The brutal killing of Abrar Fahad, a BUET student, brought to forth an age old issue: should student politics at public university be banned?
The unsettled issue has already divided the society into two broad groups: those who advocate student politics at highest learning centers and those who voice strong opposition against such politics.
Another group emerged slightly moderate by holding a middle ground and sticking to the point that no student wing of political parties will be allowed at the campus but students' representatives should be at the campus to speak for the grievances and woes of the students.
Student politics shares a glorious part of creation of Bangladesh. Often this glorious part is presented in such a way that any criticism towards the anarchic behavior is brushed aside as attempt to silence freedom of expression at universities.
Many veteran politicians also feel certain apprehension of rise of fundamentalism at universities in absence of student politics.
Student politics took a virulent form immediately after the independence of Bangladesh. I am not going to touch the details what led to such a violent student movement that ultimately contributed to the brutal assassination of Bangbandhu, contaminating neutral political atmosphere of the cantonment.
As soon as the politics of ruling elite took a U-turn after 1975, student politics turned violent. Islamists were let loose on the lefts at key public universities. Instead of encouraging debate at universities, students were indoctrinated with regimental belief and course of action. They later never learnt to appreciate different views and engage in any constructive debate. And the picture is more or less apparent at the national level: there is no reconciliation among the feuding parties, even over petty issues.
From the very beginning, students have never been in charge of student politics. It is steered and controlled by a certain quarter outside of the campus. Intervention is always there. Students are being used as pawns to protect regimented interests.
Many of these behind-the-curtain string pullers prefer to hide their pug marks. Sustaining this anarchic form of student politics yields tangible benefits to them: winning contracts of building infrastructure, roads etc, keeping a firm grip over extortion revenue generated by this kind of politics, maintaining businesses and office spaces at business centers and university adjacent areas with the assistance of party cadres.
Student politics and universities earned a bad name while many of these string pullers went scot free. However, many of them do not dare to introduce student politics at private universities. Why? Is there a collateral damage? Many members of board of directors and trustees are former and current politicians, who rose to prominence through practicing anarchic form of student politics. Or their party cadres turned academic hold important positions at these universities. Public universities are run by public funds whereas private universities hinge on students to run their expenses. Many view setting up private university a lucrative business. By introducing student politics into private universities, they do not want to put their business interests at risk or draw the ire of elites.
On the other hand, deteriorating learning environment at the public universities compelled parents to send their students to private universities.
Most of the sons and daughters of our former student leaders and politicians are never admitted at public universities. In fact, they go to abroad to pursue higher education. They lost the moral high ground to put argument in favor of current trend of student politics at public universities and colleges, where sons and daughters of ordinary citizens face full brunt of it.
I am appalled to see many of the former student leaders, who brought the academic activity to a complete halt by locking into fratricidal and rival clashes, managed to settle abroad. Many amassed huge wealth and started new life there. It is true for leaders irrespective of their political creeds.
In independent Bangladesh, student politics gave rise to another form of colonialism, where troublemakers of the campuses are the rent collectors of a foreign lord. Unabated anarchy in the pretext of student politics produced a breed of graduates who forget to pose questions to authority, to offer solutions to social and personal problems, and to elevate the society to a higher ground in terms of intellectual advancement, innovation and entrepreneurship. During their formative years, they have been coerced in such a way that they have become docile instruments at the hands of the ruling class who influences and shapes their future.
This status quo tremendously helped the quarter who does not want to see democracy flourishes, corruption dissipates and people get empowered. "Hold your ground", "Do not cede an inch", "Do not compromise with the enemy" are found in the lexicon of regimented groups. They could be a political party or an organized group like men-in-fatigue. A student who is being mentored at a learning center should know the difference between "competitor" and "enemy".
Often in the name of student politics,party cadres are tasked with "campus policing". They possess fire arms and beat black and blue students who do not comply with their rules. This should be stopped. Only police will do policing and in a sensitive place like university special police units can be formed. Harvard, MIT, Princeton all the universities have their own campus police. Since we are concerned about freedom of expression at the learning centers citing examples of first world, we should take cue from them to allow campus police at the tertiary learning centers. In this regard existing laws have to be amended or new laws have to be introduced.
Many of the anarchist leaders, who somehow got empowered and absorbed into the society, eulogized their anarchist conducts in their memoirs, anecdotes and interviews accorded to the press. This kind of conduct should not be encouraged and sold as part and parcel of a healthy student politics. A shameful conduct, acted upon an individual whom one did not like, should not be replicated as a reprisal.
While other nations are sending robots and satellites to the moon and Mars , we do not tolerate debate or dissident voices in the campus,which is our beacon of hope.
It is a pity that parties, rigid in belief and ideology, take full advantage of student politics and freedom of expression at the campus. Will they allow such practices when they form government? Look at the communist and theocratic countries.
Student politics needs to evolve. Laws should be amended to bar parties raising student wing at the universities, laws should be introduced to bar former and current politicians, student leaders, teachers taking part in bidding process of development projects at universities, a grievance redress system should be installed, harsher measures should be introduced against law enforcement agency / personnel who tries to stir trouble at the campus in connivance with student wings or anarchists. Moreover, foreign teachers should be allowed at the highest learning centers. It will improve the learning environment there. Laws should be amended to make this happen and UGC can maintain a roster of foreign teachers who are willing to work in Bangladeshi universities.
There is no doubt that most of our graduates are not on par with graduates churned out by other South Asian universities. The education-industry ecosystem developed over the years due to anarchic student politics is turning our employers to recruit foreign workers to ward off future troubles. While saboteurs of a new kind of colonialism act with impunity at the campus, our highest learning centers are becoming lawless jungles. Our inertia to ongoing trend of student politics is only accelerating that process.
