[🇧🇩] July Proclamation

[Saif]

Date of Event: Aug 3, 2025

Source: https://www.newagebd.net/post/Politics/271864/july-proclamation-to-feature-discrimination-free-country

July Proclamation to feature discrimination-free country
Proclamation on Tuesday with effect from Aug 5, 2024

Staff Correspondent 02 August, 2025, 13:45

The interim government has finalised the draft of the July Proclamation set to be presented on August 5, according to a statement from the chief adviser’s press wing.

‘The July Proclamation draft has been finalised and it will be presented to the nation at 5:00pm on Tuesday when all parties involved in the July uprising will be present,’ said the statement.

Further details will be announced soon, it added.

The interim government-formed National Consensus Commission is also working on finalising the reforms-related July Charter that is expected to be endorsed by the NCC chair and chief adviser Professor Muhammad Yunus, members of the commission, and the political parties participated in the months-long reforms dialogue.

On Friday, the information and broadcasting ministry adviser Mahfuz Alam on his verified social media handle announced, ‘July Proclamation is now a reality. The proclamation will certainly be announced by August 5.’

Last month, a preliminary draft of the July Proclamation was shared with some political parties, including the BNP, Bangladesh Jamaat-e-Islami and NCP for their feedback.

NCP joint convener Javed Rasin said that the draft proclamation featured the context of the July uprising, the history of an ‘anti-people’ autocracy by the ‘fascist’ Sheikh Hasina-led Awami League regime, followed by the history of Bangladesh’s emergence, the Independence War 1971.

The draft proclamation mentioned the misuse of the 1972 constitution and its weaknesses, the failure of the ousted Awami League regime in upholding the people’s spirits derived from their independence war, the Sepoy-Janata Biplob on November 7, 1975, the mass uprising in 1990 and the restoration of democracy in 1991 and the January 11, 2006 ‘conspiratorial settlement’.

The proclamation would also mention the violation of citizens’ voting rights during the national elections in 2014, 2018, and 2024 and the extrajudicial measures against the oppositions during the Awami League regime.

A CA office press wing official said that the proclamation would mention that the present interim government was formed on August 8, 2024, in accordance with the constitution’s article 106. It will also mention that the citizens of Bangladesh have expressed their grave concerns against fascism and corruption, showed their enthusiasm for rebuilding a non-discriminatory and corruption-and-fascism-free country and for adopting reform of the constitution and for running all the constitutional and state organisations in a democratic way.

The proclamation would be considered effective from August 5, 2024, the day the Awami League regime was ousted.

Earlier, Students Against Discrimination, which spearheaded the uprising to eventually topple the Awami League regime on August 5 last year, first announced plans to release a proclamation to consolidate the spirits of the uprising in the constitution.

The National Citizen Committee, the original springboard of the National Citizen Party, echoed the announcement.

Both the organisations on December 29 publicly introduced the idea of a ‘July Proclamation’ and set December 31 for its release.

Amid objections from some political parties, including the Bangladesh Nationalist Party, the interim government intervened into the matter and announced that it would present the proclamation following discussions with all political parties instead of only the Students Against Discrimination and the National Citizen Committee.​

 

[Saif]

[🇧🇩] Post in thread 'July Charter'

Aug 4, 2025

What are the ‘July Declaration’ and the ‘July National Charter’?

The interim government is set to present the ‘July Declaration’ before the nation on Tuesday afternoon. Meanwhile, the National Consensus Commission is working to finalise the ‘July National Charter’. Both documents have turned into topics of significant political discussion in recent times...

en.prothomalo.com

Prothom Alo Explainer
What are the ‘July Declaration’ and the ‘July National Charter’?
Riadul Karim Dhaka
Published: 04 Aug 2025, 20: 57

Students demonstrate in July, 2024 Prothom Alo file photo

The interim government is set to present the ‘July Declaration’ before the nation on Tuesday afternoon.

Meanwhile, the National Consensus Commission is working to finalise the ‘July National Charter’.

