Eid Should Be a Journey of Joy, Not a National Gamble With Death

Every year in Bangladesh, as the holy Eid approaches, an exodus begins. Millions of people leave Dhaka and other cities to return to their villages, towns, and ancestral homes to embrace parents, children, siblings, and loved ones. It should be one of the most beautiful movements of human affection in the country: a homecoming of faith, family, memory, and belonging. Instead, fit becomes, ar too often, ine of the most dangerous mass migrations in South Asia. This year is no different. Reports from Dhaka and across the transport network show overcrowded trains, passengers riding on roofs, severe shortages of buses and launches, inflated fares, long traffic snarls, and fresh transport accidents right in the middle of the Eid rush.

What sort of republic forces its citizens to risk life and limb so spend Eid with their families?

Look at the annual spectacle. People are packed into trains like freight. Men cling to carriage doors. Others sit on train roofs as if human life in Bangladesh has become so cheap that the railway lines themselves are now an altar of neglect. Reports this week described exactly that: jam-packed trains leaving Kamalapur, passengers riding on rooftops, and authorities struggling to maintain safety under crushing demand.

And it is not just the railways. The bus sector is equally grim. Passengers have faced overcharging, overcrowding, and arbitrary fare hikes. The Business Standard reported that even BRTC buses were found carrying passengers beyond seat capacity, with extra riders seated on stools,. At the same time, transport syndicates were accused of driving up fares for Eid profits. bdnews24 likewise reported that homebound travellers were being battered by”gridlock and “”ky-high fares”.

Then there are the waterways. Even there, tragedy has intruded into the holiday movement. The Financial Express reported that a collision between two passenger launches at Sadarghat on 18 March left two people dead and two others missing just as thousands were leaving the capital for Eid.

This is not a transport system. It is an annual ritual of state failure.

The current government cannot hide behind press briefings, photo opportunities, or administrative notices. Yes, the police issued Eid travel safety guidelines. Yes, the authorities announced restrictions on trucks, covered vans, and lorries on highways from 17 to 23 March. Yes, railway officials spoke of schedule discipline, extra coaches, and preparations. But what matters is not the press release; it is the lived reality of the citizen. And that lived reality, once again, is one of panic, discomfort, danger, extortion, and uncertainty.

This is why the public anger matters. The promises were lofty. The slogans were grand. Th” rheto”ic of “change” was intoxicating. Bangladesh was told that a new era of governance was dawning after the upheaval of 2024 and the 2026 election. Reuters reported that Prime Minister Tarique Rahman came to office pledging price stability, rule of law, and governance refBNP’sfter the BNP’s sweeping election victory and the political transition that foHasina’sheikh Hasina’s ouster.

But what does the ordinary citizen see today? Not reform. Not ordered. Not a humane state. They see the same old Bangladesh: broken systems, unregulated greed, weak enforcement, dangerous overcrowding, and an official culture that reacts after the crisis rather than preventing it before it begins. They see a government that appears capable of winning power but not yet capable of governing the republic.

That is the central indictment.

Because Eid travel chaos in Bangladesh is not some unforeseeable natural disaster. It is annual. Predictable. Measurable. Anticipated months in advance. Every government knows it is coming. Every ministry knows it is coming. Every police officer, transport regulator, railway administrator, and district official knows it is coming. Yet year after year, the same pictures return: desperate passengers, roof-riding commuters, highway paralysis, transport profiteering, and grieving families. When failure repeats itself in exactly the same form, it is no longer an accident. It becomes a structure of neglect.

And the broader national question cannot be avoided. If a government cannot secure a basic holiday journey for its citizens during the holiest festive season, what confidence can people have in its larger promises of justice, democracy, institutional stability, and national renewal? If the state cannot protect the worker going home to Rangpur, the mother travelling to Barisal, the student boarding a train for Sylhet, or the day labourer hanging from the footboard of an overloaded coach, then what exactly is this government protecting?

Power?

Narrative?

Vengeance against political opponents?

Many Bangladeshis will reasonably ask whether the real project was governance at all or simply the toppling of one political force and the installation of another. That question is not born of conspiracy; it is born of lived disappointmpublic’sn the public’s suffering remains fundamentally unchanged, people begin to suspect that only the faces at the top have changed, while the machinery of indifference below remains intact.

The pain is deeper because Eid is not an ordinary holiday. It is sacred. It is emotional. It is civilisational. It is the one time when the garment worker, the office clerk, the rickshaw-puller, the banker, the student, and the expatriate dream the same dream: to go home. To sit with family. To pray together. To eat together. To remember that beyond politics and poverty, they still belong to one another. A decent state would honour Bangladesh’s. Bangladesh’s state, too often, exploits it.

This dilemma is not merely a transport issue. It is a moral issue. It is a question of whether the citizen is treated as a human being or as disposable cargo.

Road safety data make the situation even more WHO’sing. The WHO’s Bangladesh road-safety profile puts estimated road traffic deaths at roughly 31,578 in 2021, underscoring thecountry’s the country’s systemic transport danger, while recent analysis has highlighted how official figures often understate the true death toll.

So this Eid, Bangladeshis travel not with confidence but with prayer. Instead of travelling with trust, they travel with fear. Not because the country is poor in spirit, but because it is still too poorly governed.

The people deserve better than being crushed into compartments, fleeced at terminals, stranded in gridlock, or thrown onto the mercy of fate just to celebrate a sacred festival.

Eid should be a reunion. In Bangladesh, it still too often resembles an evacuation.

And that is a national shame.

References

1. Reuters on Bangladesh’s 2026 election, BNP victory, and Tarique Rahman taking office.

2. Reports on Eid overcrowding, passengers riding train roofs, and pressure at Kamalapur.

3. Reports on fare overcharging, overcrowded buses, and Eid gridlock.

4. Financial Express report on launch collision during Eid rush.

5. Police safety guidelines and restrictions on trucks/lorries during Eid travel.

6. WHO and road-safety profile data on Bangladesh’s road traffic mortality burden.

I can also turn this into a sharper newspaper-style op-ed or a Bengali version.

The post Eid Should Be a Journey of Joy, Not a National Gamble With Death appeared first on South Asia Corner.

The New Dhaka: A Republic of Fragile Zealotry

Welcome to the “New Bangladesh”, where the dust of the 2024 uprising hasn’t so much settled as it has been swept into a pile and ignited. Following the February 2026 elections—a “bipolar” contest where the only real competition was between the far-right and the further-right—the Jatiya Sangsad has been transformed into a theatre of the absurd.

At the centre of this circus sits the Bangladesh Nationalist Party (BNP), returning to power after two decades of exile and irrelevance. Their return isn’t just a political comeback; it’s a restoration of a dynastic ghost. Leading the charge is Tarique Rahman, a man whose resume reads more like a rap sheet than a statesman’s CV. Once a fugitive in London, Tarique has traded his “convicted bomb blaster” tag—earned for his role in the 2004 grenade attack aimed at obliterating the Awami League leadership—for the title of Prime Minister. It is a grim irony that a nation that rose up against authoritarianism has handed the keys to a man whose previous tenure was defined by “Hawa Bhavan” corruption and state-sponsored terror.

The Unholy Trinity

The BNP doesn’t sit alone. To their right—if such a thing is even possible—sits the Jamaat-e-Islami, the “kingmakers” who didn’t even need the crown. By securing nearly 70 seats, Jamaat has successfully laundered its reputation. By hitching their wagon to the National Citizen Party (NCP)—an offshoot of the July student movement—they have used “Gen Z” idealism as a Trojan horse.

The NCP, once the darling of the secular reformists, has essentially become a “radical-lite” garnish for the Islamist main course. Their “July Charter” is less a democratic roadmap and more a slow-motion funeral for the secular 1972 Constitution.

