Bangladesh vows democratic renewal on first anniversary of Hasina's overthrow
Rallies, concerts, and prayer sessions were held in the capital as people celebrated what they called a "second liberation".
The events culminated with Nobel peace laureate Muhammad Yunus reading out the "July Declaration", which seeks to give constitutional recognition to the 2024 student-led uprising in response to repression and economic hardship that forced Hasina, then prime minister, to flee to India on August 5.
"The people of Bangladesh express their desire that the student-people uprising of 2024 will get proper state and constitutional recognition," said Yunus, who heads the interim government installed after Hasina's fall, as representatives of political parties looked on.
"The July Declaration will feature in the schedule of the reformed constitution as framed by the government formed through the next national election,' he said.
Supporters see the charter as a foundation for institutional reform; critics say its impact could be largely symbolic in the absence of a legal framework or parliamentary consensus.
Yunus said he would ask the election commission to organise national elections to be held in February 2026.
"We must ensure that no future government can become fascist again. The state must be repaired in such a way that whenever signs of fascism are found anywhere, it can be eradicated immediately," he said.
Political parties, particularly the Bangladesh Nationalist Party (BNP) led by former Prime Minister Khaleda Zia, have urged that elections be held before the end of 2025 to avoid a political vacuum.
Yunus said next year's election could be peaceful, fair and transparent.
While Hasina's Awami League remains suspended, many believe it should be allowed to participate — despite its top leadership facing prosecution for alleged human rights violations during last year's protests.
"Fallen autocrats and their self-serving allies remain active,", Yunus said, urging unity to protect the gains of the uprising while his government holds talks with political parties and civil society.
His government had already launched sweeping reforms while trials for those responsible for the "July killings" of 2024 were progressing swiftly, he said.
Crowds waving flags, holding placards, and chanting slogans gathered near parliament, including some who had been injured in the protests.
"On this day in 2024, the tyrant Sheikh Hasina fled the country," said Ahmedul Hasan. was here last year too. I've come again to remember that moment and join the celebrations."
Others were less exuberant.
"Even after all the bloodshed and sacrifice, a truly liberal democracy in Bangladesh still feels like a distant dream," said Sabbir Ahmed, a college student who joined the protests last year.
Police were on alert throughout the capital, with armoured vehicles on patrol to deter any attempt by the Awami League to disrupt events.
"Let this anniversary not be a day of retrospection, but a rallying cry for a brighter tomorrow," Hasina said in an open letter to the people of Bangladesh, adding that she had never resigned as prime minister.
"Bangladesh has overcome adversity before, and we will rise again, stronger, more united, and more determined to build a democracy that truly serves its people," she said.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
The Guardian
25 minutes ago
- The Guardian
The US supreme court paved the way for Texas's gerrymandering mess
With Texas Republicans rushing to fulfil Donald Trump's wish to gerrymander to the max, many Americans are no doubt wondering why there isn't some referee to stop this hyperpartisan race to the bottom that is poisoning our democracy. The supreme court should be the referee that puts a halt to this ugly, undemocratic mess, but in a shortsighted, 5-4 ruling in 2019, the court's conservative majority essentially told state legislatures that anything goes when it comes to gerrymandering. Their message was: no matter how extreme the gerrymandering, we'll look the other way. Writing the majority opinion in that case, Rucho v Common Cause, chief justice John Roberts declared that gerrymandering was a political matter that federal courts shouldn't intervene in (unless it involves racial discrimination). Many legal experts said the conservative justices were defaulting on the court's responsibility to prevent absurdly unfair, undemocratic elections, where the fix is in even before people vote. In a prescient dissent, justice Elena Kagan warned that the huge permission slip the court was giving to gerrymandering would encourage 'a politics of polarization and dysfunction' and might 'irreparably damage our system of government'. Trump and his team have been shrewd enough and shameless enough to seek to take maximum advantage of that ruling, and in doing so, they're showing how right Kagan was. Trump and company are seriously damaging our system of government and our democracy by seeking to insulate Trump from the majority's will, an expected Democratic-leaning vote in the 2026 congressional elections. Trump and team are also ratcheting up the 'polarization and dysfunction' Kagan warned us about. Democratic lawmakers have fled Texas to prevent a GOP power grab, while Texas governor Greg Abbott has called for their arrest and removal from office. Gerrymandering further fuels polarization because November elections become largely irrelevant for choosing candidates. With gerrymandering, what