Both documents have turned into topics of significant political discussion in recent times. While...​

• Saif

 

[Saif]

Yunus set to unveil July Proclamation today

The interim government is set to unveil the July Proclamation today, having kept most political parties in the dark about the document’s content by not having them involved in the processes of drafting and finalising the proclamation.

www.newagebd.net

Yunus set to unveil July Proclamation today
Most political parties excluded from drafting process
Sadiqur Rahman 05 August, 2025, 00:14

People work on Monday to prepare the stage and drone show near Sangsad Bhaban on Manik Mia Avenue, from where the chief adviser, Muhammad Yunus, is set to reveal the July Proclamation marking July Mass Uprising Day today. | New Age photo

The interim government is set to unveil the July Proclamation today, having kept most political parties in the dark about the document’s content by not having them involved in the processes of drafting and finalising the proclamation.

The chief adviser, Professor Muhammad Yunus, will read out the proclamation at a programme at the South Plaza of the Jatiya Sangsad complex at 5:00pm, chief adviser’s press wing said.

Bangladesh Television will broadcast the programme.

The July Proclamation will be given retrospective effect from August 5, 2024, marking the first anniversary of July Mass Uprising Day.

The proclamation is likely to feature a discrimination-free country while a July Charter is likely to be announced letter, detailing the state reforms based the National Consensus Commission dialogue with the political parties.

Although the commission involved 38 political parties in drafting the July Charter in the first round and 30 of them in the second round, held between March 20 and July 31, the government consulted most of the parties in drafting or finalisation of the July Proclamation, the parties alleged.

According to party representatives, only the Bangladesh Nationalist Party, the Bangladesh Jamaat-e-Islami, and the National Citizen Party were consulted in finalizing the document.

A statement issued on Saturday by the press wing of the Chief Adviser’s Office said that the July Proclamation would be unveiled at 5:00pm on Tuesday in the presence of all parties involved in the July 2024 uprising.

Representatives of several political parties and alliances, excluding the BNP, Jamaat, and NCP, told New Age on Sunday that they had not been involved in finalising the proclamation. Some said that they had not even been invited to the unveiling ceremony to be held on the Manik Mia Avenue in the city.New Age specials

Ganosamhati Andolan chief coordinator Zonayed Saki said that his party had submitted its views on the July Proclamation in February in response to a call from the Chief Adviser’s Office.

‘But we were not shown the final draft of the July Proclamation, which should have been done,’ Saki said.

On December 29 last year, Students Against Discrimination and the National Citizen Committee, two platforms behind the July uprising, publicly announced plans to release the July Proclamation on December 31.

However, after objections from several political parties, including the BNP, the interim government intervened and declared that the proclamation would be released only after consultation with all parties.

Like the Ganosamhati Andolan, two other partners in the Ganatantra Mancha alliance – the Jatiya Samajtantrik Dal and the Revolutionary Workers Party of Bangladesh – were also excluded from the processes of drafting and finalising the proclamation.

RWPB general secretary Saiful Huq said that he was completely unaware of the proclamation.

JSD general secretary Shahid Uddin Mahmud Shapon questioned, ‘What will we do by attending the unveiling ceremony of a proclamation to which our party has no connection at all?’

Shapon alleged that the interim government had only shared the final draft with the BNP, Jamaat, and NCP.

Islami Andolan Bangladesh, a religion-based political party, was not also engaged in drafting or finalising the July Proclamation. IAB presidium member Ashraf Ali Akon, who had been vocal in the NCC reforms dialogue, expressed frustration, commenting, ‘This government’s attitude is mysterious. It seems to me that it is hiding something from the political parties.’

Ashraf further alleged that the government was giving importance only to the BNP, Jamaat, and NCP.

Even parties aligned with the BNP were excluded from the drafting process.

Bangladesh Labour Party chair Mostafizur Rahman Iran, who claimed that two of his party activists had sacrificed their lives during the July uprising and that he himself was active in the anti-Awami League movement, said, ‘Unfortunately, my party has not been involved in preparing the July Proclamation.’

Nationalist Democratic Movement secretary general Mominul Amin said that his party had submitted its views on the proclamation in February. ‘But the government has not yet shared the final draft with us,’ he told New Age on Sunday.New Age specials

Bhasani Janashakti Party president Sheikh Rafiqul Islam Bablu, Socialist Party of Bangladesh general secretary Bazlur Rashid Firoz, and Communist Party of Bangladesh central committee secretary Sajedul Haque Rubel all reported similar experiences.

