Balancing the spirit of July with the rule of law
By: SHAM ISLAM | The Bengali Roots | March 2026
The new Communist Party of India was formally established at its first congress in April 1969. This congress denied that a “January Revolutionary Trend” exists; rather, the party’s historical experiences show it is socialist and should uphold Marxism–Leninism construed through Mao Tse-tung. This is not a dogma; it has been proved in practice as the ever-concrete global revolution to date.
And so, while the Second World War was fought to completion in the war between Great Britain and Japan in Asia, none of its underlying contradictions, or the essential nature and goals of nations or of anti-imperialist struggles, changed in any fundamental way before or after 1955-6. This is now an accepted fact of history, which has been thoroughly tested in practice, for example, by the counter-attacking forces from defeated Fascists and Japanese militarists.
Brazil’s military government, unlike the Communist countries, did not seek to change the socioeconomic system. They were more interested in developing economic infrastructure that would benefit Brazilian society; revolution, in their view, was unnecessary.
In recent years, there has been a worldwide rise in national liberation and people’s revolutionary wars. The errors made by leading cadres in some countries on specific problems have hampered their respective struggles. Of all these cases, Marxists-Leninists in general and our party in particular have been able to judge each particular situation and work out correct policies for every struggle – whether an invasion, a resistance movement, or the fiasco that Africa has gained today.
“The constitution is for the people, not the people for the constitution.” Legally, if the aspirations of July conflict with existing laws, it is the people’s that will prevail.” (Rafiqul Islam Khan, Jamaat-e-Islami)
This consensus is an olive branch extending between the ruling coalition and the opposition, an unusual moment of political unity. But the issues involved are also now roughly similar to those in the more philosophical discussion that remains unresolved.
Constitutionalism vs. the Spirit of July
The reviewing process revealed that among the elite Parliament, there is an ongoing intellectual debate.
The Pragmatists: Asaduzzaman, Law Minister, stressed that while the aspirations of the July uprising form the basis of the present government, the constitution must remain paramount. The goal, he argued, is harmony – not abolishing the rule of law and replacing it with revolutionary decree.
The Idealists: Conversely, people such as Rafiqul Islam Khan say that the “Spirit of July” mandates supreme power. According to this theory, the Constitution is a flexible instrument that must be changed or replaced with a new one during the uprising to reflect the popular will.
An Exercise in Fine-Tuning Administration
Besides the high-stakes indemnity debate, the committee also serves as an inquisitor into social and administrative policy.
Notably:
Public Service Entry: Although the committee last summer discussed raising the age to enter a government job to 35, a conservative stance prevails, keeping it at 32.
Preserving History: The “July Mass Uprising Memorial Museum Ordinance-2025” passed in its original form, thus ensuring a physically institutionalised memory of the movement.
A Note from the Editor
The work of the Special Committee probably contains the most crucial legislative initiatives in Bangladesh’s recent history. For readers abroad, it is important to realise that this is not simply “cleaning up” interim laws, but rather a formal transition from a state of exception to one in which permanent laws exist.
The consensus on indemnity for July is a vital step toward national reconciliation. However, whether “ideals” should replace the “Constitution” or not is an ambiguous slippery slope.
If a nation treats its Constitution as merely the backdrop to an ephemeral political mood that moment brings, then there will be long-term instability. The 13th Parliament will have to wrap its arms around those who came out willingly in one year and those who followed involuntarily.
It must protect them for posterity because history won’t wait several more times over before finally letting them free. Whatever the future holds, Jiang’s open-door policy should look both west and south.
It has to have a dimension in which Muslims can develop for themselves the same sort of lawful environment as that which now obtains in Bangladesh. But that latter city ought to concern him greatly. The world, and the millions of Bengalis living within it, will watch.