A House of Cards on Fire

Is this Islamist trajectory sustainable? Scepticism isn’t just a mood; it’s a mathematical necessity. Bangladesh’s current stability is built on three deeply cracked pillars:

• The Economy of Mirages: Tarique Rahman has promised 10 million jobs and “clean politics”. This is coming from a party historically known for extortion and a prime minister who spent 17 years avoiding the Bangladeshi justice system.

• Geopolitical Isolation: By pivoting toward a “Bangladesh First” policy—a thinly veiled euphemism for distancing from India and cosying up to Pakistan and Türkiye—the government is playing a dangerous game. Bangladesh’s garment-led economy relies on global trade routes that don’t take kindly to “radical mollahs” dictating social policy.

• The Inevitable Infighting: The alliance between the BNP and the Jamaat-NCP bloc is a marriage of convenience, not conviction. The BNP wants absolute power; the Islamists want a Sharia-compliant state. Eventually, Tarique’s nationalist ego will collide with the theological purity of the Jamaat.

The Verdict

The Awami League has been banned, its leaders are in exile or in cages, and the “opposition” is now just a more extreme version of the government. By erasing the secular centre, Bangladesh has removed the only guardrails it had.

Sustainable? Hardly. What we are witnessing isn’t the birth of a “Second Republic“, but the cannibalisation of a nation’s future by its most regressive elements. When the revolutionary fervour of 2024 finally fades into the reality of 2026—marked by rising food prices and shrinking personal freedoms—the people of Bangladesh may realise they haven’t toppled a dictator; they’ve simply replaced a “Begum” with a “Bomber” and his choir of radicals.

The post The New Dhaka: A Republic of Fragile Zealotry appeared first on South Asia Corner.

DHAKA—If you look closely at the bunting draped over the South Plaza of the Jatiya Sangsad Bhaban today, you’ll notice it’s surprisingly similar to the decorations used twenty years ago. As Tarique Rahman took the oath of office as Prime Minister this afternoon, the air in Dhaka wasn’t filled with the electric charge of revolution, but rather the heavy, cloying scent of a political cycle that refused to break.

After eighteen months of an interim “cleansing” period under Nobel laureate Muhammad Yunus, the “Monsoon Revolution” of 2024 has delivered us exactly where we started: the hands of a dynastic scion. Today’s ceremony wasn’t a step forward; it was a retreat into the comfortable, toxic embrace of the past.

The Dynasty Strikes Back

Let’s call it what it is. The 2026 election, billed as a “Gen Z-inspired” reset, has resulted in the restoration of the House of Zia. Tarique Rahman, the son of a former president and a former prime minister, has spent nearly two decades in London, essentially waiting for the wheel of fortune to crush his rival, Sheikh Hasina.

Now that the wheel has turned, we are told this is a “New Bangladesh.” But look at the Cabinet list:

• The Loyalists: Familiar faces from the 2001–2006 era have been dusted off and given ministerial portfolios.

• The Power Brokers: The same oligarchs who shifted their allegiances from the Awami League to the BNP the moment the wind changed are already seen flanking the new PM.

• The Rhetoric: Rahman speaks of “reconciliation” and “stability,” the same script used by every incoming leader to mask the inevitable purging of the previous regime’s bureaucrats.

The faces in the front row today weren’t the student leaders who braved bullets in 2024; they were the party stalwarts who spent the last decade in the shadows, sharpening their knives for this very afternoon.

The Jamaat Shadow: The “B-Team” Reality

Perhaps the most chilling aspect of today’s ceremony wasn’t who was on stage, but who was smiling from the front row. While the BNP secured a majority, the resurgent Jamaat-e-Islami—contesting its first election since 2013—has secured a staggering 77 seats.

Make no mistake: this isn’t just a coalition of convenience; it looks like a hostile takeover of the national identity. For months, we’ve watched the BNP play “B-team” to Jamaat’s ideological hardliners. The “July Charter” was supposed to be about democratic reform, yet it’s being steered by an 11-party alliance dominated by Islamist interests.

The concern isn’t just political; it’s fundamental. We are seeing a government that seems more interested in settling scores and enforcing a narrow, regressive social vision than in the inclusive, secular democracy the students died for. When the BNP’s “clean politics” looks identical to Jamaat’s “disciplined cadre” tactics, you know the revolution has been hijacked.

The Referendum Farce

While the BNP celebrates a landslide, the simultaneous constitutional referendum on the “July Charter” feels like a hollow victory. The BNP has already signaled a reluctance to fully embrace the “Constitutional Reform Council.”

“We haven’t been elected to a council; we’ve been elected to rule.”

This sentiment, whispered in the corridors of power, is the first crack in the facade. The reformist dreams of the interim government—term limits, judicial independence, and power-sharing—are already being treated as optional suggestions rather than mandates. The moment the “old wine” entered the bottle, it began to look remarkably like the same centralized, all-powerful prime ministerial office that had led to the last uprising.

Why It’s the Same Game

The tragedy of Bangladeshi politics is its inability to produce a “Third Way.” With the Awami League banned and dismantled, the election wasn’t a choice; it was an inheritance.

1. Corruption as Currency: Despite promises of “clean politics,” the machinery of the BNP remains rooted in the same patronage networks. The “Hawa Bhaban” ghosts haven’t been exorcised; they’ve just been rebranded.

2. The Revenge Cycle: We are already hearing reports of “administrative reshuffles”—a polite term for firing anyone suspected of AL sympathies. It’s the same pendulum, just swinging in the opposite direction.

3. Economic Deja Vu: As the new government faces 8.5% inflation and a struggling garment sector, their first instinct is to lean on the same old donor-dependent models that prioritize short-term stability over structural equity.

The Verdict: A Revolution Deferred

The youth of 2024 didn’t fight to replace one dynastic flag with another, nor did they fight to become a testing ground for Islamist populism. They fought for a system where the “leader” isn’t a crown prince returning from exile but a public servant accountable to the street.

Today, Dhaka is partying. The streets are full of green and red. But tomorrow, when the hangovers fade and the first regressive policies start rolling out of the new Cabinet, the people will realize that the bottle may have a new label, but the wine inside still tastes of 1991, 2001, and every failed promise in between.

The “Old Guard” hasn’t been defeated; it has just been redecorated, and it brought its most dangerous friends along for the ride.

The post The New Dhaka Hangover: Why Today’s Swearing-In is Just Old Wine in a Cracked Bottle appeared first on South Asia Corner.

Abstract

This paper evaluates institutional, economic, and diplomatic risk factors associated with the potential return to executive authority of the Bangladesh Nationalist Party (BNP). It examines legal history, governance preparedness, civil-military relations, economic indicators, and foreign policy positioning within the broader geopolitical environment of South Asia. Rather than engaging in partisan evaluation, the paper applies political risk analysis frameworks to assess administrative capacity, reputational risk, and institutional resilience in Bangladesh’s evolving democratic landscape.

1. Introduction

Bangladesh’s political development since 1971 has oscillated between competitive electoral politics, military intervention, caretaker experiments, and dominant-party governance. As the country approaches another electoral cycle, scrutiny of leadership capacity and institutional stability becomes central.

The Bangladesh Nationalist Party (BNP), founded in 1978 by President Ziaur Rahman, remains one of the country’s two principal political forces. Its potential return to executive authority under Tarique Rahman invites examination of governance experience, legal history, diplomatic positioning, and macroeconomic management capacity.

This paper applies comparative political analysis to evaluate the structural implications of such a transition.

2. Historical Institutional Context

BNP’s ideological foundation rested on:

• “Bangladeshi nationalism” (distinct from linguistic Bengali nationalism)

• Greater space for Islamic identity in state discourse

• Strong executive authority

Scholarly analyses (Riaz, 2016; Ahmed, 2019) note that Bangladesh’s civil-military balance has historically remained fragile, with interventions in:

• 1975 (post-Mujib coups)

• 1982 (Ershad takeover)

• 2007–2008 (military-backed caretaker government)

Any incoming administration must operate within this legacy of politicised institutions.

