TBS
During the early days of the Caretaker Government, all political activities were completely suspended. Later, when the authorities decided to reopen the space for political discourse, political parties found themselves in an unusual dilemma — how do you practise politics when political activities are banned? Even a small gathering of people in a room discussing the political situation technically counted as political activity.
Eventually, the Caretaker Government allowed politics indoors but maintained a strict ban on outdoor political programmes.
Tensions flared on 8 August when protests broke out at Dhaka University against political activities in residential halls. The spark came after Jatiyatabadi Chhatra Dal (JCD) announced its hall committees. In response, some students took to the streets, demanding an end to hall-based politics. DU Proctor Dr Saifuddin Ahmed then declared that all forms of overt and covert political activities at the hall level would be prohibited, in line with the framework announced on 17 July 2024.
Meanwhile, the Dhaka University Central Students’ Union (Ducsu) and hall union elections were scheduled for 9 September 2025, from 8:00am to 3:00pm. According to the timeline, the draft voter list would be published on 30 July, with objections accepted until 6 August. The final voter list was set to be released on 11 August.
With the Ducsu election just a month away, a question naturally arises: when candidates start campaigning for the hall unions, will that be considered political activity? What exactly can they do—and what can’t they do? Where is the line between acceptable conduct and banned “political activities”?
Take something as simple as having tea together before the election—it can easily be interpreted as deliberate campaigning. Without any clear list or guidelines, the ban seems less like a neutral rule and more like an attempt to silence protesting students, whom some dismissively label as a “mob,” without giving the matter proper thought.
As a result, students now find themselves caught in a paradox.
“After 5 August, whenever we sat down with the university administration and other student organisations, we repeatedly raised the question — even if you can nominate panels under political banners in the central body, how would you nominate a panel at hall councils?” asked Abdul Qader, Central Coordinator of the Anti-Discrimination Student Movement. “Without resolving this, trouble will only grow as the Ducsu election nears.”
“The university administration later formed a committee to determine how student politics would be in the post-Hasina era. However, it remained ineffective. And since there was no agreement, we are noticing the issues. The proctor doesn’t have the authority to declare the decision to ban student politics at halls,” he added.
Qader argues that the decision was not within the proctor’s authority, and warns that banning open politics while allowing covert networks to persist will only inflame tensions. “Those who are involved in open politics will be banned. But the ones doing secret politics will remain. It will eventually create clashes and agitation,” he said. His prescription is clear: an open dialogue between the administration, political parties and general students, rather than ad-hoc pronouncements in response to unrest.
Mallik Wasi Uddin Tami, office secretary of the DU unit of Jatiyatabadi Chhatra Dal (JCD), sees the protest against hall-level politics as self-serving. “Most of the students who have led the protest against JCD’s hall committees are connected to various student organisations, either in public or in secret,” he said. “They want Ducsu, yet they do not want politics inside the halls. How does that work? Them pressurising the administration to ban student politics is motivated by their own agenda. At the same time, it is suicidal.”
Tami alleges that certain clandestine groups are already using informal teams to control access to hall seats, “We have seen that lately, some students from the 103rd batch are creating groupchats, promising seat allotment for the new 104th batch. How can they promise it? Which organisation backs them?”
“The way forward is to nurture open, healthy politics that works for the students. Instead we are seeing open politics being criminalised,” he argued.
While he acknowledges that the trauma of the Awami League-aligned Bangladesh Chhatra League (BCL) remains fresh in students’ minds, he insists JCD would not replicate such practices. “Nobody was more oppressed than the members of JCD. Those who claim that JCD will be just like BCL are pushing their own narrative to corner us.”
S M Farhad, President, Bangladesh Islamic Chatra Shibir (ICS), DU Chapter: “It is not clear to us what constitutes ‘political activities’ at halls, and what the organisations can and can’t do before Ducsu. The proctor sir has given a statement while trying to calm the agitated students. But, we believe that the administration should sit down and discuss with the stakeholders—the students, the political organisations, the student representatives, the teachers—and create clear guidelines. Just saying that ‘politics is banned in halls’ doesn’t work.”
