Violence at Chittagong University erupts after students assault a teacher, sparking national outrage. The incident raises serious concerns over campus safety, student politics, administrative silence, and the growing culture of impunity in Bangladesh’s public universities.
A violent incident at Chittagong University has sent shockwaves across Bangladesh’s academic community, raising urgent concerns about campus safety, student politics, and administrative failure. The assault on Assistant Professor Hasan Muhammad Roman Shuvo by a group of students, allegedly led by a senior student leader, has ignited widespread condemnation and renewed debate over the growing culture of impunity in public universities.
The incident occurred in broad daylight during university admission tests, a time when campus security is expected to be at its strongest. Video footage widely circulated on social media shows Assistant Professor Shuvo being dragged by the neck and forcibly taken into the proctor’s office. The images are graphic, disturbing, and impossible to dismiss as a minor altercation. They depict not chaos, but organized violence carried out with confidence and a sense of entitlement.
At the center of the controversy is Abdullah Al Noman, the office secretary of the Chittagong University Central Students’ Union. According to multiple reports, including from leading national newspapers, Noman was not merely present at the scene but allegedly led the group that assaulted the teacher. As an elected student representative, his role was meant to uphold discipline and protect institutional order. Instead, critics argue, he embodied the very breakdown of ethical leadership on campus.
Observers have been particularly alarmed by Noman’s public justification of the incident. He claimed that his actions were “protective,” asserting that some students wanted to attack the teacher and that he intervened to prevent greater harm. This explanation has been widely dismissed as implausible, especially in light of the video evidence showing coordinated physical aggression. Commentators note that such statements effectively acknowledge the presence of a mob and raise further questions about who organized it and why.
Equally troubling has been the response—or lack thereof—from the university administration. Despite the circulation of clear video footage and intense public scrutiny, no immediate disciplinary action has been announced against the alleged perpetrators. The silence has drawn sharp criticism from academics, rights activists, and civil society members, who argue that administrative inaction amounts to tacit approval of violence.
The university proctor has confirmed that Assistant Professor Shuvo is facing multiple internal probes related to unspecified allegations. However, legal experts and educationists stress that investigations, regardless of their nature, can never justify physical assault. Universities are bound by principles of due process, where allegations are addressed through inquiry committees and disciplinary boards—not through intimidation, humiliation, or mob justice.
The timing of the incident has further intensified concerns. Admission tests are a critical moment for any university, symbolizing merit, fairness, and opportunity. The spectacle of a teacher being publicly assaulted during such a period sends a deeply unsettling message to prospective students and their families. It suggests that power dynamics, rather than academic values, dominate campus life.
The administration now faces serious and uncomfortable questions. How did such a violent act unfold in a supposedly secure environment? Why was a faculty member left vulnerable in the presence of student leaders? And why has no decisive action been taken against an individual whose alleged role is documented on video?
Critics warn that failure to act decisively risks normalizing violence as a legitimate tool of campus politics. When elected student leaders are seen leading assaults rather than preventing them, the moral foundation of student representation collapses. Faculty members may begin to fear retaliation, while students learn that authority can be enforced through force rather than dialogue.
| Also Read: India warns B’desh over repeated Extremist attacks on Minorities |
Attempts by some supporters to invoke past political movements to justify the assault have been met with strong backlash. Analysts argue that using historical uprisings as a shield for present-day violence distorts history and betrays the original values of resistance, justice, and accountability.
The Chittagong University incident is no longer just an internal matter. It has become a national test of whether academic institutions in Bangladesh can uphold the rule of law and protect their educators. The way the university responds will determine whether it reasserts its commitment to justice—or quietly surrenders to mob rule.
