¶¶Òõ¾«Æ·

EARLY on July 15, I woke up in Washington, DC to Facebook posts from Dhaka friends about Bangladesh Chhhatra League members ruthlessly attacking and beating up students at Dhaka University who were peacefully protesting to reform an outdated and regressive job quota system which shut them out of employment opportunities. The situation seemed to be heating up quickly, and like the 15 million other Bangladeshis living abroad, I was gripped with that familiar heightened anxiety as I sensed impending turmoil in Bangladesh. In the days and weeks that ensued, we all know what happened and how all of this turned into Red July – a bloody uprising with the Awami League regime showing its blatant disregard for human lives as it unleashed the full force of the state to crack down on unarmed civilians.

I was asked by this paper to discuss how the Bangladeshi diaspora engaged in the July-August uprising, which went quickly from being a protest for job quota reforms to a protest against former prime minister Sheikh Hasina’s undemocratic rule. I can say safely that in my 26 years of living abroad, I had never seen so much active engagement by Bangladeshi diaspora to protest injustice back home. From what I observed, the large majority of the diaspora, with the exception of some staunchly AL leaning groups and individuals, visibly supported the uprising not only by expressing their full solidarity on social media, but also through more impactful efforts, such as engaging lawmakers in their host countries to take action, staging protests outside Bangladeshi embassies and consulates, stopping remittances, supporting the injured, and engaging in the movement in other ways. Bangladeshi students abroad also played no small part in mobilising the diaspora this time, since they felt a special connection to their fellow Gen Z-ers who were facing off security forces in Bangladesh.Ìý

The voice of the Bangladeshi diaspora had been crucial for a while, given that freedom of speech had been severely curtailed for years and that counterparts in Bangladesh faced immediate danger if they dared to express dissent. However, with some exceptions, Bangladeshi diaspora for the last 15 years has largely felt paralysed about speaking up, since most people living abroad tend to have direct family members living in Bangladesh. This is different from the case of diaspora from other countries which have a longer history of migration abroad – for example, many members of the Georgian or Iranian diaspora in the United States are able to engage more visibly in political advocacy without fear of reprisals in the absence of direct relatives residing back home.

For several years, I had led an organisation in the United States which worked to channel the voice of the Bangladeshi diaspora in policy discussions about US-Bangladesh bilateral relations. This stemmed from a desire to help US policymakers make more educated decisions when they were considering economicÌý development related legislation towards Bangladesh. During this time, I often found that the Bangladeshi diaspora, outside of discussing politics at dinner parties, and doomscrolling about the occasionally tumultuous events back home, were less interested in raising their voices in the policy arena on issues such as governance. Aside from the usual practice of sending remittances, they were much more keen to engage in safer territory such as philanthropic giving for causes like health, education and natural disasters. Understandably, much of the diaspora felt reticent to speak up on thorny governance issues for fear that their families may be targeted by the government. After all, the AL government had a track record of using draconian laws like the Digital Security Act and the Cybersecurity Act to subject dissenters and their family members to arbitrary tortures, detentions and even enforced disappearances. There had been several instances where family members were captured and detained if their relatives abroad expressed disapproval of the government’s actions.

But this time it was different. It was not too many days after July 15 that much of the Bangladeshi diaspora, like their counterparts at home, felt that the government had clearly crossed a line. Whether you were indifferent, tolerant or even somewhat supportive of the regime, ruthless shooting and killing of unarmed youngsters was a dealbreaker. Stories of the young students Abu Sayeed, Farhan Faiyaz, Mir Mugdho and others touched the heart strings of every Bangladeshi everywhere who was not blinded by political partisanship. As the government’s crackdown intensified, and numbers of innocent lives that were prematurely ended began to rise, the emotion and shock which marked the initial reactions of diaspora Bangladeshis, crystalized into activism. They not only became visibly unrestrained in their posts on social media criticising the government, but they also followed this up with more meaningful actions such as organising into action groups, staging demonstrations at Bangladeshi missions abroad, leveraging their political influence by calling on government officials in their host countries to act, talking to international news outlets, signing petitions to the UN, and even stopping remittances to send a message. In the Middle East, a region not particularly friendly towards protestors, expatriate Bangladeshis who openly demonstrated even paid a steep price by being thrown into jail. In the Washington DC area, along with a group of friends we contacted foreign expats in Bangladesh to explore options for safe houses for the student leaders, educated US lawmakers about the developments, raised funds for those injured, and explored avenues for those detained to receive legal help.

When the internet slowed down significantly a few days into the uprising, a prescient friend from Dhaka posted on Facebook: ‘if the internet shuts down, you Bangladeshis abroad will be our voices.’ Alas, when the internet was actually shut down, the Bangladeshi diaspora, incredulous and infuriated, redoubled their efforts to raise awareness with international media and rights organisations while struggling to contact family members. This act of the AL government sent shockwaves through the diaspora community. A friend whose mother was ill and living alone in Bangladesh vowed that she would never forgive the regime for ripping families apart like this.Ìý Ìý

Similar to many other places, Bangladeshi-Americans in the Washington DC area organised several demonstrations at places of significance, including in front of the Embassy of Bangladesh and the White House.ÌýIn reaction, the Embassy of Bangladesh in Washington, DC surreptitiously took photographs of demonstrators and recorded their names so that they could penalise them when trying to renew their passports or visit their families in Bangladesh. Political groups affiliated with and paid for by the regime, showed up to intimidate the protestors. But the protestors, led by students in many cases, carried on fearlessly. Not surprisingly, it was also later revealed that there was a chilling circular by the former foreign secretary to Heads of Missions directing them to report on demonstrations, control the narrative and ‘discreetly utilise diaspora who are favourably disposed to boost counter-narratives.’ As the profile pictures on social media started turning red, a certain staff member at the DC Bangladesh embassy (who has since been recalled), even embarked on active virtual harassment of Bangladeshis living in the area for daring to express their support of the students. All of this had echoes of Russian style repressive tactics.Ìý

I suspect that it took the AL regime some time to realise that the uprising was no longer just about job quota reform but about a variety of things: seeking justice for those killed for their basic right to free expression, reacting to the palpable climate of fear and divisiveness created by their Razakar tagging, and, underpinning it all, it was a struggle for fairness. The protestors at home and abroad were not born yesterday and this was an explosive reaction to the government’s arrogance and autocracy while it failed to deliver for the ordinary Bangladeshi who was struggling to afford basic necessities. In the backdrop of all this was the awareness that regime members had shamelessly embezzled significant amounts of the nation’s funds, although the extent of this loot was revealed much later. I must also acknowledge here that much of the news over the years about the stealing of national funds was also reported by diaspora Bangladeshis – investigative journalists who were forced to live away or in exile under the AL regime.Ìý

The regime’s argument that the whole movement was being led by opposition groups and ‘miscreants’ fell on deaf ears at home and abroad, failing to convince Bangladeshis that this was a good reason to support the alternative: an undemocratic and kleptocratic regime. Ultimately, it was clear that the regime was out of touch with its people.

We know how the story ultimately ended, but all these events showed that when the diaspora is resolute in mobilising, they can help their counterparts back home come out of the grips of the most entrenched authoritarian systems, and their expressions of solidarity can help those under siege overcome their sense of isolation in the face of such tragic events.  

Ìý

Shamarukh Mohiuddin is an international development practitioner living in the United States.