by Zubayer Ibn Kamal

DHAKA, July 15, 2025 (BSS) – Md Mahfuj Alam was one of those who led the July movement from the front and coordinated it from behind to take it to the zenith of success on August 5, 2024 toppling the Awami League regime. 

He worked to keep the movement alive despite the massive killings and mass arrests by the Awami League government during the July Uprising.

Chief Adviser Professor Dr Muhammad Yunus introduced him as the hero behind the scenes in the July 2024 Uprising at the Clinton Global Initiative Leaders Stage of former US President Bill Clinton on the sidelines of the 79th session of the United Nations General Assembly.

Mahfuj Alam was born in 1995 in Lakshmipur. He completed his Dakhil (SSC) from a madrasa in Chandpur and Alim (HSC) from Tamirul Millat Kamil Madrasa in the capital. 

In the 2015-16 session, Mahfuj Alam was admitted to the Law Department of Dhaka University. During his time at the university, he did several works related to cinema and literature. 

In addition to conducting regular reading sessions, he was also involved in publishing irregular magazines. 

Mahfuj Alam was one of the members of the liaison committee of the Anti-Discrimination Student Movement during the July Uprising. 

After the student-public uprising on August 5, he was appointed as a special assistant to the chief advisor. 

Mahfuj Alam took oath as an adviser to the Ministry of Information and Broadcasting in February this year.

In a special interview with BSS, Mahfuj Alam spoke about the background of the July Uprising, cultural relations with the aspirations of the students and the public, and the formation of a modern state.

BSS: Which events made the July Uprising inevitable for you?

Mahfuj Alam: The Awami League had basically brought forward a state division through the Shapla-Shahbagh binary, where a scenario of making the state either Islamist or secular was shown. 

Behind these divisions, the 2014 elections were basically hijacked. In 2015, the BNP's non-cooperation movement and the Awami government's repression led to Bangladesh being taken to a 'non-existent opposition party' style. The VAT movement and the safe road movement were the reactions to all of these, then the DUCSU elections. If we take these three big events as the one that happened until 2018, then after the 2018 “night” elections, something was slowly happening. That is, a democratic fresher group of young people was emerging outside the Mujibist organizations. Although they were outside of systematic politics, they were actually a political front, which we can see now.

Since the college-educated students who participated in the 18th movement were university students during the 2024 mass uprising, the scenario of the Awami League's misery of the last few years was clearly visible to them. As a result, it was easy for them to participate in this movement with political awareness.

Another movement that cannot be mentioned without citing is the movement against border killings. Due to Indian aggression, there are frequent killings on the border, and Hasina’s government has become a puppet government - this movement brought the issues of this terrible Indian aggression to the public for the first time.

On the other hand, with the murder of Biswajit Das, from 2013 to 2018, there was a culture of beating and killing on suspicion of Shibir. 
After the martyrdom of Abrar Fahad, this decreased a lot. The incident of Abrar Fahad's martyrdom created a great sensitivity within us.
On the one hand, the Awami League was becoming such a monster, on the other hand, the narratives of the Awami League was facing gradual resistance, all of which made a citizen uprising inevitable.

Was there any alternative way to overthrow the dictatorship other than the student-public uprising?

Mahfuj Alam: To be honest, there was no way to bring down the dictatorial Awami League through systematic movement or politics. Because, the Awami League had completely destroyed the electoral system for the democratic transfer of power, and BNP was deceived in the 2018 elections. Moreover, by eliminating the existence of the opposition party, the Awami League had actually blocked all its peaceful ways out from the power. 
  
The army had a method of taking over. Starting from the BDR massacre, by getting involved in various political issues, what is called moral power was broken. Also, the failure of the 1/11 government was on the army’s shoulders. The way the army was used by Sheikh Hasina and her security adviser Tareque Siddiqui, in fact, the morale of the army had collapsed. Therefore, the process of taking over the power by the army was not realistic.

Therefore, this work needed to be done by a front that was not so hostile. The people were waiting for real leadership. Therefore, as soon as the students came forward, the workers and the masses joined with them. Therefore, it can be said that a mass uprising was inevitable to overthrow Sheikh Hasina.

A major reason behind the failure of the previous movements was 'disagreement'. But how did people with completely different ideologies come together in the July Uprising?

Mahfuj Alam: To be honest, every movement has a compromising element. This movement did not have it; rather, there were compromising issues in this movement too. But we knew about the compromising issues because we had been doing activism on campus for 7-8 years. And there are some compromising actors in every place, we knew them. So this time, we were concerned about the issue from the beginning and we had already dealt with the areas where there could be disagreements.

There were some people who could have created divisions, but we did not allow that opportunity. So naturally, we were able to move forward together towards the uprising.

We see that most of the students who were at the forefront of the July Uprising had a cultural understanding. Some might have done regular study groups, some might have reviewed books, some might have published magazines. How did cultural understanding influence this uprising?

Mahfuj Alam: This is a very important discussion. I started talking about the Shapla-Shahbag division. Shapla-Shahbag is basically a cultural division. We can see the proof of how strong the cultural division is in 1993. Culturally, you divided the country into two parts.

As a result, you needed a group that was neither directly Islamist nor Islamophobic. Such a rare brand was needed, or you can also call it a rare breed.

A group was needed that was not Islamophobic. Because of which it would be seen that the scholars would not feel uncomfortable with them or that they would not feel that they would be deceived if they went with them. Again, at the same time, they were not Islamists, so the secularists would not feel that, no, they were probably working to establish an Islamic state or for some other motive. 

As a result, a middle ground was needed. And we found this middle ground among the madrasa students, among the college-university students, and even among the people living in villages and cities. And through this, a unity of diverse people came about.

