A Nation at a Crossroads: Could Bangladesh Slip Back Into Fascism Again?

In a rapidly evolving political landscape, the recent violent clash at Khulna University of Engineering and Technology (KUET) on February 19 has reignited a deep-seated concern about the future of Bangladesh’s democratic development. The incident not only highlights the dangers of factionalism and student political unrest but also reveals a clear reflection of the fragmented state of Bangladesh’s political sphere. It is a microcosm of a much larger struggle brewing in the nation among Chhatra Dal, Bangladesh Islami Chhatrashibir and anti-discrimination student movements.

As the political climate in Bangladesh remains tense, and with the recent calls for national unity, this conflict underscores a larger, more concerning issue—the risk of the resurgence of fascism. The recent KUET clash, followed by the precarious situation in Bangladesh’s student politics, reveals a scenario in which divisions, particularly between factions such as Chhatra Dal, Chhatrashibir, and anti-discrimination student movements, may lead the nation down a dangerous path, away from democracy and towards an authoritarian regime once again.

Though the KUET clash itself is already a few weeks old, its consequences ripple through the fabric of the nation’s political discourse. The incident stands as a grim reminder that in a polarized society, ideological conflicts are often given a physical manifestation. The clash occurred between Chhatra Dal, the student wing of the Bangladesh Nationalist Party (BNP), and anti-discrimination student organizations. Allegations were raised that Chhatra Dal activists were directly involved in a violent altercation, with accusations of carrying sharp weapons like knives in public. The violence escalated so much that it not only took lives but, perhaps more alarmingly, shattered the tradition of student politics at KUET. Traditionally, student bodies such as KUET had maintained a delicate balance, steering clear of engaging in partisan politics, especially through violent means. However, in recent years, student politics have resurfaced on campuses across Bangladesh, challenging this historical norm.

The historical and contemporary roots of this conflict stretch far beyond student politics. The ideological clash between Chhatra Dal, Chhatrashibir, and anti-discrimination student groups is indicative of the increasing fragmentation of Bangladesh’s political landscape. Once, these groups could be counted on to unite in their common fight against authoritarianism. Today, however, their divide has grown insurmountable, as rival factions vie for dominance within the student community.

At the heart of the matter, however, lies a deeper concern—the role of fascism. As the country’s political leadership attempts to regain the trust of its citizens through national consensus, the KUET clash stands as an ominous reminder of the potential unraveling of national unity, as well as the resurgence of divisive, authoritarian tactics. The clash symbolizes the growing fear that Bangladesh could once again find itself subjected to authoritarian rule, where political power is wielded through violence and intimidation.

The February 15 meeting of the National Consensus Commission, which gathered prominent political leaders to chart a path for unity in the country, should have been a sign of progress. Leaders from diverse political backgrounds came together to discuss a shared vision of Bangladesh’s future, putting aside their differences for the sake of the nation. The fact that just a few days later, the KUET clash unfolded, undercuts any hopes of political reconciliation and brings into question the sincerity of the commitment to unity. The clash itself signals not only the breakdown of political dialogue but also the deepening polarization between the nation’s key political factions.

To understand the gravity of this development, one must recognize the historic precedent for violent clashes within the political landscape of Bangladesh. From the bloodied streets of the 1970s, through the 1980s and 1990s, political violence has been a defining feature of the country’s democratic experiment. During the reigns of successive governments, from the Awami League to the BNP, the state has seen the rise of violent student factions and militias, who have fought for dominance. Each instance of violence has further deepened the animosity between opposing factions, paving the way for authoritarian rule under the guise of “order.”

The KUET clash should not be seen as an isolated incident. Instead, it is a signal that the underlying political dynamics in Bangladesh are shifting. The potential fragmentation of the student movements could have far-reaching consequences for the future stability of the nation. Political history teaches us that divided societies often descend into violent authoritarian regimes when unity is lost, and the country loses its shared vision of the future. In Bangladesh, this is particularly concerning given the nation’s turbulent past with military rule and the dominance of authoritarian figures.

As the national consensus meeting demonstrated, political unity is often fragile and fleeting. To prevent the country from sliding into fascism, Bangladesh’s leadership must seek out genuine unity, not just between political parties but among the broader social factions that comprise the nation. It is only through such unity that the country can avoid the mistakes of the past.