counts are the party primaries, and there, the extremes, rather than moderate swing voters, determine who the winning candidate is. This in turn leads to increasingly polarized, dysfunctional legislative bodies, like the House of Representatives, where there's plenty of performative, partisan showboating and very little legislation passed. In Rucho, the conservative majority declined to overturn a gerrymander in which the North Carolina GOP had rigged congressional districts so that Republicans would win 10 of the state's 13 House seats even when the GOP won a bare majority of the statewide vote. (The case also involved some flagrant gerrymandering by Maryland's Democrats.) It's thanks to Roberts and the conservative justices' indifference to gerrymandering that a person close to Trump could say that the administration's attitude was 'Maximum warfare, everywhere, all the time'. Seeking to maximize the chances of maintaining Republican control of the House, where the GOP has a mere three-seat majority, many Republicans also want GOP-led legislatures in Missouri, Florida, Ohio and Indiana to gerrymander to the max. In Texas alone, Trump hopes the GOP can pick up five House seats through redistricting. Even though Trump beat former vice-president Kamala Harris by 56% to 42% in Texas in 2024, the newly unveiled gerrymander aims to guarantee Republicans 30 out of Texas's 38 House seats (a 79% to 21% ratio). Democrats accuse Trump and the Texas GOP of cheating, and it should be no surprise that they want to respond to fire with fire, with the Democratic governors of California, Illinois and New York saying that they, too, will push through gerrymanders. This unseemly electoral arms race results directly from the supreme court's dodging of responsibility. In Rucho, chief justice Roberts shrugged at gerrymandering, saying that redistricting shenanigans were part and parcel of US history. Pointing to examples of gerrymandering from the 1780s and early 1800s, Roberts pooh-poohed this phenomenon, writing: 'Partisan gerrymandering is nothing new. Nor is frustration with it.' He also voiced skepticism and snark about judges' use of standards and election experts' predictions to determine when partisan redistricting crosses the line into unconstitutional gerrymandering that violates the 14th amendment's equal protection clause. In contrast to Roberts' who-cares casualness, justice Kagan was an I'm-warning-you Cassandra. In a stinging dissent joined by justices Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Stephen Breyer and Sonia Sotomayor, she correctly predicted that terrible things would result from Roberts's decision. She wrote that his opinion showed 'a saddening nonchalance about the threat that such [extreme] redistricting posts to self-governance'. Kagan didn't mince her words about how Roberts's decision threatened our democracy and undermined the ability of Americans to elect a government of their choosing. 'For the first time ever,' she wrote, 'this Court refuses to remedy a constitutional violation because it thinks the task beyond judicial capabilities. And not just any constitutional violation. The partisan gerrymanders in these cases deprived citizens of the most fundamental of their constitutional rights: the rights to participate equally in the political process, to join with others to advance political beliefs, and to choose their political representatives. In so doing, the partisan gerrymanders here debased and dishonored our democracy, turning upside down the core American idea that all governmental power derives from the people.' In Rucho, Roberts wrote that the constitution neither expressly bans gerrymandering, nor points to a standard to determine when partisan redistricting is so unfair that it becomes unconstitutional. He suggested it would be a grievous, arbitrary wrong to select some legal or mathematical standard to determine when gerrymanders are illegal. Roberts wrote: 'There are no legal standards discernible in the Constitution for making such judgments, let alone limited and precise standards that are clear, manageable, and politically neutral.' Today's headlines make clear that Roberts and his Rucho decision have left us with a far more grievous wrong. It has encouraged ultra-partisan gerrymandering that is sabotaging our democracy and the majority will – in this case with an eye to preventing Democrats from winning back control of the House and serving as a check on Trump, the most authoritarian president in US history. If Texas Republicans prevail and enact their gerrymander, despite Democratic lawmakers' exodus from the state, then the votes of millions of Texas Democrats will become meaningless, their votes in effect erased by the Trump/GOP gerrymander juggernaut. The same thing will happen to many Republican voters in states where Democrats gerrymander. Roberts was dismayingly myopic in failing to realize how his Rucho decision would someday lead to a push for maximum, hyperpartisan redistricting and how new electoral and computer models would make gerrymandering far more sophisticated – and sinister. Roberts was flatly wrong when he wrote that there can't be 'clear, manageable, and politically neutral' standards that define when redistricting crosses the line from mere partisanship to over-the-top, undemocratic, grossly unfair ultra-partisanship. One study put forward a smart standard that says gerrymandering crosses the line into illegality when a