Why did the quota movement go so far?

The curfew was imposed in view of the unexpected violence, conflict and sedition situation that emerged around the general students' quota reform movement. In that case, there must be a discussion about some issues. Along with that two very relevant and urgent questions need to be answered. First, whether the demand for quota reform is logical and fair? Second, why and how did an apolitical student movement become so violent and who is to blame?

In the present context, in answer to the first question, it can be said with certainty that the demand for reforming the quota system was logical and fair. This can be confirmed by two factors. From the beginning, most of the people of the country stood in favor of the quota reform demand. If this demand was not logical and fair then His Highness the court and the government would never have accepted it.
The non-political movement of students demanding quota reform did not involve any level of violence or anarchy in the initial stages. That's not supposed to happen. Unfortunate but true, the unexpected anarchy and horror we have witnessed. Through a series of events, the demand for quota reform was finally accepted. At the beginning of the movement, the demands of the students were blocked by the barricades of various 'impossibles', but in the end it was seen that all the 'impossibles' have become possible. Kudos to the process and the roles of those involved. But the question is, why was this step not taken earlier? If that had been done, then Bangladesh would not have had the opportunity to utter the two words 'conflict' and 'violence' in this case. Those who are responsible for this delay cannot avoid the responsibility of this conflict-violence.

On July 14, part of the news published in the country's first-line media is as follows - Awami League General Secretary and Bridges Minister Obaidul Quader said, 'Why should the government deal with a non-political movement politically? The government has no intention of dealing with the anti-quota movement politically. The next day, the Chhatra League and Awami League announced that they would deal with the quota activists politically on July 15! Within a few hours, at least 50 agitating students were injured in an attack by the Chhatra League on Dhaka University. After this, incidents of Chhatra League attacks on protesting students in various universities started to happen. Chhatra League and Jubo League attacked unarmed students openly with firearms in many places. At one point, ordinary students were forced to resist in self-defense. The conflict escalated.

On July 16, massive protests and clashes took place throughout the country. The followers of the ruling party including Chhatra League, Jubo League attacked the protesters. Six people were killed. Abu Saeed, a student of Begum Rokeya University, who was agitating in Rangpur, was shot in the chest by the police. Saeed's death caused protests and agitations in the entire country.
Lastly, BNP-Jamaat and their followers are responsible for the vandalism, destruction and deadly clashes that have been seen across the country since July 18. A situation arises that curfew is imposed to prevent vandalism and public safety. A review of the above-mentioned issues and events makes it clear that ordinary students are not responsible for the violent conflict and rampage of destruction that is going on in the background of the quota reform movement.