In recent months, Bangladesh has witnessed the resurgence of populist rhetoric and a rise in authoritarian figures. Despite the pledges for unity and progress, the reality remains stark: the factions that fought against fascism in the past, such as the July Revolutionaries, may now be caught in a power struggle that weakens their collective strength. Instead of moving forward as one, these revolutionary factions are now engaging in a battle for supremacy, with some focusing on self-interest and partisan gain.

This quest for dominance within the student movement could lead to a dangerous consolidation of power by non-democratic forces. Fascism, defined by its centralization of power, the use of violence to maintain order, and the suppression of dissent, finds fertile ground in societies that are fractured along ideological lines. In Bangladesh’s case, the risk of fascism is particularly high, as the divide between the left-wing student organizations and the right-wing factions continues to widen.

Indeed, the KUET clash was not merely a student dispute—it is a manifestation of the wider struggle for control between forces that represent conflicting visions of Bangladesh’s future. The increasingly violent and polarized nature of student politics echoes the broader fragmentation of the nation’s political system. If these divisions continue, the country risks falling into a state of violent anarchy, where those with the most power dictate the direction of the nation’s future.

In moments of political instability, it is crucial for the leaders of the various factions to display patience, wisdom, and restraint. However, as seen in the aftermath of the KUET incident, the leaders of Chhatra Dal have failed to exhibit the necessary patience. Despite their long-standing struggle against the authoritarian regime of the Awami League, their failure to avoid confrontation and violence in the current political climate only exacerbates the divisions within the country.

Student organizations, particularly Chhatra Dal, must reconsider their approach to political activism. The recent spate of violence—exemplified by the KUET clash—reveals the dangers of engaging in political battles through force rather than dialogue. The leadership of Chhatra Dal, with its long and storied history of political activism, must now be especially careful in navigating the treacherous waters of Bangladesh’s current political situation. Their actions could either heal the wounds of division or fuel the fires of further conflict.

Looking back to the leadership of Ziaur Rahman provides a valuable lesson. In 1978, when faced with student protests, President Ziaur Rahman responded not with force but with dialogue. His calm and unflinching demeanor in the face of student opposition helped stabilize the situation, contributing to the rapid growth of Chhatra Dal in the years that followed. This model of leadership—one that prioritizes dialogue and patience—should be emulated by today’s political leaders, particularly within the student movements.

To avoid the rise of fascism, Bangladesh’s political leaders must also look beyond their own factions and consider the role of non-political forces in stabilizing the nation. In particular, the role of the armed forces and prominent figures such as Dr. Yunus should not be underestimated. While political parties are often seen as the driving forces of power, non-political actors can play a critical role in maintaining national stability.

The Bangladeshi military has a long and complicated history with political rule, but after the July Revolution, it has become an important stabilizing force. The army’s role in ensuring national security and preventing the spread of violence is crucial for maintaining the peace. Meanwhile, figures such as Dr. Yunus, whose global stature has earned him the trust of both the Bangladeshi people and the international community, offer an alternative source of leadership that is not tied to any political party.

The combination of these non-political forces—military leadership, the guidance of Dr. Yunus, and the growing influence of the student movement—forms the foundation of Bangladesh’s current stability. However, if these forces become embroiled in the partisan divisions that are now consuming the nation’s political landscape, the entire structure of governance could collapse.

The current political crisis in Bangladesh requires a level of political maturity that has been lacking in recent years. As the country navigates the dangerous waters of factionalism and populism, it is crucial that all factions—from student movements to political parties—work towards a united front. The alternative is the dangerous possibility of a return to fascism, a scenario that Bangladesh’s people and its democracy cannot afford. Bangladesh must choose the path of unity over division. If the country’s political leadership, student organizations, and non-political forces can come together and put national interests above partisan politics, there is hope for a prosperous, democratic future. However, if the current trajectory of violence, blame, and fragmentation continues, Bangladesh could find itself once again trapped in the clutches of authoritarianism, with all the horrors of the past resurfacing once again.

The message is clear: Bangladesh must remain united, or face the terrifying prospect of falling back into fascism. The stakes have never been higher.