certain, high percentage of votes are wasted, deliberately rendered meaningless through partisan redistricting. What we're seeing right now in Texas is one political party seeking to squeeze every last drop out of a filthy gerrymandering sponge – fair play and democracy be damned. Foreseeing ugly episodes like this, Kagan cited the vision of James Madison, the main author of the constitution, who once wrote that the 'power is in the people over the Government, and not in the Government over the people'. The whole purpose of Trump's gerrymandering power grab is to prevent the people from having power over him and his increasingly unpopular government. Unfortunately, Roberts gave Trump a green light for such a power grab. Like Trump, Roberts hates admitting mistakes, but it's not too late for him to admit how shortsighted and harmful his Rucho ruling was. Nor is it too late for the chief justice to get the court to set some sane, healthy limits on gerrymandering to safeguard our democracy as well as Madison's vision that the 'power is in the people over the Government'. Steven Greenhouse is a journalist and author, focusing on labour and the workplace, as well as economic and legal issues
The Independent
31 minutes ago
- The Independent
Dispute over a major port contract threatens Haiti's fragile political stability
The leader of Haiti's transitional presidential council claimed Wednesday that one of its communications employees was threatened and forced to publish a press release about a key contract involving the country's biggest port and two well-known members of its elite. The incident has deepened infighting within the council and further strained relations between Haiti's government and its private sector as a wealthy businessman prepares to take over the council's presidency on Thursday. Fritz Alphonse Jean, the council's current president, said in a statement that the Aug. 4 press release was published without his approval and despite his objections. He also said he was informed about pressure exerted by unidentified council members to dismiss another communications official who 'had refused to publish the note without his authorization.' Jean said a judge would determine whether to grant a 27-year lease to Caribbean Port Services instead of nine years as originally planned. 'Without this opinion, suspicions of corruption could further tarnish the (council's) credibility,' he said. Jean also demanded that Prime Minister Alix Didier Fils-Aimé provide the council with explanations previously requested regarding the lease of the Port-au-Prince International Port, located in an area long controlled by powerful gangs. The press release that Jean condemned states the council met with Philippe Coles, president of Caribbean Port Services, and Edouard Baussan, a wealthy businessman with strong ties to Haiti's most powerful politicians. The release claimed that the 'fruitful discussions, conducted in complete transparency,' found that 'all necessary clarifications have been provided' and that the contract between the government and the company is legal. Caribbean Port Services is a private maritime logistics company that operates the international port in partnership with Haiti's Port Authority. It handles about 80% of the port's cargo container volume, according to its website. On Thursday, Jean will step down as council president as part of a rotation. He recently told The Associated Press that starting on Aug. 7, Haiti's two executive branches will be controlled by its private sector. Bocchit Edmond, a former ambassador to the U.S., said a businessman taking leadership of the council is an opportunity for the private sector to prove itself. He also condemned Jean's statement on Wednesday. 'I'm against the public bashing of the private sector,' he said. 'It's not a good thing at all for the country, for its political stability.' However, Jean said that some private sector members 'were active operators of the chaos in which Haiti is currently engulfed.' Some of Haiti's wealthy elites and powerful politicians have long been accused of financing and arming dozens of gangs, which the United Nations has noted in its reports. Gangs now control 90% of the capital, Port-au-Prince, and continue to launch attacks in a bid to control more territory. Jean's announcement comes less than a week after U.S. officials announced they were aware of 'reported bribery attempts' aimed at destabilizing Haiti. In remarks to the AP, Jean called it 'a desperate and trivial effort to attract the sympathy of American congressmen and women, and the U.S. administration.' The council was created following the resignation of former Prime Minister Ariel Henry after gangs launched a series of attacks last year against critical government infrastructure. It is tasked with holding elections by February 2026. ___
The Independent
31 minutes ago
- The Independent
Trump threatens India with 50% tariffs for buying Russian oil