3. Legal History and Reputational Risk

3.1 Court Verdicts

Khaleda Zia was convicted in 2018 in corruption cases related to the Zia Orphanage Trust and Zia Charitable Trust. She later received conditional release on humanitarian grounds (Bangladesh Supreme Court documentation, 2018–2020).

Tarique Rahman has faced multiple legal cases, including convictions in lower courts related to the 21 August grenade attack case. Appeals and legal challenges remain politically contested.

Transparency International Bangladesh (TIB) has consistently ranked Bangladesh as facing high corruption risk across political administrations.

Table 1: Corruption Perception Index (CPI) – Bangladesh

Source: Transparency International (2010–2023)

The persistence of low CPI scores suggests systemic corruption challenges beyond individual parties. However, leadership facing prior legal controversy carries elevated reputational risk in international capital markets.

4. Educational and Administrative Preparedness

There is no constitutional educational requirement for the prime minister’s office in Bangladesh. However, comparative research (Besley & Reynal-Querol, 2011) suggests correlations between formal education levels and policy complexity management.

Tarique Rahman has not previously held executive administrative office. His political role has largely been organisational within BNP.

From a governance perspective, first-time executives typically require:

• Strong technocratic cabinet formation

• Institutional memory retention

• Clear economic policy signalling

Without these, the risk of policy volatility increases.

5. Economic Context at Potential Transition

Bangladesh faces macroeconomic strain due to:

• Rising external debt

• Currency pressure

• Energy import costs

• Youth unemployment

• Climate vulnerability

Table 2: Selected Macroeconomic Indicators

Sources: World Bank, IMF Country Reports (2015–2023)

A leadership transition during macroeconomic tightening increases risk premiums unless accompanied by credible economic management.

6. Foreign Policy Balancing

Bangladesh operates within a triangular balancing framework involving:

• India

• China

• Pakistan

6.1 China and Belt and Road Initiative (BRI)

Bangladesh joined the BRI in 2016 under the initiative launched by Xi Jinping.

Chinese commitments in Bangladesh exceed USD 25 billion (CSIS China Power Project).

Strategic concerns include:

• Debt sustainability

• Infrastructure dependency

• Regional security implications

Diplomatic precision regarding BRI policy is critical, given India’s sensitivity to Chinese expansion in South Asia.

6.2 India Relations

India remains Bangladesh’s largest regional trading partner and critical security collaborator.

Key issues:

• Teesta water-sharing dispute

• Border security coordination

• Transit agreements

Any rhetorical misalignment early in an administration may affect strategic trust.

7. Civil-Military Equilibrium

The BNP’s historical origins under a former military president create a symbolic association with armed forces.

However, Bangladesh’s military since 2009 has demonstrated reduced appetite for overt intervention.

Political science literature (Huntington, 1957; Feaver, 2003) suggests civilian strength depends on:

• Institutional clarity

• Cabinet coherence

• Economic stability

Weak executive authority could reintroduce informal military influence, even without coups.

8. Political Polarisation and Social Cohesion

Bangladesh exhibits high political polarisation, particularly between:

• BNP

• Awami League

Concerns in international human rights reporting include:

• Freedom of speech

• Media regulation

• Digital security laws

The Economist Democracy Index has classified Bangladesh as a “hybrid regime.”

Table 3: Democracy Index Score (Bangladesh)

Source: Economist Intelligence Unit

Institutional fragility increases the stakes of leadership competence.

9. Investor Confidence and Political Risk

Foreign Direct Investment (FDI) is sensitive to:

• Policy predictability

• Judicial reliability

• Political stability

Table 4: FDI Inflows (USD billion)

Source: UNCTAD World Investment Report

A leadership transition accompanied by diplomatic missteps or economic uncertainty could depress FDI flows.

10. Risk Scenarios

Scenario A: Technocratic Stabilisation

• Strong cabinet appointments

• IMF cooperation

• Balanced India–China diplomacy

• Gradual economic reform

Outcome: Moderate stability

Scenario B: Administrative Inexperience

• Cabinet instability

• Policy inconsistency

• Diplomatic friction

• Currency volatility

Outcome: Elevated political risk

Scenario C: Institutional Confrontation

• Bureaucratic resistance

• Opposition mobilisation

• International scrutiny

Outcome: High polarisation

11. Conclusion

Bangladesh’s future trajectory under a potential BNP-led government will depend less on personality rhetoric and more on:

• Institutional competence

• Cabinet composition

• Diplomatic discipline

• Economic credibility

Leadership facing prior legal controversy carries reputational risk. However, political systems can adapt if governance is technocratically grounded and diplomatically cautious.

Bangladesh’s resilience ultimately rests on institutional maturity rather than individual charisma.

Bibliography

Ahmed, N. (2019). Parliamentary Control and Government Accountability in South Asia.
Besley, T., & Reynal-Querol, M. (2011). Do Democracies Select More Educated Leaders? American Political Science Review.
Feaver, P. (2003). Armed Servants: Agency, Oversight, and Civil-Military Relations.
Huntington, S. (1957). The Soldier and the State.
International Crisis Group. (Various Reports on Bangladesh).
IMF. Bangladesh Country Reports (2015–2023).
Riaz, A. (2016). Bangladesh: A Political History Since Independence.
Transparency International. Corruption Perceptions Index Reports.
UNCTAD. World Investment Report.
World Bank. World Development Indicators.
Economist Intelligence Unit. Democracy Index Reports.

The post A Political Risk Assessment of a Potential BNP-Led Government in Bangladesh appeared first on South Asia Corner.

As Bangladesh approaches its forthcoming General Election on 12 February, the atmosphere is not one of democratic celebration, civic optimism, or policy-driven debate. Instead, it feels disturbingly like a moment of national surrender—a quiet, dangerous acquiescence to forces that once stood against the very birth of the republic.

For a nation forged through blood, resistance, and sacrifice, this election raises an uncomfortable question: Has Bangladesh forgotten why it was born?

The growing possibility that Jamaat-e-Islami Bangladesh may emerge as a dominant political force signals not renewal but regression. It represents a reversal of the values that shaped independent Bangladesh in 1971—secularism, pluralism, linguistic nationalism, and social justice.

This is not merely a political contest. It is a struggle for the nation’s moral and historical identity.

From Liberation to Political Amnesia

Bangladesh was born in defiance of religious majoritarianism and authoritarian rule. The Liberation War was not only a territorial struggle—it was a revolt against ideological domination, economic exploitation, and cultural erasure.

Millions died. Countless women were violated. Entire villages were destroyed. Families were displaced. Yet, out of this devastation emerged a republic founded on the promise of equality and secular citizenship.

That promise is now fading.

Half a century later, the country seems willing to elevate forces that opposed independence, collaborated with occupiers, and justified atrocities. This is not reconciliation. It is historical amnesia.

A generation disconnected from lived memory is being fed selective narratives. War crimes are relative. d. Collaborators are rehabilitated. Extremism is repackaged as “moral revival.” And critical history is replaced by emotional propaganda.

What is being lost is not just memory but moral clarity.

The Rise of Political Regression

The current political trajectory reflects a disturbing shift: from civic nationalism to religious absolutism.

Under such an ideological order:

• Citizenship becomes conditional.

• Rights become negotiable.

• Dissent becomes sacrilege.

• Women’s autonomy becomes controversial.

• Minorities become invisible.

This is not governance. It is ideological enclosure.

Once religion becomes the organising principle of power, institutions weaken rapidly. Courts hesitate. Media self-censors. Education becomes doctrinal. Bureaucracy becomes politicised. Law becomes selective.

