The anti-quota movement has kept the capital and the entire country paralysed for several days.
Despite the expectation that following the Supreme Court's status quo order, the protesters would return home, the reality has taken a different turn.
The protesters have declared that this matter is beyond the jurisdiction of the court and can only be resolved by the executive branch of the country. They have demanded a clear statement from the government on the issue.
Questions have arisen on why the students will not leave the streets even though the government’s decision to abolish quotas is in effect after the Supreme Court suspended the High Court's order.
The anti-quota protesters now want a reasonable solution rather than opposing a quota abolition.
There are several opinions on what this reasonable solution entails.
After the Supreme Court's order on Wednesday, Attorney General AM Amin Uddin said that the status quo would be maintained. This means that the situation will remain as it is.
Circulars issued based on the 2018 notification concerning quota abolition will remain effective, meaning no quotas will be in place.
When asked if reasonable solution means reform, Meherab Hossain, a participant in the protest at Agargaon in the capital, said: "The 30% quota for the children and families of freedom fighters is unreasonable. We are demanding the abolition of all unreasonable and discriminatory quotas in all grades of government jobs. We do not want any discrimination.”
Another protester standing beside him said: "The quota needs to be reformed. Instead of giving a total of 56% quota, we support a reasonable amount."
When asked whether they support quota abolition or reform, he did not give a clear answer.
Political analyst Subhash Singha Roy said that the protesters should have left the streets after the Supreme Court's order.
He said: "By deciding not to leave the streets after today’s Supreme Court order, the protesters are revealing their true character. They are calling this a logical movement, but other agenda-driven individuals have infiltrated it. Otherwise, even after their demand has been acknowledged, their insistence on getting the government to fulfill it, seems very intentional."
On Tuesday, Law Minister Anisul Haque said that the quota issue is no longer a matter of government decision, but is now before the top court.
The Supreme Court will decide the issue after hearing all parties and considering all aspects of the situation.
The minister positively evaluated the protesters' decision to file a petition to become a party to the case, saying: “They will now present their arguments in court. Since they have decided to go to court, they will now withdraw the movement.”
Meanwhile, Rokeya Kabir, a women’s rights activist, emphasized the importance of reforming the quota system and maintaining women’s quota.
She said: "The issue of giving quotas to women is internationally recognized. Those who are now saying that civil servants should be recruited on merit should be asked a counter-question: Isn’t that already being done? I believe we should honor the children and families of freedom fighters. There is no need to give a 30% quota, it can be reduced. It is important to honor those who contributed to the independence of any country."
However, anti-quota protesters remain firm in their stance on abolishing the freedom fighters' quota.
Nahid Islam, a key coordinator of the anti-quota movement, said: "We want some quotas for the disadvantaged communities."
He claimed that the 2018 notification issued by the government was flawed and would lead to recurring court cases. "We want a final reform. Our demand is to abolish discriminatory quotas in all grades and reform them. There can be some reservations for the disadvantaged communities."
When asked what percentage of quota they want, Nahid Islam said: “A maximum of 5% quota can be kept for the disadvantaged communities. The government needs to take a final decision and move towards implementation.”
The anti-quota protesters believe that their movement is logical. They argue that the constitution does not mandate quotas, but Article 28(4) and Article 29(3) state that the state can provide quotas for backward communities if it deems necessary, but it is not obligatory.
They say the constitution mentions equality of opportunity and there is no rule on providing opportunities unjustly by giving quotas to one group and depriving another.
Article 29(2) of the constitution states that no citizen shall be ineligible for or discriminated against in public employment solely on the grounds of religion, race, caste, sex, or place of birth. Article 28(4) states that special provisions can be made in favour of women, children, or any backward section of citizens for their advancement.