Sajedul Haque Rubel said that his party would not attend the unveiling ceremony. Bazlur Rashid Firoz added, ‘The proclamation must reflect the consent of political parties, students, workers, and professionals who actively participated in the July uprising and the anti-fascist movement. But the interim government has ignored them.’​

 

[Saif]

Parties divided over July Declaration

Major political parties on Wednesday gave mixed reactions to the July Declaration and a time frame for the next national election announced by the interim government in the previous day...

www.newagebd.net

Parties divided over July Declaration
They welcome polls time frame
Staff Correspondent 07 August, 2025, 00:17

Major political parties on Wednesday gave mixed reactions to the July Declaration and a time frame for the next national election announced by the interim government in the previous day.

Some parties said that the announcement of the declaration and time frame for the polls was a step forward while some others observed that the declaration failed to contain the people’s aspirations fully.

Marking the first anniversary of the July uprising, at an event at South Plaza of Jatiya Sangsad in the capital Dhaka on Tuesday afternoon, the interim government chief adviser, Professor Muhammad Yunus, read out the July Declaration.

The interim government assumed office after the ouster of the authoritarian Awami League regime on August 5, 2024, in a mass uprising.

The July Declaration states that the people of Bangladesh expressed their desire to recognise the martyrs of the July uprising as national heroes.

‘. . . that the July Declaration will feature in the schedule of the reformed constitution as framed by the government formed through the next national election,’ it states, among others. In the evening on the day, Yunus, in his televised address to the nation, said that he would write to the chief election commissioner to get fully prepared to hold the next national election in February 2026 before the month of Ramadan which will begin in the third week of February.

At a press conference at Bangladesh Nationalist Party chairperson’s office in the capital on Wednesday, BNP secretary general Mirza Fakhrul Islam Alamgir said that his party welcomed the July Declaration.

‘The BNP believes that the political commitments made in the declaration will pave the way for transforming the country into a new democratic Bangladesh,’ he said.

Welcoming the announcement of the national election before Ramadan, Fakhrul said that the announcement matched the outcome of the London meeting between the chief adviser and BNP acting chairman Tarique Rahman.

‘The BNP believes that this historic announcement will help overcome Bangladesh’s political deadlock and pave the way for a transition to democracy,’ he said.

Bangladesh Jamaat-e-Islami’s nayeb-e-amir Syed Abdullah Mohammad Taher said that the chief adviser-delivered July Declaration was an incomplete statement.

He presented a written statement on behalf of the party at a press conference held at Al-Falah Auditorium in Dhaka on Wednesday.

‘The declaration did not reflect the expectations of the general public,’ he said.

Taher added that the declaration did not contain a number of historical events, including the 1947 Azadi or partition, Pilkhana massacre and Shapla massacre.

‘The roles of Islamic scholars, madrassah teachers and students, expatriates and online activists in the July uprising were also not acknowledged, which was injustice and disregard for history,’ Taher said.

He added that his party expected that the chief adviser would consult political parties before announcing the national election time frame.

‘Nevertheless, in the interests of the nation, we view the chief adviser’s announcement as a positive step,’ Taher said.

The National Citizen Party at a press conference at its office at Bangla Motor in Dhaka welcomed the July Declaration, but said that it expected more in the document.

The party’s member secretary, Ahkter Hossen, said that his party had no objection to the announced election time frame.

‘But the election must be held after the trials of fascists become visible, the reforms in different sectors are done and the impartiality of the administration and the level playing field are ensured,’ Akhter said.

Ganosamhati Andolan accepted the July Declaration as a direct outcome of the historic July uprising.

The party’s chief coordinator, Zonayed Saki, however, warned that if the people’s aspirations embodied in the declaration are not realised, the old arrangements would return once again and strip the people of their rights.

The party welcomed the announcement of the time frame for the 13th parliamentary polls.

Amar Bangladesh Party president Mojibur Rahman Monju, in a brief statement, said that his party welcomed the announcement of national election in February before Ramadan.

AB Party is demanding a visible progress in justice and an election based on the July Charter, in addition to creating a fair electoral environment, Monju said.

Welcoming the July Declaration, Jatiya Samajtantrik Dal-JSD president ASM Abdur Rab and general secretary Shahid Uddin Mahmud Swapan issued a statement, saying that they viewed this as a beginning towards building a democratic Bangladesh.

