I would encourage students to join by emphasizing both its necessity and its broader significance. During this time, social media served as our primary tool for outreach and mobilization. We used platforms like Facebook, Messenger, and WhatsApp to disseminate information across different academic departments and student organization groups. Our aim was to involve as many people as possible and build a united front.
One of our key messages was to expose how the quota system had created structural inequalities at every level. By making these issues visible and understandable, we were able to raise awareness and rally support among the student body. 

BSS: What was the role of female students and other stakeholders?

Sweet: The participation of female students in the movement was truly remarkable. While their numbers were initially low, it quickly grew. We consistently saw them taking strong, fearless positions. At Islamic University, as in many parts of the country, female students often led from the front lines of the marches.
Astonishingly, even after the halls were shut down, many of them chose not to return home. Instead, they stayed in nearby hostels to remain part of the movement. Some even traveled from Kushtia and Jhenaidah towns by bus to join the protests.
Campus-based social and cultural organizations also played a significant role. Through their activities, they helped spread the message and deepen student engagement. Although BNP- and Jamaat-leaning teachers at first did not visibly join the movement, they worked from behind the scenes to secure the release of 30 students who had been arrested in Kushtia. Many teachers and university staff provided us with emotional and moral support during critical moments.
On August 3, those same BNP and Jamaat-aligned teachers publicly declared solidarity with the students and joined us in our stand against fascism. We remain deeply grateful to them. The local community around Islamic University also played an enormous role. From ensuring our safety to providing food and shelter, they stood beside us in every step. Children, women, the elderly—people from all walks of life joined the struggle. Everyone gave what they could, doing their part to free the country of dictatorship. 

BSS: How did you coordinate during the internet blackout and curfew?

Sweet: As you know, on July 17, the university halls were shut down with barely an hour’s notice. Students were forced to return to their homes in all directions. However, many understood the importance of the movement and took shelter in nearby hostels. It was with these students that we continued the struggle.
Soon after, the internet was completely shut down, cutting off our ability to spread the movement’s message through social media. We then resorted to sending messages via mobile phones to those we could reach, who would in turn pass them on to other students.

During the blackout, Sakib Anwar, the Organizational Secretary of Nagorik Oikko (Citizens’ Unity), gave me the names and mobile numbers of 16 journalists from various media houses in Dhaka. I sent text messages to them during this time to keep the movement visible.
I also maintained coordination by contacting representatives via phone. But soon, a new wave of repression began. Police raids started in the surrounding hostels. Students were harassed and arrested on suspicion of being protesters.
Despite all this, none of us left the area. From wherever we could stay safe, we continued to call for action and keep the movement alive.

BSS: How did you avoid arrest during police operations?

Sweet: The administration pressured me to stop. I used different SIM cards and moved between safe houses. I kept a gobag ready and changed locations frequently. Despite the risk, I joined daily programmes and remained active until the end.

BSS: Were any actions taken against the teachers and officials who sided with repression after August 5?
Sweet: August 4 is a dark chapter in Islamic University’s history. Some teachers and officials even rallied against students. Though their names were published in newspapers and videos circulated online, no action has been taken. 

BSS: Why didn’t the fascists succeed in attacking students at your university like they did elsewhere?

Sweet: We were highly strategic and well organized. Strong student turnout and vigilance prevented attacks. The presence of opposition supporters nearby also served as a deterrent. On July 17, over 1,500 students protested after dorms were shut. The student presence scared away both Chhatra League and the administration. Journalists like Munjurul Islam Nahid and Tajmul Jayim played vital roles in keeping the campus safe.

BSS: Have your expectations after the movement been fulfilled? What is your vision for Bangladesh?

Sweet: Our primary demand was the establishment of a Bangladesh free from fascism. Although the mother of fascism has left the country, her offspring still occupy key positions of power. Without their removal, the true aspirations of this movement cannot be realized.
We also sought a safe Bangladesh—one where fascism would never again raise its head. The hopes for equality, human dignity, and equal rights that inspired the 1947 Partition, the 1971 Liberation War, and the 1990 Mass Uprising have yet to be fulfilled.
For too long, the people have been exploited for the interests of various political parties. I want that wall to be broken down, and for political leaders to become genuine friends of the nation and its people. I want young people to rise above fear, greed, and selfish ambition to actively participate in nation-building.