---

What happens to intellectuals when political power changes are especially important in the context of Bangladesh. History offers examples of voices that questioned authority and spoke when silence was easier. Yet some intellectuals speak loudly when power belongs to their opponents but become quiet when power rests with their preferred political side.

There are no shortages of educated persons, academics, writers and commentators in Bangladesh. Nor is it a lack of courage. The underlying and chronic issue is intellectual independence.

An intellectual is not just an academically trained individual, an academic or a political writer. A public intellectual puts knowledge into the public arena. The intellectuals explain social life, question some taken-for-granted notions, give counsel to society and policy makers, and when needed play a critical conscience. 

Intellectual independence, however, should not be confused with political neutrality. Political preferences, ideologies or even party affiliation do not rule out one's intellectual life. It is possible to be in support of a party or movement and carry out valuable public service. The true challenge starts as soon as you have to choose between evidence, principle and conscience and political loyalty.

An intellectual should follow principles, not parties.Such principles can be freedom, dignity, justice, equality, accountability and human rights. But principles have to be grasped in the context of actual human lives and the common good. The term “public interest” is worthy of scrutiny as well. Who defines it? Who gets the advantages from it? Who pays its costs? In its name whose rights are being violated?

The crisis begins when an intellectual stop asking, “Is this right?” and starts asking, “Whose side is this on?” 

Knowledge can then turn into a political weapon instead of a weapon of understanding of the society. A partisan intellectual may condemn corruption when an opposing party is in power but excuse it when their own party governs. The same person may call restrictions on expression “propaganda” when imposed on allies but legitimate when directed at opponents. One administration is held accountable, while another is defended from accountability. Intellectualism then becomes selective.

This is not a new issue. In BuddhibrittirNotunBinyas, Ahmed Sofa's critique of the intellectual establishment and its connection to political power was powerfully stated.[1] Sofa not only worried about the threat that intellectuals could be subjugated by power, but also about the potential that they could get used to power and its agenda. Being dependent on authority does not always result from force. It can manifest itself in access, prestige, institutional appointments, recognition, professional networks or proximity to political influence.

A partisan intellectual can denounce corruption if it is in the hands of an opposing party, but justify it if it's in his or her own party's hands. The same can be said for restrictions upon expression, which might be called “propaganda” when directed at allies and legitimate when directed at opponents. One administration is blamed and the other is protected from blame.

Thereafter, intellectualism becomes subjective.The distance between intellectual institutions and society is also reflected. Changes in society can make universities, research centers, and professional circles feel isolated. Academic knowledge might become more specialized, and public discussion may be quicker, more emotional and more digital. The intellectual can have a lot of knowledge, but not have an understanding of the fears, anxieties, grievances of ordinary people.

The events of 2024 make this one of the more difficult claims to make that Bangladesh has a lack of intellectual courage. In the July–August uprising, we found a new way of thinking. The expression of “incipient intellectuals”, young actors whose intellectual practices were shaped by study circles, editorial platforms, cultural projects, and protest networks, is described by recent research. These actors have not only been engaged in interpretation but also in the coordination, ethical boundary-setting and mobilization.[2]

The students, the young researchers, writers, activists and cultural actors started thinking about what is happening at the moment. But an important question is asked by participating in protest: Who has intellectual authority, and how is it sustained in institutional frameworks?

This need for independent intellectual judgment seemed to be especially important in the context of the violence that arose with the protests of 2024. The UN human rights office made serious allegations, such as extrajudicial killings, arbitrary detention, torture and restrictions on freedom of expression and peaceful assembly, as well as the demand for impartial investigations and accountability.[3] In such a situation, it is not the intellectual's job to defend one side or the other. It's to discover what happened, to separate fact from propaganda, to find victims and challenge the abuse of power, no matter who is the alleged perpetrator.

In September, 2026, three professors from Dhaka University were suspended after allegations of their opposition to the Uprising in July were made. The professors filed a lawsuit accusing the professors of political harassment, and of denying them due process. Dhaka University Teachers’ Association then protested against the suspensions, and expressed concern about due process and academic freedom.[4]

The answer isn't that those professors were politically correct, and neither should political correctness allegations be ignored because of the academic status of the accuser. The real debatable issue is whether academic freedom and due process are principles or political tools in expedient use. If the government’s interference with the universities is bad, can it become good when the government agents change?

It is the easiest to defend the intellectual independence when it is doing so is to the benefit of one's allies. It is useful when it advances the cause of someone one does not care for. The intellectual should not be labelled as pro-government or anti-government, but pro-principle.

The upcoming challenge might be even more difficult. Many young people who have opposed it in 2024 will be ministers and policy advisers, academics and journalists, and members of the establishment one day. But what will keep them from being what they once feared?

Memory alone won't suffice. An emotional feeling of connection to the past can be maintained through memories of protest and injustice, but integrity is based on the principles that inspired the protest. The true challenge will only begin when an ally erred, when there is insufficient evidence for a desired outcome, when the rights of political opponents are being infringed or when there are influential institutions to be challenged. Do those who stood against authority have the power to say no to those who have joined the others who say yes?

What Bangladesh requires are intellectuals who remain permanently neutral. It needs intellectuals whose critical sense is never dulled. There is no political commitment that is incompatible with intellectualism, but there is uncritical political loyalty.

The intellectual should be in touch with society, unaligned with force, and with courage against authority. That's why perhaps Bangladesh is more a victim of a lack of intelligence than a lack of distance: from power, from society, from conscience.

The problem after 2024 is not merely to create a new batch of educated individuals. To develop people that can resist the temptation of power if power is given to them. The party must not follow the intellectual. The intellectual must adhere to principle, public interest and conscience; even if it goes against them.

 Views in this article are author’s own and do not necessarily reflect CGS policy.    

 References