‘The declaration, while acknowledging past failures and outlining the future structure of the state, underscores the need for an institutional framework that ensures the people’s participation,’ they said.

In a statement, the Revolutionary Workers Party of Bangladesh general secretary Saiful Haque said that the chief adviser’s election-related announcement would help ease the uncertainty, distrust and disbelief that had developed surrounding the national election.

Bangladesh Khelafat Majlis amir Mamunul Haque said, ‘The July Declaration insulted Islamists and grossly neglected the people’s aspirations.’

He said the declaration also missed crucial historical events.

The party did not welcome the announcement of the election time frame, saying that the announcement was not based on a national dialogue or consensus.

‘No participatory election is possible without real reforms, justice against fascism, national unity and the creation of a level playing field beforehand,’ Mamunul said.

Gana Adhikar Parishad warned that it would boycott the July Declaration if the document failed to include the historical context of the July uprising, including the 2018 quota reform movement.

They also demanded that essential reforms based on consensus be completed before the election.

Rashtra Sangskar Andolan appreciated the unveiling of the July Declaration, but it, in a statement, said that the party observed that the declaration failed to unite the nation.

‘It has not been able to reflect the collective aspirations of the people,’ it said.​

 

[Saif]

The logical anatomy of July Declaration

Without a legal and constitutional recognition of the uprising, the goals that inspired it, such as justice, inclusivity, and accountability, cannot be institutionalised.

www.thedailystar.net

The logical anatomy of July Declaration

Chief Adviser Prof Muhammad Yunus reads out the July Declaration at the south plaza of the parliament on August 5, 2025. PHOTO: CA PRESS WING

On August 5, 2024, students and ordinary citizens ousted the authoritarian Awami regime after weeks of marches, blockades, and brutal crackdowns. The fall of Sheikh Hasina's government was not just the end of a chapter—it marked the beginning of a new one. One year later, on August 5, 2025, the July Declaration was read out by Chief Adviser Prof Muhammad Yunus at the South Plaza of the parliament. The declaration, coming as it does after a prolonged wait, should be seen as a foundational document for post-uprising Bangladesh. While public attention may focus on its symbolism and ambition, with analysts also scrutinising its content from historical and political perspectives, I think the logic underlying its formation also deserves attention.

The declaration is structured in a form familiar to students of law and logic alike. It follows a legal-deductive pattern of reasoning often used in charters and constitutions. This structure, commonly referred to as the "Whereas to Therefore" format, presents a sequence of premises leading to a normative conclusion. Each "Whereas" clause serves as a premise, and each "Therefore" clause functions as a conclusion. Philosophers often refer to this form as an enthymeme: a type of syllogism in which one or more premises are implied rather than explicitly stated. It assembles a set of empirical and normative claims that together justify a definitive conclusion. In this case, that conclusion is bold and unequivocal—the 2024 mass uprising must be constitutionally recognised.

At its core, the declaration rests on a deductive inference that can be summarised as follows: if a people rise up to overthrow a fascist regime in pursuit of justice and democracy, then their movement deserves constitutional recognition. And the people of Bangladesh did precisely that in 2024. Therefore, the 2024 mass uprising deserves constitutional recognition.

In other words, any movement that is both a protest against injustice and a legitimate expression of people's sovereignty deserves legal recognition. The mass uprising meets both conditions, so recognition follows.

In a valid deductive argument, if the premises are accepted, a conclusion must follow. Of course, one may challenge the premises. One could argue, for example, that the Awami regime was not entirely illegitimate per se, or that the uprising lacked nationwide support. The declaration anticipates such objections by offering a broad evidentiary base: that the scale of public participation, the intensity of state repression, and the erosion of electoral legitimacy all support its claims.

The declaration also draws strength from precedent, which is itself a form of reasoning. It situates the 2024 mass uprising within a lineage of historic moments when citizens reclaimed sovereignty from illegitimate regimes: the 1971 Liberation War, from which the constitution itself emerged and draws its legitimacy; the 1975 uprising that dismantled the BAKSAL system; and the 1990 movement that ended military autocracy. Each of these ruptures prompted a reimagining of the political order. By aligning 2024 with this tradition, the declaration makes an argument from analogy, invoking past expressions of popular legitimacy to justify the present. If 1971 was constitutionally enshrined, and if 1975 and 1990 were widely accepted as moments of popular sovereignty, then consistency demands that 2024 be treated with comparable seriousness and institutional commitment.