Since the main motto of Mujibist politics was division, parties like BNP were also uncomfortable about whether they should take the scholars with them. The scholars were also gradually being deceived by the opposition parties. Therefore, the politics of division that the Awami League was practicing was becoming more successful.

Then we were thinking about how to do it. What kind of manifesto could be created so that one group would not feel uncomfortable with another group, so that another group would not feel other, and how to bring the views and ideals of people from diverse different parties into an inclusive cultural understanding outside the politics of Mujibist division, we worked for many days. Some work would be done in the background, some activities would be done in the front. For this reason, each person would be in the front at a time.

Sometimes Akhtar (NCP member secretary) would be in front, sometimes Akram (NCP joint member secretary), or sometimes Nasir Uddin Patwari would be in front. All of them were actually from our same circle, one person would come forward at a time as needed. For example, Nahid Islam was not that well-known in political circles. Earlier, he might have just stood as the cultural secretary at DUCSU. Then he went into oblivion.

Nahid was associated with us, regularly read books but was not that politically active at that time. Asif (local government adviser) was doing political activism. On the other hand, another Shoaib Abdullah went into research. Nasir Uddin Patwari had also joined the AB Party at that time. These actors, they were actually doing the same thing in different places but in different ways, looking for an inclusive middle ground.

So how did Nahid Islam come forward in the movement?

Mahfuj Alam: Nahid Islam was a fresh character politically at that time. If Akhtar had come forward, it could have been shown as an anti-Awami League move. So Akhtar was not brought forward. If I had come forward, I would have been identified and I would not have been able to do the work behind the scenes. Asif Mahmud also did not want to come forward initially for some valid reasons. Akram was once quite prominent on campus. But we left all of them behind and brought Nahid forward.

One reason for this was that he had not been seen much before, he was very much like a new character. On the other hand, since he was an urban school student, his understanding with the youth of the middle class society might have been easier than others. Again, I was the one working from behind, communicating with intellectuals of all genres.

You can call our work a bit of a division play. Our main objective was to keep our dream alive. Who came forward and who stayed behind did not matter at all. You can explain it like playing a role in a theater. 
If he plays even the least important role properly, that will catch your eye. I remember learning one thing from theater school as a child, that if someone gets the role of playing the flute standing in the corner of the stage, he will basically complete the entire theater by doing it.

We hear that the government is trying those involved in the July massacre through the 'Truth and Reconciliation' method. Do you think this process is effective?

Mahfuj Alam: Truth is actually a matter of fact finding. What is truth? For example, a few days ago, the Election Commissioner of the dictatorial era told the court that fake national elections were held during the Awami League tenure, and these were not fair and impartial elections. A person in charge of the Election Commission is bringing the 'truth' to the fore by saying this. 

The recognition of these words must come from the Awami League, because the judicial process is a different thing, and from the point of view of morality, the Awami League must come forward by admitting this murder.

You can punish the criminal through the judicial process. But can you make the sinner innocent through punishment? No. He must come forward through the process of confessing his sin and asking for forgiveness. For example, a teacher did not participate in the genocide. But he gave full support to the Awami League, which committed the genocide. You cannot punish this teacher for genocide. Rather, you must move forward by acknowledging his sin and asking for forgiveness. Now there should be ten ways to apologize. But there is no effective process for that outside of Truth and Reconciliation.

For example, the police are directly involved in the July massacre. Not one or two members; rather, the entire police institution is involved. RAB is involved in enforced disappearances and crossfire. But both the police and RAB have apologized as institutions and are trying to go through a reconciliation process by reorganizing them. Apart from that, I don't see any other way. Personally, I am very optimistic. I think we will become stronger as a state through this process.

But there are many reactions in the public mind about the July massacre trial. Are you optimistic about this too?

Mahfuj Alam: We needed a speedy trial where those involved in murder, enforced disappearances and corruption are punished in a quick judicial process. But the problem is that the judicial system has also been broken during the dictatorship. The institutions on which the trial and investigation stand have also been destroyed. So when the trial began, it was slower than expected.

But still, some solutions have been tried to overcome these crises. For example, two international crimes tribunals have been formed. We are trying, not only the government; I think the citizens are also helping to facilitate the trial process. I hope that the families of the martyrs in July and the countrymen will soon see visible justice.

Finally, I would like to know, have we been able to move towards the aspiration of a new political settlement that was expressed when the one-point demand of the mass uprising was announced? As the state is going through reforms, is the political culture also being reformed?

Mahfuj Alam: To be honest, a new political settlement is possible only when the existing political culture and practices are reformed. Now, you cannot bring a new political settlement by doing systematic politics like before.

Let me tell you a story about this. When Nehru came to power after the formation of the Indian state, there was no opposition party, maybe not even 5-6 members in the parliament. Nehru had the opportunity to become a dictator, since there was no opposition. But Nehru called Jayaprakash Narayan as soon as he came to power and said, "You form a strong opposition party, we will help you." 

He wanted to maintain the political culture of a democratic state. On the other hand, Sheikh Mujib was also in the same situation after the formation of the Bangladesh state, but he did not take the opportunity to form a democratic state. Mujibist political parties want to run the country in the same way.

Now, if you do not respect the opposition party or faction, do not allow them to come as a strong position, then does the state stand properly? This is a core idea of politics. There are very few, if not none, politicians in Bangladesh who would do politics with the opposition. One was Begum Khaleda Zia. Hasina attacked her terribly and said ugly things. But in that sense, Begum Khaleda Zia did not do politics of revenge. The problem is, this culture has not been created in Bangladeshi politics.

I still see that no party wants to give space to rival political parties. If you continue this, then political reform has not happened. I feel that if the aspirations of the people's uprising are to be realized, political parties will also have to develop a new culture outside the existing traditional political practices.

BSS: Thank you for giving us your time.