U.S. President Donald Trump 's had signed an executive order subjecting Indian imports to a 50% tariff due to its purchase of Russian oil. The order subjects Indian imports to an additional 25% in duties on top of an existing 25% tariff. Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi has been urged by India's opposition parties and the general public to stand up to Trump, labelling the move as 'bullying'. Trump has been warned his latest tirade threatens to undo two decades of diplomatic progress, analysts and officials say, and could derail other areas of cooperation as domestic political pressures drive both sides to harden their stances. While India has emerged in recent years as a key partner for Washington in its strategic rivalry with China, its large U.S. trade surplus and close relations with Russia – which Trump is seeking to pressure into agreeing to a peace agreement with Ukraine – have made it a prime target in the Republican president's global tariff offensive. Trump's taunt that India could buy oil from arch enemy Pakistan has also not gone down well in New Delhi, said two Indian government sources. India has also rejected repeated claims by Trump that he used trade as a lever to end a recent military conflict between India and Pakistan. In an unusually sharp statement this week, India accused the U.S. of double standards in singling it out for Russian oil imports while continuing to buy Russian uranium hexafluoride, palladium and fertiliser. On Wednesday, it called the tariffs "unfair, unjustified and unreasonable," vowing to "take all actions necessary to protect its national interests." But New Delhi knows that any further escalation will hurt it in matters beyond trade, said the sources. Unlike China, India does not have leverage like supplies of rare earths to force Trump's hand to improve the terms of any trade deal, they said. In recent years, successive U.S. administrations, including Trump's first, carefully cultivated relations with India with an eye on it as a vital partner in long-term efforts to counter the growing might of China. But analysts say Trump's recent moves have plunged the relationship back to possibly its worst phase since the U.S. imposed sanctions on India for nuclear tests in 1998. "India is now in a trap: because of Trump's pressure, Modi will reduce India's oil purchases from Russia, but he cannot publicly admit to doing so for fear of looking like he's surrendering to Trump's blackmail," said Ashley Tellis at Washington's Carnegie Endowment for International Peace. "We could be heading into a needless crisis that unravels a quarter century of hard-won gains with India." Indian state refiners have in recent days stopped buying Russian oil as discounts narrowed and pressure from Trump rose, Reuters has reported. New challenges for relations A more pressing challenge for India, analysts say, is the stark divergence between its priorities and Trump's political base on key issues such as work visas for tech professionals and offshoring of services. India has long been a major beneficiary of U.S. work visa programs and the outsourcing of software and business services, a sore point for Americans who have lost jobs to cheaper workers in India. Relations with India risk becoming a "football in American domestic politics," warned Evan Feigenbaum, a former senior State Department official under the Republican presidency of George W. Bush. "Issues that directly touch India are among the most partisan and explosive in Washington, including immigration and deportation, H1B visas for tech workers, offshoring and overseas manufacturing by U.S. companies, and technology sharing and co-innovation with foreigners," he wrote in a LinkedIn post. Since a 2008 deal to cooperate on civilian nuclear technology, the two countries have deepened intelligence sharing and defence cooperation and expanded interactions with Australia and Japan through the Quad grouping aimed at containing China's dominance in the Indo-Pacific. But fractures have appeared, despite Modi's rapport with Trump in his first term and then former President Joe Biden. Images in February of Indians deported by the U.S. on military planes, their hands and legs shackled, horrified the country just days before Modi went to see Trump seeking to stave off high tariffs. The relationship was also seriously tested in late 2023 when the U.S. said it had foiled a plot with Indian links to kill a Sikh separatist leader on U.S. soil. New Delhi has denied any official connection to the plot. "The Modi regime's credibility in the U.S. has gone down," said Sukh Deo Muni, a former Indian diplomat and a professor emeritus at New Delhi's Jawaharlal Nehru University. "And maybe there are people who think that India or Modi had to be brought back on track, if not taught a lesson. And if that trend continues, I'm quite worried that the challenge is quite powerful and strong for India to navigate." Strengthening ties with US rivals One Indian government source said India needs to gradually repair ties with the U.S. while engaging more with other nations that have faced the brunt of Trump tariffs and aid cuts, including the African Union and the BRICS bloc that includes Brazil, Russia, China and South Africa. India is already making some moves with Russia and China. Russian President Vladimir Putin is expected to visit New Delhi this year and on Tuesday, Russia said the two countries had discussed further strengthening defence cooperation "in the form of a particularly privileged strategic partnership." India has also boosted engagement with China, a change after years of tensions following a deadly border clash in 2020. Modi is set to visit China soon for the first time since 2018. "Russia will attempt to exploit the rift between the U.S. and India by proposing the restoration of the Russia-India-China trilateral and new projects in defence," said analyst Aleksei Zakharov at the Observer Research Foundation in New Delhi.
