Is violence the answer?

The recent violent attack on the historic Dhanmondi 32 residence has left many questioning the actions of those who claim to be the future leaders of Bangladesh. While there is absolute discontent with the rule of fascist Sheikh Hasina and strong opposition to the return of the Awami League, resorting to such aggression raises serious concerns about the nation's political culture.

The protesters, angered by an online speech from the former Prime Minister, stormed the residence of Sheikh Mujibur Rahman, breaking open gates and vandalising the property.

Their intention, as stated in their slogans and actions, was to erase what they perceived as symbols of authoritarianism and fascism. However, their methods-destruction, threats, and violence-stand in stark contrast to the democratic values they claim to uphold.

The aggressive behaviour displayed by these individuals is alarming. It raises an important question: Is this the leadership we envision for our country? Political opposition and activism are vital in a democracy, but when they take the form of violent destruction, they threaten stability rather than fostering any positive change.

History shows that movements driven by unchecked aggression often led to more chaos rather than meaningful reform. If the next generation of leaders embraces violence as a tool for political change, the future of Bangladesh remains uncertain. Actual progress requires discourse, strategic action and the ability to lead with reason rather than rage.

Opposing Sheikh Hasina's rule and resisting the Awami League's comeback is one thing, but allowing anger to fuel destructive behaviour is another. The country deserves better-a leadership that can challenge oppression without resorting to the same intolerance it seeks to eliminate.

Faria Hassan

Bachelor of Business Administration

North South University

faria0462@gmail.com