History shows that states that travel this path do not become more ethical or prosperous. They become inward-looking, intolerant, and fragile.

Bangladesh risks following that same trajectory.

Freedom of Speech Under Siege

One of the earliest casualties of ideological politics is freedom of expression.

Already, journalists, bloggers, academics, and activists operate under pressure. Digital laws are weaponised. Criticism is criminalised. “Hurt sentiments” becomes a legal excuse for silencing dissent.

Under an Islamist-dominated political environment, this pressure will intensify.

Questions about governance may be framed as blasphemy. Criticism of leaders may be labelled un-Islamic. Satire may be criminalised. Academic inquiry may be restricted. Cultural production may be monitored.

A society that fears speaking cannot innovate, reform, or heal.

Silence is not stability. It is stagnation.

Religious Freedom: Paradox of Political Islam

Ironically, political Islam rarely produces genuine religious freedom.

When religion is institutionalised by the state, it ceases to be personal and becomes political. Faith becomes regulated. Interpretation becomes centralised. Dissent within religion itself becomes dangerous.

Minority sects are marginalised. Alternative schools of thought are suppressed. Interfaith coexistence weakens. Spiritual diversity shrinks.

Bangladesh has historically been home to Muslims, Hindus, Buddhists, Christians, and indigenous traditions living in relative harmony. That delicate balance now stands threatened.

A politicised religion divides believers into “correct” and “deviant.” It fractures communities and erodes social trust.

True faith flourishes in freedom—not in state enforcement.

The Regional Dimension: A Fragile Neighbourhood

Bangladesh does not exist in isolation. Its political direction directly affects South Asia and Southeast Asia.

Neighbouring India, despite its own internal struggles, remains constitutionally secular and strategically invested in regional stability. It has consistently viewed Bangladesh as a partner in counter-terrorism, trade, and connectivity.

A radicalised Bangladesh would complicate that relationship.

Similarly, historical ties and tensions with Pakistan would acquire new ideological dimensions, potentially reviving old alignments that undermine regional balance.

Southeast Asian states—already grappling with extremism, migration pressures, and security threats—would face new uncertainties.

An ideologically rigid Bangladesh could become:

• A transit zone for radical networks

• A breeding ground for extremist narratives

• A destabilising influence in Bay of Bengal geopolitics

• A diplomatic liability in global forums

Regional security is not built on slogans. It is built on institutional reliability, moderation, and predictability.

Political extremism weakens all three.

Economic Consequences of Ideological Politics

Ideological governance rarely produces economic competence.

Investors avoid instability. Multinationals avoid reputational risk. Development partners reconsider commitments. Skilled professionals emigrate.

Under radical influence:

• Women’s workforce participation may decline

• Education quality may deteriorate

• Innovation may stagnate

• International partnerships may weaken

• Sanctions risks may increase

Bangladesh’s remarkable economic progress over recent decades was driven by pragmatism, openness, and integration with global markets. Ideological rigidity threatens that foundation.

A nation of 200 million cannot survive on rhetoric alone.

The Failure of Secular Leadership

The rise of Islamist politics is not accidental. It reflects the long-term failure of mainstream leadership.

For years, politics has been dominated by

• Power consolidation

• Personality cults

• Corruption scandals

• Patronage networks

• Institutional erosion

Policy debates were replaced by vendettas. Reform was sacrificed for control. Accountability was weakened. Merit was sidelined.

In this vacuum, radical forces flourished.

When citizens lose faith in democratic institutions, they seek certainty elsewhere. When justice fails, absolutism becomes attractive. When politics disappoints, dogma seduces.

Jamaat’s resurgence is therefore not just its own achievement—it is the collective failure of secular governance.

Betraying the Martyrs of 1971

What does it mean when a nation honours its martyrs symbolically but betrays them politically?

It means rewriting their sacrifice.

It means telling survivors that their pain is inconvenient.

It means telling history that it is negotiable.

The martyrs did not fight for theocracy. They fought for dignity, language, equality, and freedom.

To empower forces that opposed independence is to dishonour that struggle.

No monument can compensate for moral surrender.

Cultural Erosion and Identity Crisis

Bengali identity has always been pluralistic—rooted in language, literature, music, and shared history.

Tagore, Nazrul, Lalon, and Jasimuddin—these traditions transcended religious boundaries. They celebrated humanity over dogma.

Ideological politics threatens this cultural ecosystem.

Art becomes suspect. Literature becomes monitored. Cinema becomes censored. Festivals become politicised.

A culture that cannot breathe cannot inspire.

Without creative freedom, societies become emotionally impoverished.

A Question of National Soul

Nations do not collapse overnight. They decay gradually.

First, institutions weaken.
Then, memory fades.
Then, fear spreads.
Then, conformity prevails.

Eventually, people stop asking questions.

That is how souls are lost.

Bangladesh is approaching that threshold.

The issue is not whether one party wins or loses. The issue is whether democratic consciousness survives.

What Future for 200 Million Bengalis?

If current trends continue, Bangladesh may face:

Politically:

• Shrinking civic space

• Criminalisation of dissent

• Ideological governance

Socially:

• Marginalisation of minorities

• Retreat of women

• Polarised communities

Economically:

• Capital flight

• Brain drain

• Reduced competitiveness

Strategically:

• Diplomatic isolation

• Security vulnerabilities

• Regional mistrust

Culturally:

• Erosion of pluralism

• Intellectual stagnation

• Creative decline

This is not destiny. It is a choice.

A Final Warning

History will judge this moment.

Not by speeches.
Not by slogans.
But by consequences.

Future generations will ask:

Why did you abandon secularism?
Why did you trade freedom for sentiment?
Why did you forget 1971?
Why did you tolerate regression?

And there will be no easy answers.

Conclusion: Defend the Republic, Not the Illusion

This election is not about left versus right.
It is about memory versus amnesia.
Republic versus regression.
Pluralism versus absolutism.

Bangladesh still has time.

Time to remember.
Time to resist.
Time to reform.
Time to reclaim its democratic soul.

But time is running out.

For 200 million Bengalis, the question remains stark:

Will Bangladesh walk forward as a confident republic—
or backward into ideological captivity?

The answer will define the nation for generations.

The post Bangladesh at the Brink: An Election, a Nation, and the Danger of Losing Its Democratic Soul appeared first on South Asia Corner.

Bangladesh stands on the threshold of a pivotal electoral moment. The general election scheduled for 12 February 2026 is being framed as the country’s first genuine democratic reset following the 2024 uprising that ended the long tenure of Sheikh Hasina. Yet beneath the rhetoric of reform and renewal lies a troubling question: is Bangladesh moving toward a free and fair election—or merely exchanging one form of political management for another?

This election is unprecedented in several respects: it will be held under an interim administration led by Muhammad Yunus, it will exclude the Awami League pending trials, it will restore electoral space to Jamaat-e-Islami, and it will introduce postal voting for expatriates. Alongside the parliamentary contest, a constitutional referendum—the “July Charter”—will seek public approval for far-reaching state reforms.

Individually, these elements could signal progress. Collectively, they raise concerns about selective permissiveness, uneven enforcement, and institutional bias—conditions that risk substituting legitimacy with choreography.

The Interim Government: Neutral Arbiter or Interested Manager?

The interim government’s mandate is clear: stabilize the polity, reform institutions, and deliver a credible election. However, neutrality is not declared; it is demonstrated. Since August 2024, the administration has made decisions that materially reshape the political field—most notably the continued ban on the Awami League, the rapid reintegration of Jamaat-e-Islami into electoral politics, and the facilitation of a new political actor, the National Citizen Party.

The problem is not reform; it is asymmetry. When one party remains excluded pending open-ended legal processes, while others enjoy expedited access to media, assembly, and administrative goodwill, the referee risks becoming a participant. The perception—widely aired across radio, television, and print—is that state tolerance is being distributed unevenly.

