The July Revolution: Student Politics in Bangladesh Violated Right to Life

Editor's Note: This is the fourth post of the CILJ Symposium on 'Human Rights in Crisis: The July Revolution in Bangladesh.'

Student Politics in Bangladesh: Background

Student politics has historically been a powerful driver of democratic movements in Bangladesh. From the Language Movement during the Pakistani era to the July Revolution of 2024, students played a substantial role in almost all major democratic movements. At its core, student politics was meant to champion democratic values, i.e., to represent the interests of the students, advocate for issues affecting them, and promote freedom and civil liberty. However, the practice of major political parties using the student bodies to serve their own interests has significantly undermined these ideals. The evolution of student politics into a tool of partisan violence, especially since the 1990s, has raised critical human rights concerns, particularly regarding the contestation between the right to life and the right to political participation. This tension reached its most violent form during the July 2024 revolution, when Bangladesh Chhatra League ('BCL'), the student wing of the political party in the former government, committed serious human rights violations by brutal attacks, sexual violence (paras 202-203) and assaults on injured protesters within hospital grounds. Their act as a 'de facto paramilitary force' for the ruling party starkly illustrates how the unexamined right to (student) political participation can directly violate the fundamental right to life.

While international human rights law guarantees both these rights, the balance can collapse in practice when political expression becomes weaponised and used to suppress dissenting views. Examining the situation in Bangladesh, particularly the events during the July revolution, this piece investigates how an unrestrained right to political participation can lead to violations of the right to life.

Right to Life and Right to Politics under International Law

According to Article 3 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR), every individual has a right to life. The right is also set out in Article 6 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR). The importance of the right to life can be understood from the Human Rights Committee's General Comment 36, which stipulates that 'the right to life is a supreme right from which no derogation is permitted, even in situations of armed conflict and other public emergencies that threaten the life of the nation.' Furthermore, the right to life includes bodily integrity, i.e., protection from sexual violence and other forms of violence, as well as the right to make decisions regarding one's body.

The right to politics is also safeguarded by international law, ensuring an individual's ability to engage in the political functions of their state. It has been recognised as 'the right of rights', which is vital for countering autocracy and enhancing foundation for democracy. It is closely linked with rights of expression, assembly, and association. Article 21 of the UDHR enshrines this right, which is also echoed by Article 25 of the ICCPR. These rights enable individuals to choose their representatives and participate in governance. Together, these interconnected rights safeguard the conditions necessary for open and participatory political systems.

Student politics, as a manifestation of these rights, allows students to freely express their opinions on their campuses, run student unions and contribute to societal and political change. For example, the landmark U.S. Supreme Court case Tinker v Des Moines affirmed students' right to engage in political expression within educational institutions, provided it does not cause substantial disruption. Although Tinker primarily addressed freedom of speech, its broader interpretation extends to political participation, including organising, protesting and forming student unions. Likewise, Articles 37, 38 and 39 of the Constitution of Bangladesh guarantee the rights to freedom of assembly, association, and speech in a similar manner–'subject to any reasonable restrictions imposed by law in the interests of public order.' Although Tinker is a U.S. Supreme Court case, it has been widely cited by the international human rights bodies (here, here and here), other national jurisdictions' cases (here and here), and implicitly acknowledged by regional court decision. Also, the Supreme Court of Bangladesh decided in the landmark judgment of Ershad v Bangladesh that the national courts should not overlook international law or persuasive foreign judgments, leaving the scope of implying Tinker from the Bangladesh perspective.

Student Politics during the July Revolution and Violation of the Right to Life

Nevertheless, student politics demonstrates a paradoxical nature. On the one hand, student movements were once the vanguards of social justice and popular resistance, from anti-colonial movements in the Indian sub-continent to the fall of autocracy in Bangladesh. On the other hand, however, while historically it has advanced democratic reform around the globe, in contemporary Bangladesh, it has often been used to maintain authoritarian control by the previous ruling political party. Student political organisations have increasingly reduced to being enforcement arms of political partiesover the past couple of decades. This shift has allowed groups like the BCL to wield violence, silence dissent, and dominate campus environments. Their crimes, however, extend beyond political suppression. Their members have often been accused of harassing students and in extreme cases, some of such incidents could escalate to the level of rape and even murder.

