Is a Plan for ‘Crimes Against Humanity’ Being Orchestrated?

Editorial

The notion that students would transform the nation has been a long-held belief. A movement advocating merit over quotas initially fueled their political rise. This justified demand resonated with many, transcending political affiliations.

The movement’s demand was clear: “merit, not quotas.” Initially, it avoided political overtones, but by August 3, it had escalated into a call for regime change, culminating in the government’s fall two days later. Awami League leader Sheikh Hasina left for India under full military protocol and is now residing as a state guest of India.

Despite Muhammad Yunus’s government facing criticism, India’s stance remains unchanged, emphasizing stability in bilateral relations over immediate political shifts.

The current interim administration operates under the guise of eliminating inequality. However, the result is deepened discrimination, evidenced by the fact that quota systems dictate the allocation and revocation of opportunities, from appointments to committee memberships.

This disparity is most visible among students. Advisors to Yunus’s government, such as Hasnat Abdullah and Sarzis Alam, are predominantly from Dhaka University, sidelining contributions from private university students who made sacrifices during the movement.

Further complicating the scenario is the initiation of “Operation Devil Hunt,” allegedly targeting Awami League supporters under the guise of rooting out fascism. Public figures like journalist Golam Mortaza have openly supported actions to “destroy” the defeated, equating it to the eradication of political adversaries.

The government’s rhetoric and actions evoke grave concerns about human rights violations. Declaring a segment of the population as “defeated” and systematically targeting them not only undermines democratic principles but also sets a dangerous precedent.

While Yunus’s regime benefits from global recognition, the systemic marginalization and vilification of opposition groups reveal an unsettling narrative of revenge politics. Historically, even during times of war, the defeated were granted legal rights. Today’s actions suggest a departure from those principles, raising questions about the moral fabric of leadership.

As the nation stands at a crossroads, the path chosen now will define its legacy, emphasizing whether governance will be remembered for inclusivity or retribution.

Kabir Yahmed
Member, Editorial Board
February 10, 2025