The Election Commission: Credibility on Trial

At the centre of electoral integrity sits the Election Commission of Bangladesh. Its performance will determine whether February 2026 is remembered as a democratic correction or a procedural exercise with a foregone conclusion.

Persistent concerns include:

• Voter roll accuracy, particularly in minority and opposition-leaning areas.

• Campaign regulation enforcement, including selective policing of rallies.

• Administrative neutrality at district and upazila levels.

• Adjudication of complaints with speed and transparency.

The Commission’s challenge is compounded by its operating environment: an interim executive that is itself politically consequential, and a security apparatus conditioned by decades of politicised deployment. Credibility cannot be restored by process alone; it requires visible even-handedness.

Key Contenders and the Tilted Field

Bangladesh Nationalist Party (BNP)

The Bangladesh Nationalist Party enters the race as the presumptive front-runner. The return of Tarique Rahman after 17 years in exile has galvanised the party’s base and consolidated its organisational advantage. BNP’s nationwide networks, electoral muscle, and narrative of victimhood under the previous regime position it strongly.

Yet front-runner status carries responsibility. A landslide achieved in a skewed contest will be a hollow mandate—strong in seats, weak in legitimacy.

Jamaat-e-Islami

The re-entry of Jamaat-e-Islami marks a seismic shift. Once barred under a secular constitutional framework, Jamaat now operates with renewed institutional tolerance. Reports of favourable treatment—lenient policing of rallies, disproportionate media visibility, and permissive administrative oversight—have fuelled allegations of quiet rehabilitation.

The concern is not participation per se; it is preferential normalisation without a transparent reckoning with past conduct. Democracies do not launder history through silence.

National Citizen Party (NCP)

The National Citizen Party, born of the 2024 student movement, embodies generational aspiration. Yet its rapid ascent—access to platforms, donors, and favourable coverage—has prompted questions about state patronage. When a nascent party accelerates faster than organisational gravity allows, scrutiny is warranted.

Awami League

The exclusion of the Awami League—regardless of one’s assessment of its record—poses the gravest challenge to electoral completeness. Bans pending trials risk becoming indefinite political quarantines. Justice delayed becomes justice politicised; democracy diminished by exclusion is democracy in name only.

Media, Money, and the Machinery of Influence

Election integrity is not determined solely on polling day. It is shaped in newsrooms, social platforms, and donor circuits. Independent journalists report editorial slants, differential advertising access, and algorithmic amplification that favour certain actors. The information environment—already polarised—now appears curated.

Campaign finance transparency remains inadequate. Without real-time disclosure and enforcement, money fills the gaps left by rules. Where oversight is weak, patronage substitutes for persuasion.

Security and the Chilling Effect

A free election requires voters to feel safe—not merely on election day, but throughout the campaign. Selective enforcement, preventive detentions, and uneven crowd control create a chilling effect. Fear does not need to be universal to be effective; it only needs to be targeted.

International Observation: Necessary but Not Sufficient

The presence of the European Union through an European Union Election Observation Mission is welcome. Observers can deter the crudest abuses and document irregularities. But they cannot substitute for domestic political will. Elections fail when institutions collude, hesitate, or rationalise.

The Referendum Question: Reform or Distraction?

The “July Charter” referendum promises to curb executive overreach and strengthen judicial independence. These goals are laudable. Holding such a consequential vote alongside a high-stakes election, however, risks conflation. Reform requires deliberation; referenda require clarity. Bundling them invites confusion—and opportunistic mobilisation.

So, Will the Election Be Free and Fair?

Free? Partially.
Fair? Doubtful—unless immediate corrective measures are taken.

The prevailing pattern suggests a managed transition: less overtly coercive than 2024, more plural than before, yet structurally tilted. If one party is excluded, another rehabilitated without reckoning, and a third fast-tracked with institutional indulgence, the outcome may be competitive but not equitable.

Who Is Likely to Sweep the Slate Clean?

On present trajectories, the BNP is best positioned to secure a parliamentary majority—potentially a commanding one—benefiting from organisational reach, voter fatigue with the past, and a fragmented opposition. Jamaat-e-Islami is likely to convert tolerance into seats in select constituencies. The NCP may perform strongly in urban pockets but lacks nationwide depth. The Awami League’s absence will inflate margins and deflate legitimacy.

A “sweep” under these conditions will not close Bangladesh’s democratic chapter; it will open a new contest over credibility.

What Must Change—Now

1. Time-bound legal clarity on party participation.

2. Uniform enforcement of campaign rules and public-order laws.

3. Transparent media and finance regulation, with penalties.

4. Independent complaint adjudication with published decisions.

5. Security neutrality is monitored domestically and internationally.

Without these, February 2026 risks becoming a procedural success and a democratic failure.

The post Will Bangladesh Witness a Free and Fair Election in 2026—or a Managed Transition? appeared first on South Asia Corner.

There are moments when a nation does not simply make bad policy choices—it repudiates its own origin story. Bangladesh is living through such a moment.

The present regime’s sudden embrace of Pakistan—the very state that carried out genocide on Bangladeshi soil in 1971—is not diplomacy. It is desecration.

Pakistan butchered Bangladesh into existence. Three million dead. Women used as instruments of war. Intellectuals executed in the final days to cripple a future nation. And yet, today, Dhaka smiles, signs defence deals, buys fighter planes, and speaks of “cooperation,” as though history were a minor inconvenience.

This is not reconciliation. It is surrender without truth.

When the Victim Courts the Perpetrator

Pakistan has never apologised for 1971. It has never acknowledged the scale of its crimes. Instead, it has denied, distorted, and defended the actions of the same military institution that still dominates its politics.

For Bangladesh to now arm itself through Pakistan is to normalise genocide denial at the level of state policy. It sends a chilling message: that mass atrocity has no lasting consequences, that memory is expendable, and that justice is optional when power is at stake.

What does this say to survivors? To the families of martyrs? To a generation taught that independence was sacred?

Importing Instability, Exporting Principle

Pakistan’s geopolitical legacy is not stability but perpetual conflict. Its military thrives on crisis, proxy warfare, and ideological extremism. Aligning with such a state does not enhance Bangladesh’s security—it corrodes it.

At a time when Bangladesh should be focusing on climate survival, economic equity, and democratic consolidation, it is instead flirting with a security paradigm built on confrontation. Even worse, this posture risks destabilising relations with neighbouring India, whose support during the Liberation War was decisive.

History offers a clear lesson: states that abandon principled diplomacy in favour of militarised alliances rarely control the consequences.

Rehabilitating the Traitors of 1971

The foreign policy shift cannot be separated from what is unfolding domestically. Bangladesh is heading toward a carefully engineered election—one designed not to empower citizens but to install a compliant order.

At the centre of this project is the political rehabilitation of a radical Islamist outfit whose predecessors collaborated with the Pakistan Army during the genocide. These were the men who opposed independence, justified mass murder, and branded freedom fighters as enemies of Islam.

Today, they are being welcomed back into relevance.

This is not political pragmatism. It is historical obscenity.

A Nation on a Collision Course with Its Own Conscience

Bangladesh was not born merely to change flags. It was born to reject militarised theocracy, ethnic erasure, and authoritarian rule. The Liberation War was a moral revolt as much as a military one.

By empowering the ideological heirs of collaborators, cosying up to Pakistan without justice, threatening regional stability, and hollowing out elections, the regime is steering Bangladesh toward a head-on collision with its own destiny.

No amount of propaganda can erase 1971. No engineered mandate can silence collective memory. History has a way of returning—often with consequences far harsher than those avoided in the present.

The World Must Not Look Away

This is not just Bangladesh’s internal affair. It is a test case for whether genocide memory, democratic legitimacy, and moral accountability still matter in international politics.

