Poet, writer and human rights activist Farhad Mazhar, speaks to The Daily Observer on the July students-led uprising, changing political situation of the country after August-5 and its consequences. Walid Khan, Staff Reporter, took the interview.
“Dr. Yunus or whoever leads the interim government should declare themselves as the head of state, demanding the resignation of the current president, Mohammed Shahabuddin. Following this, they must declare the current Constitution null and void and begin the process of drafting a new one that genuinely reflects the will of the people.”
“The new constitution must be drafted by a Constituent Assembly, not a parliament. A Constituent Assembly elected by the people would allow for genuine debate on the form and structure of the government. Whether we adopt a presidential or parliamentary system is a decision for the people to make.”
“The interview given by Army Chief General Waker-uz-Zaman, particularly at a time when Dr. Yunus is in New York, has raised eyebrows. As the army chief, General Waker-uz-Zaman is not a political leader, and it is unusual for a figure in his position to make public statements that verge on political commentary.”
Observer: Many consider you have one of the main role as an architect behind the successful July uprising. Would you elaborate your involvement in the movement? Farhad Mazhar (FM) : No, I am not. Framing such question is misleading and, frankly, undesirable. The notion of an 'architect' or 'mastermind' trivializes the monumental collective sacrifice of our people. Politically, this kind of thinking is dangerous because it erases the collective historical agency of the people, which is the core driver of any genuine movement. By crediting individuals or small groups, we risk creating conditions for authoritarianism or even fascism, where a few individuals claim glory at the expense of the many. Such narratives distort the truth, which is that the people themselves-ordinary citizens, students, workers-are the real architects of any successful uprising. Reducing this to the acts of a few ignores the courageous struggle waged by the masses against dictatorship, fascism, and the oppressive neoliberal order that seeks to dominate every aspect of our lives.
I have always seen myself as part of the people, deeply connected to their struggles. My role, if any, has been to amplify their voices, to think critically and articulate the political questions that matter to them. My writings and activism are aimed at ensuring that the people of Bangladesh can assert their political agency, and that they can become a true political community. In a post-colonial, post-nationalist world, dominated by neoliberal forces, this is no small task. The youth may have been inspired by my ideas, but this reflects their own political will and aspirations, not my personal influence or design.
The July movement was not the result of any grand plan or individual genius; it was a true people's movement, still ongoing in its fight to secure final victory. The danger now is to diminish that collective spirit by singling out a few leaders and presenting them as the face of the revolution. This would betray the very principles that brought us here.
If I contributed in any way, it was through my writings and my attempts to unite different political factions under a common goal of dismantling a fascist regime. It succeeded, not because of any individual's brilliance, but because we were articulating the will of the people. The credit belongs to the collective struggle of the people of Bangladesh.
Observer: Apart from writing, what other actions did you take in preparation for the revolution? FM : We organized regular study circles and meetings-both formal and informal-to critically examine our political reality. These discussions, such as 'PathChakra' and 'Bhav-Baithaki' were pivotal. These forums allowed us to dissect complex political and ideological issues, and they cultivated the political will necessary for action. Many of those who led the movement were participants in those sessions, where we explored the historical and current challenges facing Bangladesh, discussing what it meant to genuinely represent the will of the people. This was intellectual and political preparation, not a formal "planning" of revolution, but creating the necessary ideological foundation for mass action.
Observer: Did you share the idea of mass movement with any political party? FM : I discussed the idea of popular sovereignty and democracy with almost all the major political parties, but they failed to grasp the concept in its depth. Modern notions of popular sovereignty are deeply tied to the idea of 'constituent power'-the ability of the people to collectively constitute their own political order through sustained political action. This was not just about holding elections within the framework of the existing 'fascist constitution', but about constituting the people as a genuine political community capable of exercising real sovereignty.
The traditional political parties, however, were not interested in such an ambitious transformation. They sought to gain power through elections held under a system that fundamentally denied the people's sovereignty. But the students, the youths, understood these ideas and successfully mobilized to oust the fascist regime. They garnered widespread support across all classes and sectors of society, with women playing a pivotal role, demonstrating that true leadership comes from the people themselves. The mass movement reached its peak when soldiers refused to turn their weapons on unarmed citizens, showing that the entire society was ready for a new 'political order'. My writings may have helped to articulate these ideas, but the people's actions were the decisive force.
Observer: After the successful student-led revolution, why did you support Dr. Muhammad Yunus as the head of the interim government? FM: Dr. Yunus was a pragmatic choice given the geopolitical realities. In an international system dominated by powerful actors, it was thought that his global stature might facilitate the reconstruction of Bangladesh and gain support from the international community and organizations like the United Nations. While our expectations included a commitment to democratic principles and political wisdom, the situation remains fluid. Whether Dr. Yunus proves successful will depend on how he navigates this difficult transitional period, aligning the aspirations of our people with the practical demands of a complex global system.