The document also articulates a practical necessity. Without a legal and constitutional recognition of the uprising, the goals that inspired it, such as justice, inclusivity, and accountability, cannot be institutionalised. Recognition is not a reward; it is a precondition for reform. This is a teleological argument grounded in instrumental reasoning. If the desired ends are democratic renewal and institutional change, then recognition is a necessary means to achieve them.

Another layer of reasoning is moral. The declaration puts forward an ethical claim about the state's obligation to honour the sacrifices made by its people. In the language of moral philosophy, this is a deontic argument, which concerns duties and obligations, rather than outcome or consequences. It defines what we ought to do, not just what is politically expedient. If the people acted to reclaim democracy, then democratic legitimacy demands that their action be recognised. The claim is not that recognition is a reward. It is that recognition is a moral requirement.

One final layer of reasoning may be the most powerful. According to speech act theory, when a political authority makes a formal declaration with legal force, the act of speaking brings about a change in reality. This is known as a performative or illocutionary act. The July Declaration operates in precisely this way. It does not merely describe recognition of the uprising; it enacts that recognition. As the declaration itself states, the student-people uprising will get proper state and constitutional recognition, and that the declaration will be included in the schedule of the reformed constitution by the next elected government. In saying this, it does not report a completed fact. It participates in bringing that fact into being. Like a court issuing a verdict, the act of declaring becomes part of the process that constitutes legal and political reality.

Marked by passion yet grounded in principle, the July Declaration weaves together deductive, analogical, instrumental, deontic, and performative reasoning, offering a rare example of political argument shaped by formal reasoning in Bangladesh's recent history. It presents a structured argument, employing multiple layers of reasoning to articulate its claims. Rather than functioning as a symbolic or emotional appeal, the declaration outlines a formal framework through which transitional demands, such as electoral reform, institutional accountability, and the rebuilding of democratic structures, are presented.

While Bangladesh has experienced political transitions driven by protests and upheavals since before its independence, it is relatively uncommon for such moments to be accompanied by a political text that attempts to discipline popular energy through formal argument. The July Declaration thus offers a useful case for examining how political reasoning operates under conditions of rupture. To evaluate the long-term significance of the mass uprising, one must consider not only its institutional consequences but also the intellectual architecture through which its demands are expressed.

Dr Kazi ASM Nurul Huda is associate professor of philosophy at the University of Dhaka.​

 

[Saif]

July Declaration: Where is the roadmap for our future journey?

Denigration of our Liberation War will never be acceptable

www.thedailystar.net

Column by Mahfuz Anam
July Declaration: Where is the roadmap for our future journey?
Denigration of our Liberation War will never be acceptable

This photo, taken on August 3, 2024, shows how the Central Shaheed Minar inspired the July Uprising. Yet, the Language Movement did not find a place in the July Declaration. FILE PHOTO: NAIMUR RAHMAN

Condemn Sheikh Hasina's rule of over 15 years as much as you want, as there is enough fact-based evidence to do so. (See our recent investigative stories, including the one published on Thursday, August 7). But don't denigrate our freedom struggle, our greatest source of pride, the moment when our people made the biggest sacrifice ever. Our Muktijuddho is indelibly etched in our hearts, minds, and consciousness. True history will never permit its denigration, although contrived history may. But that "history" will never stand the test of time. That is the lesson of history.

Wasn't the July Declaration meant to chalk out our future on the basis of the values that the uprising represented? Wasn't it supposed to provide a roadmap of how Bangladesh will achieve the goals that the past oppressive regime prevented?

Instead, we have another example of rewriting history.

Whatever may be the stance of independent political parties, the interim government's position must have some authentic base. What Prof Yunus read out as the chief adviser—and which is being proposed for incorporation into our constitution—is but an instance of a "cherry-picked" version of our past.

In the July Declaration, we have a two-paragraph version of our freedom struggle that gave us an independent country. The two paras include a reference to colonial rule and 23 years of "authoritarian Pakistani regime." We "established the state of Bangladesh through a bloody Liberation War following the Declaration of Independence on March 26, 1971." The following para says "… the people of Bangladesh made the utmost sacrifice through a long struggle to materialise a liberal democratic state … based on equality, human dignity, and social justice…"

That was the depiction of our 23 years of struggle against Pakistan's military and brutal rule.

