The recent clashes in Khulna University of Engineering and Technology -- reportedly involving Chhatra Dal, Shibir, and anti-discrimination students -- which erupted on Tuesday over a demand to ban student politics at KUET, witnessed at least 50 individuals injured, with many serious wounds from sharp weapons.
This has to be one of the biggest incidents of bloodshed in any university campus premises since the July uprising, where the demand of the students to ban student politics was ostensibly left unheard. Although there has been political rivalry among student wings of political parties, nobody expected such violence within six months of a literal revolution, particularly in a situation where any political party has yet to come into power. Once again, the question arises: Why should partisan student politics on campus premises not be banned once and for all?
After the tragic death of Abrar Fahad, student politics was banned at Bangladesh University of Engineering and Technology (BUET). In the five years since that decision, not a single student publicly advocated for the reinstatement of political activities on their campus. When a group of Chhatra League (BSL) members, led by Imtiaz Rabbi, attempted to reintroduce their political presence, the university community collectively opposed them. Notably, no one argued for the return of student politics in general.
The consensus among students was unanimous: Political activities have no place within the university. The absence of student politics has not hindered BUET’s progress; in the same breath, the university has experienced one of its safest and most academically focused periods in recent memory. Any current or former student can attest to the positive impact this environment has had on their educational experience.
Private universities in Bangladesh have consistently prohibited political activities on their campuses. Despite this restriction, no student political group has ever publicly challenged or filed legal petitions against these policies. The underlying reason is clear -- political groups and the university administrations understand that allowing partisan activities would compromise the academic environment.
Private universities, which rely on student tuition fees, prioritize maintaining a stable educational setting. The governing Boards of Trustees, composed of influential figures, ensure that political interference is not permitted. However, public universities present a different scenario -- these government-funded universities do not have the same structural independence as private universities. As a result, student political organizations find easy access to public universities.
Political activities have no place within the university. The absence of student politics has not hindered BUET’s progress; in the same breath, the university has experienced one of its safest and most academically focused periods in recent memory
These groups concentrate on public universities after being denied entry to private ones, using coercion and intimidation to gain control. Unfortunately, when students seek redress, they often find university administrations -- comprising key figures such as Vice-Chancellors, Pro-VCs, and Proctors -- aligned with the very political groups causing the disruptions, as most of the appointments of the administrative body in public universities are highly political. This alignment fuels an endless loop in which political groups function with license while regular students are victimized.
The problem does not lie with student engagement in political discourse itself. Instead, the problem is a result of partisan student organizations' dishonest motives. If these groups were genuinely committed to democratic values, they would advocate for political rights in private universities as well. However, their selective silence regarding private institutions reveals a fundamental contradiction.
Furthermore, these groups often dismiss independent student voices, framing the discourse in a binary manner -- either one supports student politics, or one is accused of covertly supporting rival factions. This inaccurate viewpoint dismisses the possibility for individuals to pursue education free of political traits.
For these reasons, the position of the students has consistently supported the abolition of partisan student politics on university campuses and the establishment of independent, democratically-elected student councils. Recent events at KUET show that a pattern of violence continues unabated. The significant evidence of its harmful consequences overshadows the argument that student politics yields positive outcomes. Reform efforts have proven ineffective because the issues are systemic rather than superficial.
When a part of the body becomes infected, medical professionals do not simply treat the symptoms -- they cauterize or even amputate the affected area to prevent the spread of the disease. Similarly, it is time to recognize that partisan student politics has become a malignant force within public universities, and there is no way but to ban this for good.
ASM Kamrul Islam is a lecturer at Green University of Bangladesh.
