The Broken Promise of Student Politics in Bangladesh 

Published on: May 20, 2026

Student politics in Bangladesh is often defended through its historical legacy. However, its present reality in public universities tells a far more complex and troubling story. The same institutions once produced leaders of democratic movements, yet they are now frequently associated with cycles of violence, institutional capture, and academic disruption. This stark contradiction raises a fundamental question. Does partisan student politics, in its current form, still serve the purpose of higher education, or has it become entirely incompatible with it?

The consequences of partisan student politics are not isolated incidents; instead, they form recurring patterns. In 2012, politically affiliated student activists carried out the killing of Bishwajit Das in broad daylight, and this brutal act quickly became a national symbol of violence. Later, the murder of Abrar Fahad at BUET in 2019 further proved a brutal reality because it demonstrated how ideological enforcement can escalate into fatal violence within residential halls. These were not the first tragedies. Earlier incidents included the killing of Sabekun Nahar Sony at BUET and the murder of Mainul Hasan Raju at Dhaka University. These events reinforce a disturbing continuity. Campuses have turned into spaces where political identity determines not only privilege but also physical safety. When taken together, these cases suggest that the problem is structural rather than episodic, and it remains deeply embedded within the way partisan student politics operates in public universities.

On another hand, private universities in Bangladesh present a markedly different model. These institutions generally prohibit partisan student politics. They do not do this out of ideological opposition, but they enforce it out of institutional necessity. Because they are tuition-based organisations governed by private trustee boards, they must operate as service-oriented educational platforms. Consequently, stability directly affects their reputation, enrollment, and financial sustainability. Their governing bodies are often composed of influential trustees and administrators who have a clear incentive to prevent any form of political activity that could lead to disruption. In this system, education is treated as a paid service, so maintaining a controlled and predictable academic environment becomes a priority. As a result, student engagement is typically channelled into academic clubs, cultural activities, and professional development rather than partisan competition.

Public universities, however, operate under a different structural logic. They are state-funded institutions, which means they are theoretically accountable to the public. In practice, they often suffer from weak governance and politically influenced administrative appointments. Vice-Chancellors, Pro-Vice-Chancellors, and other key officials are frequently perceived as politically aligned, and this alignment severely undermines institutional neutrality. Furthermore, university authorities itself allow student politics within the campus premises to express gratitude towards the government for appointing them to such "powerful" administrative positions.

In such an environment, student organisations affiliated with national parties gain disproportionate access and influence. Private universities use administrative structures to limit political entry, but public universities become open arenas instead. At the campus level, national political competition is actively reproduced. This creates a challenging situation because no single authority appears fully responsible for maintaining a politically neutral academic space.

Within this context, the effects of partisan student politics become visible in everyday campus life. Residential halls are often reported as spaces where political affiliation influences access to seats, and occupancy sometimes extends beyond academic tenure. General students may face immense pressure to align with dominant groups to secure accommodation, or they must do so to avoid harassment. Informal privileges further reinforce unequal power structures. These privileges include preferential access to canteen food, control over seating arrangements, and influence over hall management. Over time, this produces a culture of intimidation and dependency. Student life is shaped less by academic merit, and it is driven more by political proximity. What begins as a mere organisational presence gradually evolves into structural dominance over campus resources and mobility.

These dynamics collectively distort the educational environment of institutions with active partisan student politics. Instead of functioning as spaces for intellectual growth, they risk becoming arenas of power negotiation. Academic priorities are consistently subordinated to political interests. The persistence of these patterns indicates a deeper issue, for the problem extends beyond individual misconduct to a broader institutional framework that actively enables and sustains such behaviour.

At the heart of the debate lies a tension between student representation and institutional safety. Defenders of student politics argue that it is essential for leadership development and democratic participation. This claim carries historical weight, particularly in light of the role students have played in Bangladesh’s major political movements. However, the current form of partisan student politics increasingly fails to reflect those democratic ideals. Rather than serving as platforms for dialogue and representation, student groups often operate as extensions of national party structures. They import external political conflicts into academic spaces that are simply not designed to contain them.

Repeated episodes of violence and instability make the consequences of this system evident. The pattern, from Bishwajit Das to Abrar Fahad and beyond, illustrates how deeply entrenched the problem has become. When political identity becomes a determinant of safety and access within educational institutions, the core purpose of universities is fundamentally compromised.

The university ceases to be a neutral space for learning; instead, it becomes a contested political territory. This does not mean that student voices should be excluded from universities entirely. Rather, it highlights the need to distinguish between partisan control and independent student representation. One possible alternative lies in structured, democratically elected student councils that operate independently of national political parties. Such systems can successfully preserve student participation while they simultaneously reduce external political interference. However, these reforms require strong institutional commitment, and they demand a clear separation between academic governance and partisan influence to succeed.

Bangladesh’s educational institutions, especially the public universities, now stand at a critical juncture. They can either continue under a model where partisan politics shapes campus life, or they can reimagine student engagement through elected student unions only to prioritise safety and equity. The choice is not merely administrative. It is about the future of higher education itself.