There is no mention in the declaration of our Language Movement and the first killing of students in the newly formed Pakistan and the birth of "Ekushey February." There is no reference to the historic election of 1970 that gave our political leadership—represented at that time by the Awami League (AL)—the legitimacy to speak on behalf of the people. It was because the leaders were elected that the then political leadership could "declare" independence when the Pakistan Army attacked us in the most brutal and barbaric manner. The election was most crucial for us to form the "government in exile" and gain international support, without which we could not have carried on with our independence war.

In addition, it is shameful that Prof Yunus, as head of the government, read out a document that did not mention "genocide" committed by the Pakistan army that started with unparalleled brutality on the night of March 25, 1971. There may be some controversy about the figure of three million people killed, but there is no doubt that hundreds of thousands of innocent men, women and children were indiscriminately killed just because they were Bangalees, citizens of East Pakistan.

There were 10 million refugees—the UNHCR called it the "largest single displacement of refugees in the second half of the century"—who took shelter in India, where they received food and medicine for the nine months of the war. (We later had many issues with India, especially on sharing water and many others, but their role in support of our struggle for independence will remain a part of history.) Millions more were displaced internally, pushing families into economic distress and leading to widespread disease and death.

The declaration also does not mention Mukti Bahini, who are heroes of the most glorious phase of our history. Dhaka University, which is the centre of the July Uprising, was also the centre of the creation and propagation of the Mukti Bahini at that time.

What about the indiscriminate rape of our women by the Pakistani army? Ethnic cleansing was a part of state policy of Pakistan during those crucial nine months. A recent book titled The Vortex: A True Story of History's Deadliest Storm, an Unspeakable War, and Liberation—by Scott Carney and Jason Miklian—adds invaluable evidence to the already established ones.

In 1971, Prof Yunus himself was an active member of an expatriate group in the US who, along with others, did invaluable work to propagate the legal and moral justification of our Liberation War. He met US senators, political leaders from both the Republican and Democratic party, and wrote pamphlets and media articles depicting our struggle. What did he say to those American leaders at that time? Wasn't "genocide" a part of his story? Is he disassociating himself from his own laudable role in 1971? If not, then why isn't it a part of the document he read out?

It is perhaps redundant to note that the man who led and inspired us throughout our nine months of struggle for freedom never found a mention—Bangabandhu Sheikh Mujibur Rahman.

The July Declaration, which is supposed to outline the "New Bangladesh," has only few paras, out of 28, that make some references to the future, and that too in the most vague and generalised terms like "ensure good governance," "free fair election," "rule of law," "economic and social justice." There is one para—26—about the environment "… protect rights of the present and future generations through an environment friendly, climate resilient, sustainable and inclusive development strategy…"

There is no mention of future direction in education, employment generation, poverty alleviation, health for the poor, etc. There is no focus on the downtrodden and the poor. Again, there is nothing—not surprisingly though—for women. They constitute 50 percent of our population and there is not even a mention about their plight.

What stunned us is the absence of any special focus on the youth in the document. It is the youth who gave us an opportunity to build a new Bangladesh. In several conferences, Prof Yunus eulogised the role of the youth and pinpointed their importance in building a future not only of Bangladesh but of the whole world.

In para 9 of the July Declaration, Sheikh Hasina's regime is called "anti-people, autocratic, against human rights that turned Bangladesh into a fascist, mafia and failed state and thereby tarnished Bangladesh's image." There is enough ground to accept all the charges, but was Bangladesh a "failed state?" Forget everything else, are we not graduating from LDC to a middle-income country status? Didn't this government itself refuse to postpone the "graduation" time, as requested by the business community, as we are ready? Is this possible graduation a sign of a "failed state?" Are we not "tarnishing" Bangladesh's image now?

It is our view that once again, we are spending too much time and energy in reference to the past. The real need of the hour is a roadmap for the future, focusing on that crucial promise of the July Uprising. While the detailed programme for the future may come out in the "July Charter," the "dream of the July revolution" must be incorporated in the "Declaration."

