Once bound by an unprecedented national consensus against Sheikh Hasina’s rule, the political factions that led Bangladesh’s historic uprising are now grappling with growing divisions.
Disagreements over national, local, and student council elections, governance reforms, and the formation of new political parties and student organisations have intensified, leading to public disputes among leaders and even clashes within student factions.
The swift unravelling of this unity, barely six months after Hasina’s ousting on 5 August, has sparked intense debate over whether it stems from power struggles or is simply a manifestation of democratic plurality.
Some, however, hold key political leaders responsible for the discord.
Mujahidul Islam Selim, former president of the Communist Party of Bangladesh (CPB), views the situation through a different lens.
"In a multiparty democracy, diverse opinions will exist," he states. "But the resolution of these disagreements must come through the people, within a structured democratic framework."
Dr Dil Rowshan Jinnat Ara Nazneen, a professor in the Department of Political Science at Dhaka University and pro-vice-chancellor of Bangladesh Open University, sees the root of the fissures in the conduct of senior politicians.
"The major parties’ leaders should not have spoken so harshly. Credit must be given to the students—they bore the brunt of the movement, with many injured or even killed. They played the most active role, while we merely offered support," she remarks.
On the possibility of a renewed alliance, she remains cautious but acknowledges that "should another major event unfold, we may yet see a revival of unity. That is simply human nature."
The 5 August uprising, initially sparked by student-led protests against quota reservations, soon snowballed into a mass movement following deadly crackdowns on demonstrators.
The widespread discontent, fuelled by years of electoral controversies and governance failures, ultimately led to Hasina’s resignation.
With backing from student activists and opposition parties, an interim government was formed to navigate the transition.
For the first two to three months following the uprising, political factions remained aligned in their objectives.
This unity was particularly evident during the "Martyrs’ March" marking one month since Hasina’s downfall, as well as in subsequent events, including flood relief efforts in Feni and anti-sectarian initiatives following the murder of a Muslim lawyer in Chattogram.
Concerned about potential communal violence, interim government chief adviser Dr Yunus convened an all-party meeting to maintain stability.
However, fault lines became visible when the Anti-Discrimination Student Movement, one of the key actors in the uprising, demanded the resignation of President Mohammed Shahbuddin following Hasina’s departure.
While various organisations staged protests outside Bangabhaban, the BNP expressed reservations.
Discussions between student leaders and BNP officials initially took place, but BNP’s opposition to the move eventually stalled the talks.
Many analysts believe this issue widened the rift between BNP and student activists.
Another point of contention has been the potential formation of a political party by student leaders who played a key role in the uprising.
BNP Secretary General Mirza Fakhrul Islam Alamgir has voiced opposition to such a move, stating that forming a party while in government would be unacceptable.
This stance drew criticism on social media from Information Adviser Nahid Islam and other BNP leaders, further fuelling divisions.
The timeline of local and national elections has also become a divisive issue, with the interim government advocating for local elections before national polls, while BNP insists that this falls outside the interim administration’s mandate.
Meanwhile, Jamaat-e-Islami and the Anti-Discrimination Student Movement, along with the National Citizen’s Committee, have largely aligned their positions with the government’s on key issues, highlighting BNP’s increasingly isolated stance.
The left-wing factions, on the other hand, have voiced growing frustration with the government’s handling of reforms.
The most pronounced discord, however, is playing out within student organisations.
Since 5 August, student politics has undergone a seismic shift, with Bangladesh Chhatra League (BCL) banned due to its involvement in violent crackdowns.
In the wake of BCL’s absence, many campuses have also imposed a broader ban on student politics.
Despite this, BNP’s student wing, Jatiyatabadi Chhatra Dal, and Jamaat’s student affiliate, Islami Chhatra Shibir, have attempted to reassert their presence.
However, the most active group has been the Anti-Discrimination Student Movement, whose decision to form a new student organisation has sparked friction with other factions.
Tensions escalated on 3 December, when the group’s coordinators met with the chief adviser without representatives from Chhatra Dal.
The following day, Chhatra Dal boycotted a joint student consultation and instead held separate discussions with other organisations.
Further disputes have erupted between Chhatra Dal and Shibir, with the former accusing the latter of clandestine political activities and demanding full transparency in its organisational structure.
These divisions have also led to direct confrontations, such as the clash at BUET over Chhatra Dal’s distribution of membership forms in defiance of the campus-wide ban on political activities.
Analysts suggest that these conflicts are rooted in positioning strategies for upcoming student union elections, particularly in light of the void left by BCL’s expulsion.
While the interim government has signalled a willingness to facilitate student elections, Chhatra Dal remains reluctant.
At Jahangirnagar University, resistance from Chhatra Dal has already delayed the announcement of an election roadmap.
If these issues remain unresolved, observers warn that student politics could descend into a three-way conflict that general students have little interest in witnessing.
The question of leadership and ownership over the July movement remains contentious.
While the Anti-Discrimination Student Movement played a central role, the broader uprising was fuelled by diverse factions and mass participation.
Political parties have advanced differing narratives on who masterminded the movement.
Within the student ranks, even the coordinators of the Anti-Discrimination Student Movement are increasingly divided. This rift deepened after Sadiq Kayem, a key coordinator, was revealed to be a former president of Chhatra Shibir’s Dhaka University chapter.
His involvement in drafting the movement’s nine-point and one-point agendas has since come under scrutiny.
The ongoing debate over credit for the uprising, combined with social media spats, ideological rifts, and post-revolution dynamics, continues to cast a shadow over the once-unified forces that brought down Hasina’s government.
As Bangladesh navigates its uncertain political future, whether these divisions will deepen or eventually give way to renewed consensus remains to be seen.