If the betrayal of a liberation struggle can be rewarded with silence, then the promise of “Never Again” becomes meaningless everywhere.

Bangladesh’s future is being gambled away. And when the reckoning comes, it will not ask who held power—only who chose to forget.

The post Bangladesh Is Betraying Its Birthright — and the World Should Pay Attention appeared first on South Asia Corner.

A year after the “monsoon revolution,” which path?

A year on from the July–August 2024 student uprising that toppled a 15-year regime and ushered in an interim administration led by Nobel laureate Muhammad Yunus, Bangladesh stands at a forked road. The choice is stark: institutional democracy or a politics of streets and mobs; rule-of-law accountability or rumour-driven vendettas; inclusive pluralism or a narrow majoritarianism that corrodes the republic’s founding promises.

The interim government consolidated itself in 2024–25 with sweeping moves—among them bans on the Awami League’s activities and its student wing—framed as necessary to address deadly abuses during the crackdown that preceded the regime’s fall. Whether those actions were prudent crisis management or overreach with long shadows is now the central argument shaping Bangladesh’s near future.

The democratic test: institutions vs. improvisation

Bangladesh’s democratic transition hinges on one hard question: can institutions be rebuilt faster than street politics can unravel them? Human Rights Watch’s January 2025 roadmap urged security-sector reform and due process as the spine of any credible election. That remains unfinished business. A credible vote—on time, with plural participation and civil liberties intact—would do more to anchor the transition than any decree. Delay risks normalizing rule by exception.

Analysts warn the political field has tilted in ways that empower both populist and Islamist forces. Reports in The Diplomat argue that de-emphasizing counterterrorism and disempowering security agencies created space that militants and hardliners could exploit. Al Jazeera meanwhile chronicles a climate where revolutionary zeal, bans and tribunals coexist with factional rivalries and a contested reform agenda. These aren’t abstractions; they are the ambient risks around any election calendar.

Mob justice: a symptom of institutional exhaustion

Perhaps the most corrosive trend is the rise of mob justice—the substitution of rumor, livestreams and vigilantism for investigation, prosecution and trial. Oxford’s Human Rights Hub calls it a betrayal of the right to life; recent studies track how Facebook/TikTok rumor mills accelerate moral panics into violence. Local reportage describes incidents where crowds took “justice” into their own hands. If courts, police and prosecutors don’t visibly work, mobs will. And once normalized, mob trials rarely stop at the “bad guys”—they become a weapon against minorities, women, dissenters and political opponents.

International coverage has also highlighted intimidation of journalists and artists. The Committee to Protect Journalists (CPJ) notes continuing detentions, investigations and attacks—a reminder that freedom of expression is the canary in the democratic coal mine. HRW’s March 2025 call likewise pressed the interim government to protect speech not only from the state but from non-state violence.

Judiciary under pressure: lessons from 2024

In August 2024, Bangladesh’s Chief Justice agreed “in principle” to resign after student protest ultimatums, and soon stepped down. No matter one’s view of that particular officeholder, coercing constitutional actors by crowd pressure is a perilous precedent. Courts must be accountable—through law—not through siege. The line between legitimate protest and obstruction of constitutional functions is the line between democracy and mob rule.

That lesson matters in 2025 as new tribunals and legal innovations gather pace (including the unprecedented move to prosecute entire political parties under amended provisions). Each legal step must meet due-process standards, avoid collective punishment logic, and ensure rights of defense—otherwise the “rule of law” looks indistinguishable from victor’s justice.

Rumors of graft: allegations, denials, and the burden of proof

In August 2025, a former civil servant publicly accused eight interim advisers of corruption; the cabinet secretary urged the accuser to submit evidence to legal authorities; leading dailies framed the claims as “unsubstantiated,” and the episode remains contested. What matters is the state’s response: transparent inquiries where credible complaints exist, whistleblower protection, asset declarations, procurement transparency, and judicial review. Allegations must neither be weaponized nor waved away; they must be adjudicated—quickly and fairly.

The pluralism stress test

Minority safety is the bellwether of any transition. Reporting has catalogued hundreds of attacks against minority communities since the upheaval, alongside mass mobilisations by Islamist groups against proposed women ’s-rights reforms. The state can (and must) manage public order without capitulating to majoritarian intimidation. Protecting temples, churches, Ahmadi mosques, Shia processions, and secular gatherings is not “optional”—it is a constitutional duty.

The street abroad: diaspora signals

Bangladesh’s politics now spills into world capitals. A recent London visit by an interim adviser drew intense protests from Awami League supporters in the UK, with videos ricocheting across social media. Diaspora activism can enrich debate, but it can also import polarisations and disinformation. Statesmanship demands engagement without exporting street confrontations.

What would a “to be” future look like?

1. Time-bound elections under enforceable ground rules. Publish an election calendar and stick to it; empower an independent election body; enforce a level playing field; allow monitored campaigning; protect rallies across the spectrum; prosecute violence fast, whoever the perpetrator.

2. Rebuild rule-of-law capacity. Implement HRW’s security-sector reform benchmarks; equip prosecutors and courts; create fast-track but fair procedures for political-violence cases; end collective guilt theories; make custody safe and courts accessible.

3. Zero tolerance for vigilantism. Treat lynching and “people’s trials” as top-tier crimes; rapidly debunk rumours via official channels; partner with platforms to throttle the virality of doxxing and incitement; prosecute instigators, not only hands-on attackers.

4. Protect speech, especially speech you dislike. Drop overbroad charges against journalists; secure book fairs and campuses; ensure police neutrality when party activists or vigilantes threaten writers and editors.

5. Guard pluralism. Back minority protection with budgets, policing, and prosecutions; condemn hate speech from all sides; rein in parties and preachers who incite violence; ensure women ’s-rights reforms are debated by evidence, not bullied by crowds.

6. Transparency against graft. Publish adviser/minister asset declarations, mandate e-procurement, empower an independent anti-corruption commission insulated from factional pressure, and route all credible allegations to court.

And the “not to be”?

The alternative is already visible: bans turn from emergency scaffolding to permanent fixtures; tribunals drift into political theatres; rumour replaces reportage; crowds replace courts; minorities retreat; women’s rights stall; journalists self-censor; diaspora politics gets angrier; militants test the seams. At that point, “revolution” ceases to be a passage to democracy and becomes its alibi.

Hamlet’s phrase is not a metaphysical riddle here; it is a civic choice measured in deadlines met, rights protected, and mobs deterred. Bangladesh can still choose to be.

Bibliography

1. Human Rights Watch. Bangladesh: Roadmap for Democratic Transition. January 2025.

2. Committee to Protect Journalists (CPJ). Attacks on Journalists in Bangladesh, March 2025.

3. Al Jazeera. “Bangladesh’s interim government faces challenges of legitimacy.” 2024–25 coverage.

4. The Diplomat. “Bangladesh’s Security Sector and Risks of Islamist Resurgence.” 2025.

5. Oxford Human Rights Hub. “Mob Justice and the Right to Life in South Asia.” 2024.

6. The Daily Star (Dhaka). “Adviser corruption allegations contested.” August 2025.

7. bdnews24.com. “Cabinet secretary calls for evidence on graft claims.” August 2025.

8. Reuters/AP. “Bangladesh protesters demand judicial resignations.” August 2024.

9. Atlantic Council. Bangladesh’s Transition at a Crossroads. Policy Brief, 2025.

10. Local and regional Bangladeshi press reports (Prothom Alo, New Age, Jugantor, etc.) on minority attacks and mob incidents, 2024–25.

The post Bangladesh at the Crossroads appeared first on South Asia Corner.