Whatever our emotions may dictate, our future, in a most competitive world of the 21st century, must be based on quality education, work ethics, efficiency, productivity, science, and AI-related planning and investing our meagre resources in producing a highly skilled human resource. We are great at envisioning but very weak in realising that vision. Implementation of projects in a cost-effective manner has been eluding us from our very inception. After nearly half a century of independence, our education system remains one of waste, low quality and inefficiency.

Many scholars, both national and international, ask the question, "Why are you guys so obsessed with the past? Why can't you let historians work on that while the rest of you work to build the future?" Repeated observations from scholars of varied backgrounds stuck in my mind and forced me to ponder that question. Then, it dawned on me that not only are we obsessed with the past, but we also think nothing of distorting it. We love to suit it to our own political and ideological perspective, whatever may be the cost in terms of credibility, authenticity and building trust. Even when we repeatedly see that "contrived history" falls with the fall of regimes, we have no qualms in blatantly replacing facts with our own fancied version of it. Much of our intellectual community, who toed the lines of this group or the other, are guilty of it.

We have suffered enough at the hands of "tailor-made" history. The time has come to learn from that mistake and not repeat it. We remember how, with regime changes, school textbooks changed too; how recognised and highly respected authors got dropped because of a particular regime's likes and dislikes. Because we tinker with the past, we are unable to build a future of stability and trust. This time, we should not make that mistake again. In a relentlessly evolving, AI-dominated world, we may not get another chance.

Mahfuz Anam is the editor and publisher of The Daily Star.​

 

[Saif]

July Declaration: What are we supposed to do with it?

Political parties most vocal about the July Declaration, have expressed disappointment, while those that had shown little enthusiasm until now have welcomed it without reservation

en.prothomalo.com

July Declaration: What are we supposed to do with it?

Sohrab Hassan
Updated: 09 Aug 2025, 09: 02

Chief adviser Dr. Muhammad Yunus presents the July Declaration at the South Plaza of the National Parliament on 5 August File Photo

The irony is that the political parties that had been most vocal about the July Declaration have expressed disappointment after its release, while those that had shown little enthusiasm about it until now have welcomed it without reservation.

BNP standing committee member Salahuddin Ahmed, in an immediate reaction, said, “Today (5 August) the Chief Adviser made two important announcements. One is the July Declaration, and the other is the declaration of elections through his address to the nation. We welcome both.”

The Declaration has also been welcomed by Nagorik Oikya, Ganosamhati Andolon, and the Biplobi Workers Party.

On the other hand, Jamaat-e-Islami’s Nayeb-e-Ameer Dr. Syed Abdullah Mohammad Taher expressed disappointment, saying the Declaration does not reflect the aspirations and expectations of the July uprising.

Speaking at a press briefing, member secretary of the National Citizen Party, Akhtar Hossain, said that some important issues were missing from the July Declaration. he said, “The Declaration speaks of anti-colonial struggles, but it fails to mention 1947 which is one of the key reference points in the anti-colonial struggle of the people of this land. We believe that the achievement of a sovereign state for Bangladesh, or for this territory, is the result of a confluence of 1947, 1971 and our 2024 movement. Including all of these could have enriched the Declaration further.”

While the role of the 1971 Liberation War in the creation of a sovereign state is undeniable, it is unclear how 1947 contributed to that process. The events of 1971 came about precisely by rejecting the two-nation theory of 1947. Moreover, in 1947, it was not the Bengali Muslim middle class but the Bengali Hindu middle class that had pushed for the division of Bengal (see 'Bengal Divided' by Joya Chatterji).

In a statement, the Amir of Khelafat Majlis, Maulana Mamunul Haque, said, “The July Declaration read out by the Chief Adviser, the way the declaration was staged, and the announcement of the election date following consultation with only one party, all prove that the views, sacrifices and organisational role of Islamic groups have been disregarded.”
He also expressed resentment that the Declaration makes no mention of the 1947 Azadi, alongside the 2013 Shapla Chattar massacre and the Pilkhana tragedy.

The Gono Odhikar Parishad remarked, “The July Declaration has been built upon a false historical foundation.”

Gono Forum also criticised the Declaration, but from a different perspective. They said that it requires no deep research to understand the political character of those who lament the “Azadi” of 1947, sitting in independent Bangladesh. Those haunted by the legacies of the past will, inevitably, do such things. But what is puzzling is how young people, who are firmly committed to building an egalitarian Bangladesh, have become enamored with the idea of freedom in 1947.

