Shahbagh, a pivotal crossroad in Dhaka, has been a focal point of demonstrations in 2025. Recently, Chhatra Dal organized a rally there, attracting activists from various regions who traveled on a specially arranged 20-coach train from Chattogram. Simultaneously, the NCP, a youth-led political party, staged their own rally at the Central Shaheed Minar on the same day. To prevent potential traffic disruptions, the Dhaka Metropolitan Police (DMP) advised the public to avoid the Shahbagh area and recommended that exam candidates like HSC, equivalent, and BCS students allocate extra travel time to reach their exam centers.
The rallies’ underlying causes aside, the prolonged blockades at a major traffic junction like Shahbagh have disproportionately impacted ordinary citizens. Numerous occasions this year saw Shahbagh completely shut down. For instance, on February 6, demonstrators barricaded the intersection for over nine hours, leading to traffic snarls extending to key routes like Farmgate, Banglamotor, Dhanmondi, and Moghbazar. The blockade continued into the night and resumed the following day. Similarly, on May 15 and July 29, significant blockades disrupted traffic flow as protesters escalated their demands amidst stalled dialogues with authorities.
The repercussions on the general public have been severe. Commuters endured long walks under the scorching sun, students missed exams, and patients faced critical delays in reaching major hospitals such as Bangladesh Medical University (BMU) and Dhaka Medical College Hospital. Ambulances were stranded for hours, and some commuters walked up to five kilometers as ride-sharing services either halted operations or raised prices.
Dhaka, already known as one of the most congested cities globally according to the Numbeo Traffic Index 2024, considers Shahbagh a crucial traffic hub. While protest organizers argue for a more responsive government, the tactic of completely blocking key intersections inflicts unintended harm on millions not directly involved in the political turmoil.
In Bangladesh, the constitution guarantees the right to assemble and express under Article 39, alongside the rights to life (Article 32) and movement (Article 36). However, these rights are not absolute and must be exercised without infringing on others’ fundamental freedoms. The current protest approach, though rooted in constitutional intent, often violates other protected rights by obstructing roads, impeding ambulances, and jeopardizing lives.
From a legal standpoint, striking a balance among rights is crucial. As highlighted by the Supreme Court of Bangladesh in various public interest cases, the government is obligated to safeguard not only speech but also public safety, health, and order. Prolonged occupation of major public roads without alternative arrangements disrupts this balance. Even in democracies with robust protest traditions like India or the UK, courts have ruled that public inconvenience cannot become a permanent feature of protests.
This does not invalidate protesters’ demands or the role of civil disobedience. Their grievances over civilian casualties during clashes with security forces in July warrant legal and moral consideration. The July Charter, advocating for institutional reforms, compensation, and transparent investigations, addresses genuine governance shortcomings. Nonetheless, strategies that harm the public in the pursuit of justice risk diminishing public support and fostering polarization.
Moving forward, authorities should earnestly engage with protesters’ demands and establish structured dialogues to prevent further disruptive actions. Designated protest zones capable of accommodating large crowds and media coverage without paralyzing the capital should be identified. Coordination with protest leaders to set time limits or establish “protest windows” during off-peak hours is essential. Models from countries like South Korea and Germany have successfully implemented such strategies. In cases where roads are occupied, emergency corridors must remain accessible. No protest should impede access to essential services like hospitals or fire departments.
Furthermore, the public must critically evaluate protest culture. While supporting a cause is important, tactics that repeatedly endanger lives or livelihoods demand scrutiny. Citizens should advocate for justice without subjecting others to extensive traffic delays, missed medical appointments, or concerns for vulnerable family members stuck in public transport.
Regardless of the responsible parties for resolving political disputes, imposing prolonged hardships on ordinary citizens is unacceptable. Protest should not equate to punishment for the uninvolved. The city and its residents deserve better.