Additionally, according to the report of Odhikar, a prominent local human rights organisation, they have engaged in extortion and various forms of other criminal activities both within and outside university premises, creating a hostile environment that suppresses academic freedom and freedom of expression. Their brutality reached an alarming peak during the July 2024 Revolution, where a student-led anti-quota protest escalated into a nationwide uprising; and the attempts to suppress it, according to OHCHR assessment, might have killed 1,4000 people and over 12,000 injuries(para 56).

The BCL actively took part in suppressing the student-led uprising in July 2024. Their activists coordinated closely with the law enforcement agencies (para 90), sheltering behind police lines, timing attacks to coincide with violent police crackdowns, and even helping detain protesters by invading their homes. BCL members also reportedly committed sexual violence against female demonstrators, using sexual assaults and threats of rape as tools of political suppression (para 73). Such acts constitute a blatant violation of the right to bodily integrity, which is a core component of the right to life under international human rights law. Moreover, survivors of the initial attacks who sought medical treatment were targeted again by armed BCL members who stormed the hospital compound. Such coordinated violence, particularly in healthcare settings, stripped victims of their most basic right to receive medical treatmentguaranteed under Article 25 of the UDHR. This denial or obstruction of essential medical care constituted a direct threat to their right to life, as it increased the risk of originally preventable death and prolonged suffering. It appears that the enforcement of the right to life under Article 32 of the Bangladesh Constitution was undermined by the unchecked exercise of political activities permitted under Article 38, leading to violent abuses that contradict the Constitution's human rights commitments.

The systemic abuse of student politics was fuelled by several interrelated factors. Firstly, those involved in political violence often enjoyed impunity from prosecution, especially when affiliated with ruling parties. To make it worse, personal political affiliations of the campus administrative members arguably resulted in an institutional failure to address the crimes committed by student activists, further reinforcing the culture of impunity. Secondly, student politics frequently resulted in political polarisation within the campus since the university largely ignored their activities. This may be because the university authorities' hands were tied due to their political affiliation. Thirdly, student organisations were subject to the direct control of the political parties they were affiliated with and were regulated by national political parties. Such excessive political patronage incentivises students to participate in violence for rewards, such as government jobs, business contracts, hall seats or ascent within party ranks.

Student Politics in the post-July Revolution: Reforms

The events of 2024 revealed the dark side of student politics, highlighting its potential consequences of violating multiple fundamental human rights. According to the ILC Draft Articles on State Responsibility, when a State knowingly allows or supports a private armed group that uses violence, the group's conduct is 'attributable' to the State. The former regime not only failed in its international legal obligation to prevent, punish and address human rights violations committed by non-state actors it controls or supports (e.g., its affiliated student wing), but also deliberately engaged them in suppression. Such suppressions were overwhelmingly opposed by the public. Workers, business owners and students alike were frustrated by the BCL's extortion despite their direct involvement in the country's independence movement in 1971. Also, an online poll by the Prothom Alo showed 93% of the 350,133 respondents supported banning campus politics, followed by BCL's on-campus activities. The incidences of politically motivated killings, violent suppression of dissent, and violent crackdowns by student groups affiliated with major political parties require actions to strike the balance between the right to life and the right to political participation.

The mass wave of outrage over the BCL's violent actions during the July 2024 revolution led the interim government of Bangladesh to ban the organisation under the Anti-Terrorism Act of 2009. However, unless meaningful reforms are implemented, the danger remains that some other political parties may establish a similar student wing to continue exploiting young activists for partisan violence. The BCL members have been continuing their activities online (hereand here) and in person (here, here and here) to this day despite the ban.

By contrast, in many established democracies, students usually organise through issue-focused unions and advocacy societies rather than party branches, for example, U.S. data show campus groups are overwhelmingly issue-based rather than partisan, while UK rules require students' unions to remain neutral toward political parties even as they campaign on student issues. Notably, most private universities in Bangladesh, and some public universities, have officially banned partisan politics within campus premises to maintain academic neutrality and safety. Since there have not been any documented instances of political violence on these campuses, the institutional limitation on campus politics seems to establish a culture of accountability, reducing violence and criminality on campus.

Conclusion

To bring similar level of stability to Bangladesh, universities must ensure student bodies are independent from political parties. They should represent students rather than any particular political party. While strict enforcement of laws prohibiting any kind of misconduct is essential, establishing transparent oversight mechanisms in this regard can also play a positive role. At the same time, civic education focused on responsible political engagement and ethical leadership must be promoted, as well as advocating for establishing platforms for dialogue between students and authorities. Without these reforms, student politics in Bangladesh risks continuing its descent into a tool of terror, rather than a force for democratic progress.