Given the political nature of the Declaration, it is perhaps not surprising that political leaders interpret it through the lens of party interest and electoral calculations. But journalist David Bergman’s observations surely stand above such partisanship.

It may be noted that on 5 August, the anniversary of the July popular uprising, Chief Adviser Muhammad Yunus read out a 28-point Declaration and officially declared state and constitutional recognition of the uprising.

Political leaders may of course bring their partisan or personal perspectives to the interpretation of the Declaration. But the hard truths of history cannot be denied or disregarded.

In this context, one may look into the reaction of British journalist David Bergman, renowned for 'The War Crimes Files', the documentary that first brought the issue of 1971 war criminals to light in the 1980s. In his Facebook Post, David Bergman wrote: " Much of the history - as well as description of the Awami League - set out in this declaration is highly biased and partial, and seems to just represent the views of those who hate the Awami League, not just for what the party has done whilst in government, but for what the party is to them, that is to say a political adversary. That is to say, much of it reads like a political tract written by long standing adversaries and critics of the Awami League."

His concern is that the narrative presented in the Declaration could prove even more problematic than the politically biased version of the 1971 war promoted by the Awami League.

According to David Bergman, the Declaration portrays the Awami League’s rule from 1972 to 1975 solely through the lens of one-party governance under BAKSAL, overlooking the initiatives the party undertook in the post-war nation-building process.

The Declaration states that under the leadership of Sheikh Hasina, her government turned Bangladesh into a fascist state, dominated by an extremely anti-people, authoritarian, corrupt, and rights-violating force. There is little room to dispute that.

The Declaration states that on 26 March 1971, independence was declared and the state of Bangladesh was established through a bloody Liberation War aimed at national emancipation. However, it does not mention who led that war.

It also claims that the post-independence Awami League government failed to fulfill the aspirations of the Liberation War due to the way the 1972 Constitution was formulated, its structural weaknesses, and its misuse. But there is no evidence that any government in the past 53 years has fulfilled those aspirations or that any has upheld power through genuinely fair elections.

The Declaration refers to the establishment of one-party rule by the Awami League and to the Sipahi-Janata (soldier-people) uprising of 7 November 1975. However, Bergman criticises the omission of the assassinations of the architect of independence, Sheikh Mujibur Rahman, on 15 August 1975, and of the four national leaders on 3 November that same year.

The Declaration acknowledges the nine-year-long struggle against military dictatorship in the 1980s, culminating in the 1990 mass uprising, but skips over the imposition of martial law by Khandaker Mushtaque Ahmad.

The Declaration claims that the 1/11 emergency regime paved the way for Sheikh Hasina’s absolute power, dominance, and eventual fascism in Bangladesh. But the absence of any mention of the 2008 elections appears to be an attempt to obscure the truth. The Declaration does refer to three farcical elections of 2014, 2018, and 2024.

The Declaration states that under the leadership of Sheikh Hasina, her government turned Bangladesh into a fascist state, dominated by an extremely anti-people, authoritarian, corrupt, and rights-violating force. There is little room to dispute that. Nor is there much scope to question the government's real intentions regarding the rule of law, human rights, corruption, exploitation, inequality, moral values and the establishment of a democratic system.

We firmly state that the Awami League did not honour the people’s verdict in the 2008 election. It is also true that the party sought to make its hold on power permanent through three farcical elections. However, while the Declaration accuses Sheikh Hasina of coming to power through a conspiracy, it also places in the dock those who played a crucial role in the 2008 elections, some of whom now hold key positions in the current government.

Given the political nature of the Declaration, it is perhaps not surprising that political leaders interpret it through the lens of party interest and electoral calculations. But journalist David Bergman’s observations surely stand above such partisanship.

Those who now question his interpretation of history should revisit the articles he wrote during the Awami League government’s war crimes trials. At the time, this journalist closely followed the trial proceedings, critiqued them with supporting evidence, and did so in the interest of justice.
As a result, he was declared persona non grata in Bangladesh for a long time during the Awami League regime. I believe his current analysis of the July Charter is also part of that same pursuit of truth.

* Sohrab Hassan is joint editor of Prothom Alo, and poet​