Published :
Updated :
For all latest news, follow The Financial Express Google News channel.
Writer and political philosopher Farhad Mazhar has sharply criticised Chief Adviser Muhammad Yunus, arguing that despite becoming a “symbol” of the July Uprising, Yunus has consistently undermined the very people who brought him to power by chasing validation from political parties and foreign actors.
Appearing on bdnews24.com’s “Inside Out”, he said Yunus’s lack of grassroots political experience has created divisions and weakened the reform process, which he believes has already failed.
“This is the outcome of political inexperience,” Mazhar said. “He had no reason to submit to political parties. After all, it was the people—not any party—who put him in power.”
Mazhar emphasised that the interim government lacks full authority and legitimacy, and that Yunus’s approach has alienated the popular forces at the heart of the mass uprising.
PEOPLE-ORCHESTRATED UPRISING
When the Awami League government collapsed on Aug 5 in the face of student-led protests, Yunus was abroad in France. He returned on Aug 8 and was sworn in as Chief Adviser later that day.
Mazhar clarified that Yunus emerged as a symbol, not a leader, of the movement. “The students who led the Uprising installed him. No political party appointed him. The legitimacy came from the people.”
He expressed concern that Yunus, by aligning with political parties, has betrayed the Uprising’s grassroots essence.
“There was no political party behind the mass uprising. Those who participated did so from the ground up. By giving parties separate legitimacy, Yunus has harmed the people’s political agency and empowered several corrupt factions. That’s unacceptable.”
Mazhar acknowledged that political party workers joined the movement, but stressed they did so as individuals, not as party representatives. “Many set aside party loyalties to join the collective cause.”
A WEAK CONNECTION WITH THE PEOPLE
While recognising the international appeal of Nobel Peace laureate Muhammad Yunus, Mazhar noted a critical shortcoming: “His relationship with the common people is weak.”
“He may have international credibility, and I understand that his presence helps navigate geopolitical concerns. But he lacks an understanding of the lived experiences of ordinary people. This disconnect results in poor decisions.”
Mazhar also criticised Yunus for allowing political parties to dominate the post-uprising discourse.
“He went to hear their complaints about elections. But who asked him to do that? The people didn’t. He should have been engaging directly with the people. Instead, he created an unnecessary debate around elections—disconnected from the mass uprising.”
FOREIGNERS IN STATE POSTS: A FATAL MISTAKE
Mazhar also condemned the appointment of foreign citizens or dual passport holders to key positions in reform commissions and government bodies.
“I am not against these individuals personally—many are my friends—but you cannot belittle a sovereign state,” he said.
“If someone holds foreign citizenship, you cannot place them in roles where their directives are binding. Advisors are fine. But government roles? That’s a serious mistake.”
‘NOT AN UPRISING HERO, AN OUTCOME OF IT’
Mazhar rejected any notion that Yunus led the uprising.
“He is not the hero of the mass uprising; he is its outcome. That’s why students had to surround his office—he ignored their pain, their demands. The people who elevated him are now in distress.”
While reiterating his support for Yunus, he stressed the importance of accountability.
“We must support him when he is unjustly attacked. But it is also our duty to correct him. He needs proper political advice—and we are willing to give it.”
‘WE WILL SET HIM RIGHT’
Mazhar declared that Yunus’s reform process has already failed and that future progress depends not on one man, but on the people's continued struggle.
“If he fails, does that make him a bad person? No. He is working, and we will support and guide him. Since we helped bring him forward, we will help him improve.”
He believes Yunus was misled early on and needs to better grasp the realities of the movement.
‘NOT IN FAVOUR OF CONSTITUTIONAL REFORM’
Mazhar strongly opposed bringing the interim government under the existing constitution.
“After a mass uprising, it would have been better to form a fully empowered interim government—not one restrained by a flawed constitution. As it stands, Yunus lacks full authority. I call it a ‘military-backed advisory government’.”
He added, “If the military establishment doesn’t support this government, it won’t survive. It’s too weak to implement meaningful reform.”
‘A COMMISSION IMPOSED FROM ABOVE’
Mazhar was also critical of the composition of Yunus’ reform commission.
“He selected people from above, many of whom were absent during the mass uprising. Who are they? Where were they then? Some have even supported the US-led ‘War on Terror’. They do not represent the people.”
He expressed specific concern over National Security Adviser Khalilur Rahman.
“We don’t know his stance on Bangladesh. These are untested figures. In a post-uprising context, political—not just technical—expertise is essential.”
PEOPLE’S POWER, NOT PARTY POLITICS
Mazhar concluded that the reform process is failing because it has ignored the true driver of change: the people.
“His so-called reform will fail because he isn’t empowering the people. He has failed to acknowledge that this was a people’s uprising—not a political party project.
"He is now relying on political parties, but they had no role in leading the movement. Their workers joined, yes—but as part of the people’s will, not party agendas.”