The High Court coming to allow activities of all political organisations on the Bangladesh University of Engineering and Technology campus by granting a stay on the decision of the university taken in 2019 to ban all political activities on the campus is welcome. It is welcome in that the right to political activism and assembly is a constitutional right and it is good when students are politically aware and active. In fact, student politics remains a powerful component in history and politics. The decision has, however, received mixed responses from general students of the university and society for very potent reasons. When the petitioner, the ruling Awami League鈥檚 student wing Chhatra League, has welcomed the High Court order, general students are understandably apprehensive of consequences of the resumption of political activities on the campus. The university banned activities of all political organisations on October 11, 2019, keeping to the demand of general students in the wake of the murder of BUET student Abrar Fahad by some Chhatra League leaders in the Sher-e-Bangla Hall on October 7, 2019.
After the murder, the decision of the university authorities came as a welcome effort to restore the academic environment to the university. Even the Chhatra League did not protest at the decision while civic groups and guardians demanded that other universities should follow suit. Such a demand, although unconstitutional, gained traction not because student politics was an anathema to those who demanded the ban but because of the derailed, deranged and dangerous activities of the Chhatra League on campuses. Every time the Chhatra League made the headlines in 15 years, it was for wrong reasons. The organisation activists were found involved in murder, rape, extortion, torture, harassment, seat distribution business and other wrongdoings. General students, teachers and officials of educational institutions have been the most affected by the unruly Chhatra League, which has also come to increasingly become undemocratic, fascist and high-handed towards the dissenting voice and other political organisations. What the Chhatra League did and continues to do on campuses can hardly be classified as political activism. It was, rather, downright hooliganism that disrupted academic activities of educational institutions. The demand, voiced by general students, was meant to ban such hooligan culture masqueraded as political activism.
The ban on political activism is certainly unconstitutional and students certainly need to be politically aware and active. But the hooliganism practised by the student wing of the ruling party is not political activism. The BUET authorities and authorities of other universities, must, therefore, ensure that political activism on campuses is not usurped by political hooliganism. Students, especially those involved in political organisations, must also realise that politics is what opens the mind and eyes, makes students question and does not lead to blind allegiance to any party or individual.