Since the Liberation War of 1971, Bangladesh’s army has lived in shades of grey. It wasn’t just the nation’s defender—it became a kingmaker, business mogul, ideological shaper, and, at times, the sole arbiter of legitimacy. From Ziaur Rahman’s rise via a coup to Ershad’s military dictatorship, from Islamist influence to internal factional war, the army has shaped—and warped—the course of the country. Let’s unpack why trust in this institution must be earned, not granted.

1. Coup Culture: Ziaur Rahman’s Climb to Power

August 15, 1975, marked Bangladesh’s first military coup when mid-ranking officers assassinated Sheikh Mujibur Rahman, toppling the nascent democracy and installing Khondaker Mostaq Ahmad as president. 1

The power struggle didn’t stop there. Just months later, on November 3, Brigadier Khaled Mosharraf executed a counter-coup, deposing Mostaq and placing Ziaur Rahman under house arrest. 2

But the final turn came swiftly. On November 7, 1975, a paramilitary uprising led by Colonel Abu Taher liberated Zia from confinement—a move that ultimately propelled him to de facto leadership as Deputy Chief of the Martial Law Administrator under President Sayem. 3. From there, Sayem resigned in 1977 due to ill health, allowing Zia to step in as president. 4

Zia’s rise wasn’t organic—it was born of gunpowder, factional plotting, and shifting allegiances. Yet he anchored his rule under a veneer of popular legitimacy through a near-plebiscite referendum and election. 5

2. Zia’s Governance: Islamist Leanings, Business Leanings

Once in power, Zia legalised religion-based parties, including Jamaat-e-Islami, reintroducing Islam into state ideology and shifting the narrative from secular nationalism to “Bangladeshi nationalism.” 6   He imposed constitutional amendments to reflect this shift, sparking lasting ideological tension. 7  Civil institutions were weakened, war criminals were released, and business-friendly policies replaced radical nationalism. 8

3. Ershad’s Islamization and Institutional Tightening

In 1982, after Zia’s assassination, Hussain Muhammad Ershad seized control in a coup. He entrenched Islam as the state religion (1988) and merged military control with administrative governance, further blurring civil-military boundaries. 9

4. Islamist Shadows and Factionalism Inside the Army

The army has not been immune to ideological rifts. Islamist militias like Al-Badr and Al-Shams operated during the Liberation War. Though disbanded, their legacy persisted in sympathies and informal networks. 10

In 2011, Bangladesh escaped another coup—this time by officers allegedly influenced by Hizb ut-Tahrir, aiming to insert Sharia into law. 11 This rift underscores a persistent ideological fault line in the army. 12

5. Business, Patronage & the Army’s Corporate Grip

Beyond politics, the army established a sprawling economic empire through institutions such as the Army Welfare Trust. From hotels and banks to infrastructure and insurance, this business arm blurred lines between soldier, statesman, and businessman. 13

6. Can Bangladesh Trust Its Army—Really?

Warning Signs:

• Its origin is built on coups and factional rivalry, not institutional integrity. 14

• Islamization under military rule altered the secular roots of the state. 15

• Attempts at ideological infiltration continue to surface. 16

Reasons to Hope—Cautiously:

• No large-scale coup since the 1980s.

• Professionalism is restored through participation in UN peacekeeping operations and internal discipline.

• The army thwarted extremist coups, showing institutional self-preservation. 17

7. The Frankenstein Effect—and the Path Forward

This institution is a Frankenstein. Made in the chaos of war, stitched together with politics, ideological factions, and economic ambition, it looms large—too large—in the state’s fabric.

Trust must be conditional and calibrated:

1. Depoliticise the Army—Reinforce constitutional oversight and civilian supremacy.

2. Strip Economic Privilege—Reassess and regulate military-commercial entanglements.

3. Reaffirm Secular Ideals—Reverse Islamist amendments that compromise the 1972 secular vision.

4. Vet Institutional Loyalty – Monitor and curb ideological drifts within the ranks.

5. Strengthen Civil Society—Build resilient institutions capable of counterbalancing military influence.

Post-Hasina Reckoning: Is the Army at Another Crossroads?

Since the fall of Sheikh Hasina’s government in 2024, Bangladesh has entered another uncertain phase. The new political order—widely seen as pseudo-pro-Islamist and anti-Liberation in character—has raised serious concerns about the motives and methods behind the transition. Many suspect that the armed forces played a more active role in the political shake-up, and their conduct is now under relentless public scrutiny. The magnitude of accusations—ranging from backchannel deals to covert alliances with regressive forces—has made the army’s institutional credibility vulnerable once again. A growing segment of the public is beginning to speak in whispers, recalling the cloak-and-dagger days of 1975, 1977, 1981, and 1990. The fear is palpable: another dramatic rupture may be looming beneath the surface, and history may be on the verge of repeating itself—this time with more profound consequences.

Conclusion

Can Bangladesh trust its army? Not as it stands today—but that doesn’t exclude the possibility of future trust. Frankenstein may still roam, but governance, democracy, and reform can make it accountable—or shrink its oversized shadow.

Footnotes

1. 15 August 1975 coup overthrows Mujib. Reuters+15Wikipedia+15AP News+15AP News+1albd.org+1

2. 3 November coup by Khaled Mosharraf, Zia arrested. AP News+1

3. 7 November coup frees Zia; Taher orchestrates return. The Guardian+15Wikipedia+15Wikipedia+15

4. Sayem resigns, Zia becomes president on April 21, 1977. chatradal.com + 5 Wikipedia + 5 Encyclopedia Britannica + 5

5. Near-unanimous referendum and election in the late 1970s. The Guardian

6. Legalization of Jamaat, redefinition of nationalism. ResearchGate+11Wikipedia+11ORF Online+11

7. Islam was entrenched under Ershad and later military governments. ResearchGate + 4 Wikipedia + 4 AP News + 4

8. War criminal releases right-wing alliances. Wikipedia+1

9. Islam declared state religion, military-administrative fusion. Dhaka Tribune

10. Islamist militias’ wartime role and post-war shadows. The New Yorker

11. 2011 coup attempt linked to Hizb ut-Tahrir thwarted. Reuters

12. Institutional vigilance remains necessary. Reuters The New Yorker

13. Army Welfare Trust’s economic empire. (Not directly cited but fits prior accounts)

14. Persistent factionalism and coup roots. ResearchGate ORF Online

15. Ideological shift from secular nationalism under military rule. The New Yorker

16. Continued coup and extremist attempts. Reuters The New Yorker

17. No coup since ’82; the army suppressed the 2011 coup by itself. Reuters

Bibliography

• “15 August 1975 Bangladeshi coup d’état.” Wikipedia. albd.org+15Wikipedia+15Wikipedia+15

• “3 November 1975 Bangladeshi coup d’état.” Wikipedia. Wikipedia+1

• “7 November 1975 Bangladeshi coup d’état.” Wikipedia. Wikipedia

• “Presidency of Ziaur Rahman.” Wikipedia. The New Yorker+12Wikipedia+12ResearchGate+12

• “History of Bangladesh.” Wikipedia. Wikipedia

• “The rise and fall of Ziaur Rahman.” Dhaka Tribune, 30 May 2024. Dhaka Tribune

• “Bangladesh’s turbulent half‑century, from coups to climate …” AP News, 2024. AP News

• “The Historical Forces Behind the Student Rebellion.” New Yorker, 2024. The New Yorker

• “Bangladesh’s history of upheaval and coups.” Reuters, 2024. Reuters

The post Bangladesh’s Army: A Frankenstein’s Monster—and Can the Country Ever Trust It? appeared first on South Asia Corner.

A Black Dawn for the Bengali Nation

The morning of 15th August 1975 is etched into the darkest chapter of Bangladesh’s history. It was not just the assassination of a man. It was the brutal elimination of a dream, a vision, and a promise that had been written with the blood of three million martyrs and the tears of countless mothers, sisters, and daughters during the Liberation War of 1971.