Farhad points out that even welfare activities, like skill development workshops or scholarship programmes run by his group, could now be seen as prohibited. For instance, if they want to award a student a scholarship, they can’t invite them to TSC to receive it—they would have to deliver it directly to the hall. The question is: would that now count as political activity?
“If we have politics on campus, but not in the halls, it is absurd. How can this work?”
Critics also argue that the ban is not just impractical, but possibly unlawful. Meghmallar Bosu, president of the Bangladesh Students’ Union at Dhaka University, says it directly contradicts the 1973 University Ordinance and could easily be overturned if challenged in court. He also believes it is far from a permanent solution. If politics is banned in halls and departments but still allowed on campus, where exactly are students supposed to engage in it—at the secretariat? This, he warns, will only push student politics underground.
“It will promote secret politics in DU and has shown the weakness of DU authority,” he said. “If tomorrow another mob demands that the campus will be completely politics-free, will they accept it also?”
Bosu worries that the administration’s willingness to alter decisions under pressure will undermine both stability and the credibility of the upcoming polls. “If they fail to maintain order, the student organisations will take an open stand against one another and incidents will keep happening every day.”
Former Ducsu vice president and prominent politician Mahmudur Rahman Manna offers a blunt analogy: “The decision to ban politics in DU halls feels like cutting the head off to remedy a headache. The Ducsu election must accommodate the spirit of the July Uprising and our democratic struggles. I do not think this is a well-thought decision.”
Dr Rushad Faridi, assistant professor at the Department of Economics, University of Dhaka also raised his concerns, “No politics is problematic. The problem is using political power to do illegal or unethical works or exerting influence. If we have politics on campus, but not in the halls, it is absurd. How can this work? It makes no sense.”
DU Proctor Dr Saifuddin Ahmed maintains that guidelines already exist to distinguish acceptable from unacceptable activities, and promises that these will be refined before the election. He said, “We have a guideline to outline what activities can be done and what not. Also, we are conducting a meeting to make the guidelines better and effective, such as how campaigning can be done for the Ducsu election for the central and hall council. We will sit down with other stakeholders as well. We have taken the issue very seriously.”
Yet, some student leaders remain sceptical of the administration’s capacity to ensure a fair contest.
Abdul Qader said, “There is a chance if the current situation persists. When S M Farhad, the president of DU Chatro Shibir said that they had small teams in the halls, nobody protested. When the Students’ Union declared their committee, there were no such protests. So, from JCD’s point of view, it is as though to prevent them only. And Shibir will not give up their secret politics.”
Tami shares that lack of confidence, “We want Ducsu, but if mobs like this keep popping up, it is hard to do politics.” “We have always said that we are yet to find the level-playing field for Ducsu. The administration has failed to inspire confidence among us. Since the death of Shaheed Shammo, we kept saying that the administration is unable to create a safe space in the campus. We have no confidence in them.”
S M Farhad, however, is more optimistic, insisting there is no reason to delay the polls. He said, “I do not see any chance of Ducsu getting delayed. Ducsu is for every student, many stakeholders have many demands. We do not think Ducsu can be delayed to accommodate their demands. Discussions should be held and the issues can be fixed within days, if the administration wants it.”
Bosu remains suspicious, suggesting that “a group may not want Ducsu to happen” and is using the unrest to undermine the election timeline.
Dr Saifuddin dismisses such concerns. “Yes, some have raised concerns. But there is a general consensus among the students to have Ducsu. We are committed to conducting the election in time.”
At stake is more than the mechanics of a student election. Ducsu has historically been a training ground for national political leadership, and the university’s residential halls have long been incubators for political movements. The July Uprising of 2024, which toppled the long-ruling Awami League, reinforced the centrality of student activism in Bangladesh’s political life.
To many, banning politics in the halls is antithetical to that legacy. The administration’s challenge is to reconcile demands for security and order with the need for free political expression — and to do so under intense scrutiny from rival factions and a politically engaged student body.
If handled poorly, the paradox at the heart of the ban could either derail the Ducsu election or produce a contest stripped of its representative value. As Mahmudur Rahman Manna put it, “Ducsu election must reflect our democratic struggles.”
