The famous historian Edward Hallett Carr once said, “History is a continuous process of interaction between the historian and facts, an unending dialogue between the present and the past.”

This definition of history has been widely accepted by historians around the world. However, political parties in Bangladesh struggle to understand Carr’s definition, particularly in relation to the history of the Bangladeshi July Uprising. While this may not be the first debate among them, such chaos has been a recurring feature in Bangladesh’s political history.

Since the beginning of the post-July uprising, stakeholders have been in disarray, with some questioning who the mastermind behind the uprising was. Although the ousted government, led by Sheikh Hasina, regarded the uprising as a conspiracy, her supporters, such as Nijhoom Majumder, often describe it as a terrorist attack.

This chaos among stakeholders has, in a way, supported Hasina’s narrative, as mass uprisings may not have a mastermind. A mass people’s uprising should be organized spontaneously by the people themselves, without meticulous planning or a leader behind the scenes.

Both national and international media outlets, as well as intellectuals, have raised numerous questions about the July uprising. In the philosophy of history, asking questions is not unethical.

This historical event must be resolved through the work of historians, not uprisers or politicians. If anyone tries to resolve the debate using slang or political power, it will never be settled.

As E.H. Carr stated, “The great historian—or perhaps I should say more broadly, the great thinker—is the person who asks the question ‘why’ about new things or in new contexts.”

The Bangladeshi July Uprising was a new event in a new context, and as such, it is true that intellectuals, including historians, must ask questions to understand why people participated in the uprising and how they were able to unite under a common cause despite political or ideological differences.

As eyewitnesses to the uprising, we observed that people from all walks of life participated in the movement. For example, rickshaw pullers, laborers, farmers, teachers, and imams joined students in the protests.

Political parties like the BNP-Jamaat, including their student wings, Bangladesh Jatiotabadi Chhatra Dal and Bangladesh Islami Chhatrashibir, played a crucial role during the movement.

Other Islamic political parties, including Islami Andolon Bangladesh and Hefazat-e-Islam, as well as their student wings, were also highly active. Most leftist intellectuals and political parties, such as Ganosanhati Andolan and Nagorik Oikko, and their student organizations, also actively participated in the July uprising.

While disciples of Nurul Haque Nur, president of Gono Odhikar Parishad, led the movement, a few years ago, they left Nur to form a new political party, Gonotantrik Chhatra Shakti, led by Akhter Hossain. This new student-led political party played a pivotal role in the July uprising.

Surprisingly, even those who supported the Awami League and Chhatra League during the uprising later changed their political allegiance and joined the movement. Sarjis Alam, a prominent example, was a vital coordinator of the Students Against Discrimination group and had previously been a member of Bangladesh Chhatra League.

Astonishingly, a significant number of Bangladesh Jubo League members and supporters, who were dissatisfied with the then-government, participated in the uprising and played key roles in taking an anti-government stance.

The success of the July uprising can be attributed, in part, to its ability to bring together diverse political factions, making it more of a political movement than a purely mass uprising.

However, when I spoke recently to a vice-president of Bangladesh Jatiotabadi Chhatra Dal, a student from Dhaka College who was actively involved in organizing the uprising in the Mohammadpur area, he shared how many ordinary people sacrificed their lives during the uprising.

Similarly, slum boys played a crucial role, yet upper-class-dominated media outlets have largely ignored their contributions.

I have yet to see the leaders of the uprising publicly recognize the role of slum boys in their speeches.

Without acknowledging this part of the history of the July uprising, it would be incomplete to narrate the full story of why and how slum boys connected with students in the movement. This lack of recognition is a significant gap in the historical narrative.

Given the mass participation of ordinary people, including the sacrifice of lives and the involvement of slum boys, it can be considered an uprising.

Whether it was a meticulously designed or a spontaneously organized movement, the narratives will depend on historians’ answers to the critical questions of why and how the masses participated.

In the post-July uprising period, intellectuals and military personnel have benefited the most. These groups are leading the government, although students have shared in the power to some extent.

However, intellectuals and military personnel still wield more influence than students. While this does not provide enough evidence to definitively answer the question, “Was the July Uprising an Intellectual-Military Coup?” historians must investigate further and rely on reliable sources to answer this question.

All stakeholders in the July uprising should welcome those who wish to ask questions and investigate the issue in depth. It has been historically proven that history is a river of currents, constantly changing as new evidence, documents, or sources emerge.

Nonetheless, uprisers have frequently claimed that the July uprising was a spontaneous movement led by students.

However, it is academically true that there is no “settled issue” in the unwritten constitution of history. History is a “moving procession.” As E.H. Carr noted, “History means interpretation.” By uncovering acceptable historical evidence, the narrative of history can evolve. In his book The Whig Interpretation of History, Herbert Butterfield writes, “It is essentially the study of transition, and to the historian, the only absolute is change.”

Thus, the history of the July uprising may unfold in various ways, depending on the reliable sources historians uncover. Ultimately, the final narratives will be written by historians, possibly a century from now, when most of the eyewitnesses to the July uprising have passed away.

This historical event must be resolved through the work of historians, not uprisers or politicians. If anyone tries to resolve the debate using slang or political power, it will never be settled.

Raising such political questions about the history of the July uprising may continue indefinitely unless impartial historians can present the facts from a neutral perspective, free from political pressure.

John Edward Emerich First Baron Acton famously said, “For history must be our deliverer not only from the undue influence of other times but from the undue influence of our own, from the tyranny of environment and the pressure of the air we breathe.”

Acton’s words may help halt the chaos among the stakeholders of the July uprising until historians narrate its history.

All stakeholders in the July uprising should welcome those who wish to ask questions and investigate the issue in depth. It has been historically proven that history is a river of currents, constantly changing as new evidence, documents, or sources emerge.

As new sources unveil the history of the July uprising, the narrative may take a new shape.

History has no full stop, and the story of the July uprising will continue to evolve through the study of new sources, evidence, and documents.

(Md. Abusalah Sakender, Assistant Professor, Department of Islamic History & Culture, Jagannath University and Advisor Editor, Nepal News. He can be reached at [email protected])