It was July 2024, and the campus of Rajshahi University, the same corridors he had walked as a teacher for more than three decades, had become a site of state violence upon his young students. Newton did not step aside. He called what he was watching "hooliganism," and told the men plainly: "This is Rajshahi University. We won't allow this at our university as long as we live."

The moment was captured, shared, and became one of the most widely reported campus-resistance of the July uprising. It also made Newton a marked man in the eyes of some and, to his students, a new Zoha Sir for them.

By the time that confrontation happened, Newton was no stranger to the cost of taking such a stand. During the 2006-07 state of emergency, he was sentenced to two years of rigorous imprisonment for joining a silent protest procession on campus. He was acquitted later. Long before July 2024 made him a national name, Rajshahi University already knew him as a teacher willing to place himself in the state's path.

"The Student Identity Within Me Has Never Faded"

Asked what compelled him to take such a personal risk in July, Newton resists the idea that his response was extraordinary. "This wasn't an isolated event for me," he says. "While the July movement was significant and unique in its scale, it fits a pattern for me." He traces that pattern back to his own days as a student at Dhaka University, and through 31 years of teaching at Rajshahi since. "The student identity within me has never faded," he says. "Whenever students face injustice, I feel a responsibility to stand with them."

A relationship, he says, stretched from the 1960s through 1971 and beyond, in which any leftist seen opposing the Awami League during its long rule was "treated like apostasy, like becoming an infidel."

The Cockroaches can fly too

Sheikh Hasina's fall was a warning. Now India's own protesters are testing Modi

He is careful not to romanticise the risk. "There are always risks," he says, recalling three months spent in jail with colleagues during the 1/11 period. For Newton, the university itself is something closer to a home, and the events of July represented a violation of that home. In his words, "In July, we witnessed an unprecedented level of state interference, including armed forces entering university spaces. Speaking against that was not extraordinary; it was a natural response."

He frames the viral confrontation, too, as a matter of professional duty rather than personal heroics. "Defending university autonomy and standing beside our students is part of our professional duty. For me, there is no separation between professional responsibility and personal conscience."

The Aftermath: The victim of a "Legacy" of Old Divisions

The praise Newton received for his stand was matched, in equal or greater measure, by backlash. Since the uprising, he and his family have faced sustained online harassment, death threats, and coordinated propaganda campaigns, which he attributes to supporters of the ousted Awami League regime.

He situates the hostility within a longer historical grievance. "The July uprising created a clear divide between the authoritarian regime and the people," he says. "The defeated supporters, bankrupt in every sense; morally, ideologically, and humanly, couldn't accept Hasina's fall. It's a classic, tragic end for such powerful autocrats."

He notes, almost as an aside, a gap in the country's intellectual life: "Our academia never systematically studied how authoritarianism develops and collapses. Because of this lack of understanding, the backlash began immediately after August 5th.

He offers a theory for why some of the venom has been directed specifically at him: his own past involvement in a leftist student organisation. "Since I was involved in a leftist student organisation in my youth, I think some Awami League supporters were bewildered as to why I would oppose them," he says. "This likely generated the initial hostility." He traces this friction to a much older entanglement between the Awami League and Bangladesh's old left - NAP and CPB. Out of that closeness, he argues, came "transactions, grievances, pride-hurts on both sides.” A relationship, he says, stretched from the 1960s through 1971 and beyond, in which any leftist seen opposing the Awami League during its long rule was "treated like apostasy, like becoming an infidel."

Newton is unsparing about the intellectual muddiness of the label "leftist" itself, invoking the Soviet Communist Party's record as a cautionary example of how the term can be misapplied to regimes far removed from its ideals. For him, the ‘left’ is hard to define. In his words, “those commonly called leftist, who call themselves leftist, I call them Bolshevik leftists for easy identification.”

A surgeon's account of Dhaka Medical College during the July uprising

Only 30 to 40 per cent of the real toll made the news, he reckons, judging by morgue bodies and the wounded arriving

But he reserves his sharpest words not for definitions, but for the abuse itself. "Sincere criticism is important, very important," he says. "Because we can't see our own faults. Others pointing them out helps. But sincere criticism is rare. Abuse is common."

His inbox, he says, is filled with slurs : "Razakar," "Pakistani," curses on his parents. Yet he treats the threats with a kind of hard-won equanimity. "Can't take them lightly," he says. "But I can't give them too much importance either."

Two Years On: The Unfinished Business of Reform

Asked to assess how far Bangladesh has come on state reform — one of the central demands of the July movement — Newton points first to a shift in the national conversation itself. "The most important achievement is that reform itself has become a serious national conversation," he says. Commissions have worked, parties have debated, and the contours of what needs fixing have been identified. But translating that consensus into action, he says, has proven harder, weighed down by mutual blame among political parties.

"The issue is that reform is not a partisan agenda; it's for the sake of the country and future generations," he argues. "It's about ensuring we don't fall back into a totalitarian system." He is critical of what he sees as the structural flaw beneath Bangladesh's electoral democracy: the outsized power of political parties over the candidates who represent the public. "This creates a system where the entire nation is held hostage by a few parties," he says, calling on citizens and civil society, not just parties, to hold politicians to account.

Still, he insists on finding the silver lining. "The fact that reform has become such a central political issue is, in itself, a huge positive outcome of the July movement."

The Real Culprit: Teacher Politics, Not Student Politics

Perhaps Newton's most pointed reflections concern the future of student politics itself, a debate reignited nationally since 2024. He draws a sharp distinction between student movements and student political organisations. "In genuine student movements, both in our history and globally, formal student political organizations become irrelevant," he says. "They follow behind. The movement leads."

He points to the unwritten discipline of the July protests — no party flags, no partisan slogans, as proof that authentic movements don't need institutional politics to succeed. "Student political organisations don't represent students, they represent their own ideologies, their parent parties," he says, noting that only a small fraction of students are ever formally affiliated. He runs through the historical record to make his case: 1952, the 2018 quota protests, the safe-roads movement, the Jahangirnagar rape protests, fee protests at Rajshahi itself, in each, he argues, it was students, not parties, who led.

Malaysia turned a flood tunnel into a motorway. Bangladesh is still just digging drains

Tk 11,000 crore later, Chittagong still floods. Malaysia, Japan and China show what money alone can't fix.

Banning student politics outright, he says, would be futile. "You can't ban student politics by law. If you ban it, they'll form an organisation called 'Golap Phool' and operate the same way." The real culprit, in his view, lies elsewhere, in the politics of teachers themselves. "The root cause of all decay in public universities is teacher politics," he says. "And teacher politics thrives on the voting system."

He describes a university governance culture saturated with factional voting , disguised, under the 1973 Act, as panels of "like-minded" teachers distinguished only by the colour of their ballots. "Everything becomes a vote," he says. "Hiring a peon? Vote. Course loads? Vote. Who gets what? All determined by voting. This is the worst system." His proposed remedy is structural: rotate leadership by seniority, as departments already rotate chairmanships, rather than contest it through factional elections. He even sketches a model for the vice-chancellorship itself, a panel of senior professors ruling by consensus, with terms ending automatically if unanimity can't be reached.

It is teacher politics, he argues, that manufactures the demand for student politics in the first place by using loyal students as enforcers, "as lathials, as mastans," to intimidate rivals and control classrooms. "Teacher politics can be banned by law by abolishing voting," he concludes. "Student politics can't be banned by law. It needs awareness."

We asked him whether he regrets stepping in front of those officers, and Newton doesn't really answer the question. He simply repeats the line that has followed him since: "Death threats won't stop me."