This is apropos to my letter to the Editor carried by the newspaper yesterday. The Sheikh Hasina government’s response was harsh, deploying police and security forces to disperse the demonstrators using tear gas, rubber bullets, and batons. A nationwide curfew and internet shutdown were imposed to stifle the protests.
This violent crackdown resulted in over 114 deaths, thousands of injuries and eleven among the protesters, with numerous arrests and reports of mistreatment. The death of Abu Sayed, a prominent protester, symbolized the brutality faced by the movement.
This unrest prompted the Supreme Court to expedite the hearing originally scheduled for August and, on July 21, 2024, reduced the quota of the so-called freedom fighters from 30% to 5% and maintained 2% for other disadvantaged groups.
Even this move of the apex court was rejected by the students and they further intensified their protests and demanded complete abolition of the quota system terming it against the meritocracy.
In addition, they demanded broader reforms, unconditional release of arrested students, accountability of the government and accountability of the state apparatus responsible for the violence on the students.
The Supreme Court learned a bitter lesson about the importance of balancing public sentiment with judicial decisions, particularly regarding affirmative action and meritocracy.
The court realized that it is not merely a tool in the hands of those in power but has a greater responsibility to serve the public good. It understood that its duty is to protect the interests of the entire population, not just the vested interests of a few.
The power of public wrath was also evident; when the public is determined to achieve genuine objectives, even the court must yield to their demands. The Supreme Court acknowledged that it exists because of the general masses, not because of a select few.
Qamar Bashir
Copyright Business Recorder, 2024
Comments
Comments are closed for this article.