Observer: You've spoken about changing the Constitution. Do you think a change in the Constitution alone can bring significant change without reforming or changing the political parties? FM : The issue is not merely about changing the constitution but about reconstituting the political community. The very term 'Songbidhan' (constitution) suggests a legal instrument for governing a colonized people, which is what our constitution has essentially been. Instead, we need a true constitutive act that redefines the people's sovereignty. The Bangla term Gothontantra (MVbZš¿) better reflects the notion of a constitution as an act of people coming together to form a political community.
In 1972, after independence, the people of Bangladesh did not have the opportunity to draft a constitution through a newly elected constituent assembly. The constitution was drafted by individuals elected under Pakistan's framework, which means it was never a true expression of the people's will. That's why we need a new constitution that reflects the sovereign will of the people of Bangladesh, one that fundamentally alters the relationship between the state and its citizens, moving away from colonial legacies and neoliberal exploitation.
Observer: The current Constitution does not provide for an interim government. How do you justify its existence? FM : The interim government, as it stands, has no constitutional legitimacy under the current fascist framework. The current constitution must be discarded along with the institutions of the old regime. The political crisis we are in now is a result of elites who have clung to colonial-era laws and institutions, denying the constituting power of the people. The interim government is an emergency measure necessitated by the people's uprising. However, if it is not resolved soon, Bangladesh risks further instability and the potential return of authoritarian rule.
Observer: What should the interim government do in this situation? FM : The first act of the interim government should be to formally recognize the sovereignty of the people as manifested in the uprising. Dr. Yunus or whoever leads the interim government should declare themselves as the head of state, demanding the resignation of the current president, Mohammed Shahabuddin. Following this, they must declare the current Constitution null and void and begin the process of drafting a new one that genuinely reflects the will of the people. While constitution making process is ongoing the goal will be not to disrupt the daily functioning of the country but to lay the groundwork for a new political order. Existing laws can function as long as they do not violate international humanitarian norms.
Observer: Without a parliament, who will draft the new constitution? FM : The new constitution must be drafted by a Constituent Assembly, not a parliament. A Constituent Assembly elected by the people would allow for genuine debate on the form and structure of the government. Whether we adopt a presidential or parliamentary system is a decision for the people to make. The draft constitution must address critical issues like the separation of powers, citizens' freedom and dignity, and the balance between natural law and modern legal frameworks. Decentralization and the role of local governance will also be key in ensuring that political power is not concentrated in the hands of a few.
Once a draft is completed, it should be presented to the people for approval through a referendum. Only then can we move forward with elections and the formation of a new government that reflects the people's true will.
Observer: With the absence of Awami League, how will the political vacuum be addressed? FM : The absence of Awami League does not create a political vacuum, because politics is not about parties-it's about the people. For 15 years, under Awami League rule, we saw the suppression of opposition and the near-total erasure of political balance. The country has already functioned in a one-party system, so the fear of a vacuum is misplaced. What matters now is that the people, through their own political agency, are constructing a new political order. The absence of any party is irrelevant when the people themselves have risen to assert their sovereignty.
Observer: What is your comment on Army Chief General Waker-uz-Zaman's interview with Reuters? FM : The interview given by Army Chief General Waker-uz-Zaman, particularly at a time when Dr. Yunus is in New York, has raised eyebrows. As the army chief, General Waker-uz-Zaman is not a political leader, and it is unusual for a figure in his position to make public statements that verge on political commentary. It would be more prudent for him to avoid entering the political arena. Historically, the role of the army is to protect and defend the sovereign will of the people, not to become involved in political discourse. While his expression of support to Dr. Yunus may stem from a genuine desire to align with the people's cause, such statements risk creating confusion. Politics should remain the domain of political leaders like Dr. Yunus or members of the Advisory Council, not military officials.
By making political remarks, the army chief inadvertently sends a troubling signal that the survival of the current government might depend on military backing, rather than the will of the people. This raises a critical question: Is the interim government, much like that of the 1/11 period, reliant on the military for its legitimacy? If that is the case, it undermines the very foundation of a democratic process, which should be based on popular sovereignty, not military endorsement.
Bangladesh is currently navigating a fragile political landscape, and it is essential to clarify whether the army chief stands with the people's struggle for democracy-a struggle marked by tremendous sacrifice. His comments suggest that the interim government exists due to military support, not because of a popular mandate. This implication is dangerous, particularly given the legal uncertainties surrounding the interim government. If the interim government appears to be propped up by the military, it weakens the legitimacy of democratic institutions and raises doubts about the government's independence from military influence.
The people of Bangladesh are engaged in a fight to establish a democratic order. The role of the army in this context is to remain a neutral defender of the people's sovereignty, not to align with any individual or political regime. Decisions regarding elections, including the timing, are political in nature and should be determined by the Advisory Council of the interim government in consultation with political parties, not by the military. Any suggestion from the army regarding when elections should be held undermines the democratic process. A transparent and inclusive dialogue is necessary to reach decisions that reflect the will of the people.
Furthermore, the army chief's involvement in political commentary undermines the authority of political parties in shaping the nation's future. The manner and timing of elections are inherently political matters that must be resolved by political actors through democratic means. The military has no legitimate role in determining such issues, and any interference from the army threatens to destabilize the political process and diminish the autonomy of democratic institutions.