On that fateful night and dawn, the conspirators struck with barbaric cruelty. Sheikh Mujibur Rahman, the Father of the Nation, the leader who gave voice to the voiceless, who resurrected the suppressed Bengali identity, was assassinated along with most of his family. His killing was not simply a political coup—it was an attempt to reverse the very essence of Bangladesh’s independence. It was designed to drag the country back into the clutches of those forces aligned with Pakistan, with their politics of hatred, religious extremism, and anti-Bengali chauvinism.

For Bengalis, 15th August is not just a day of mourning—it is a reminder of betrayal. It is a reminder of how fragile independence can be when conspiracies are hatched not only in foreign capitals but also within the corridors of one’s own armed forces and political elite.

Mujibur Rahman: The Architect of Bengali Nationhood

To pay homage to Sheikh Mujibur Rahman, one must first recall what he stood for and what he gave to the people of Bengal.

• A Voice Against Exploitation: From the days of the United Front in 1954 to the Six-Point Demand in 1966, Mujib tirelessly fought against West Pakistan’s systematic economic exploitation and political marginalisation of East Pakistan. He made the Bengalis realise that they were not destined to be second-class citizens in their own land.

• The Six Points as a Charter of Freedom: His historic Six Points became the Magna Carta of Bengali nationalism. Those who mocked it as separatism later recognised that it was the blueprint for Bangladesh’s independence.

• The Election of 1970: Sheikh Mujibur Rahman won a clear mandate with 167 out of 169 East Pakistan seats in the National Assembly. It was the most decisive democratic verdict in South Asia’s history. Yet the Pakistani military junta refused to hand over power, choosing instead to unleash genocide on the night of 25th March 1971.

• The Liberation War: Mujib was arrested and flown to West Pakistan. But the seeds he had sown sprouted into a people’s revolution. The Mukti Bahini, led by his loyal comrades, fought valiantly. India extended decisive support. On 16th December 1971, Bangladesh was born, and Sheikh Mujibur Rahman returned as the Father of a free nation.

• The Dream of Sonar Bangla: Mujib envisioned a secular, democratic, and egalitarian Bangladesh. His struggle was not for power but for dignity—for the right of Bengalis to determine their own destiny.

For these reasons, he is rightly revered as Bangabandhu—Friend of Bengal. His presence in the 1970s was both symbolic and substantive: the glue that held together a traumatised, war-torn nation.

The Conspiracy and the Betrayal

Yet, within four years of independence, betrayal struck. The same reactionary forces who had collaborated with the Pakistan Army in 1971 regrouped. Elements within the military, encouraged by external powers, conspired against the Father of the Nation.

The killers were not acting alone. They represented a nexus:

• Pakistani collaborators who could not forgive Mujib for breaking Pakistan.

• Foreign intelligence services viewed Bangladesh’s secular and socialist orientation as a threat.

• Domestic opportunists who sought to replace the Liberation legacy with their own brand of authoritarianism and Islamist politics.

Thus, in the early hours of 15th August 1975, Bangabandhu was gunned down inside his own home at Dhanmondi Road 32, along with his beloved wife, Sheikh Fazilatunnesa Mujib, his sons, Sheikh Kamal, Sheikh Jamal, and the 10-year-old Sheikh Russel, and many others of his family. Only his daughters—Sheikh Hasina and Sheikh Rehana—survived, being abroad at the time.

This was not merely an act of murder. It was a calculated regicide of a nation’s father.

The Aftermath: Darkness Descends

What followed was even more tragic.

The killers were rewarded, not punished. Successive regimes legalised their crime. General Ziaur Rahman, who rose to power in the chaos, rehabilitated war criminals, repealed secular provisions of the Constitution, and restored Jamaat-e-Islami, the very party that collaborated with the Pakistan Army in 1971.

Bangladesh began to slip back into the clutches of Pakistan’s ideology. The values of 1971—secularism, democracy, and equality—were systematically eroded. Instead, the politics of Islamism, military authoritarianism, and opportunism flourished.

For ordinary Bengalis, this was nothing short of a second betrayal. They had fought for freedom in 1971, only to see their independence hollowed out within a few years.

Remembering 15th August: A National Duty

Every year, 15th August must serve as a collective mirror for the people of Bangladesh. To pay homage to Bangabandhu is not only to weep for his loss but also to ask ourselves hard questions:

• Have we remained true to his ideals?

• Have we preserved the secular spirit of the Liberation War?

• Have we ensured that never again shall collaborators of Pakistan dictate our politics?

The uncomfortable truth is that Bangladesh today faces another dangerous crossroad.

Today’s Crisis: Slipping Backwards

Nearly five decades after Mujib’s assassination, Bangladesh is again in turmoil. The warning signs are chillingly familiar:

1. Resurgence of Pro-Pakistan Forces: The very groups that opposed 1971—the Islamist hardliners, the anti-liberation elements—are once again emboldened. They thrive on misinformation, communal hatred, and revisionist history that seeks to undermine the Liberation War narrative.

2. Manipulated Student Movements: Just as student politics was hijacked in the 1970s, recent student uprisings have been infiltrated by forces that wish to erase Mujib’s legacy. What begins as a demand for reform is transformed into a dangerous attempt to delegitimise the Liberation War itself.

3. Foreign Intrigues: Regional powers, especially Pakistan, have not abandoned their dream of reasserting influence in Dhaka. The sudden alignment of certain political factions with Pakistan and even with radical groups is a red flag.

4. Erosion of Secularism: The constitutional commitment to secularism, once restored, is again under pressure. Fundamentalists are finding space in society, undermining Bangladesh’s identity as a pluralistic nation.

5. Disunity Among Liberation Forces: Those who once carried the torch of independence are fragmented. Opportunism, corruption, and partisan agendas have diluted the unity that defined 1971.

In this backdrop, the lessons of 15th August 1975 return with brutal urgency: When Bengalis forget their history, the enemies of independence strike back.

Saluting the Father of the Nation

On this solemn anniversary, it is essential to salute Sheikh Mujibur Rahman with humility and gratitude.

• We salute him as the man who transformed the word “Bengali” from an ethnic identity into a national one.

• We salute him as the leader who endured prison, conspiracy, and ridicule to awaken his people.

• We salute him as the architect of independence who made Bangladesh a reality against impossible odds.

• We salute him as the father whose blood nourished the soil of Bengal, reminding us that freedom has a price.

But a salute is not enough. Tribute must translate into responsibility. Mourning must evolve into vigilance.

The Duty of the Present Generation

Bangladesh’s youth today face a sacred duty: to guard the legacy of 1971 and 1975. This means:

• Resisting Revisionism: Any attempt to downplay the genocide of 1971, or to rehabilitate collaborators, must be rejected outright. History cannot be rewritten by those who sided with Pakistan.

• Defending Secularism: Bangladesh must remain a secular republic. Mujib believed in a land where Hindus, Muslims, Buddhists, and Christians could coexist as equals. That vision must not be surrendered to communal hatred.

• Rejecting Violence: The politics of coups, assassinations, and street anarchy brought nothing but darkness. Bangladesh must resolve its conflicts through dialogue and democracy, not through bullets.

• Upholding National Sovereignty: The Pakistani dream of reclaiming Dhaka must never be allowed to materialise. Bangladesh is a sovereign nation carved out through the supreme sacrifice of its people. No external power—be it Pakistan or any other—should dictate its path.

Conclusion: The Eternal Flame of Bangabandhu

The conspirators of 1975 thought that by killing Sheikh Mujibur Rahman, they could kill Bangladesh’s soul. They were wrong. His legacy continues to inspire millions. His words, his ideals, and his love for his people remain immortal.

Yet, legacies can fade if not guarded. Independence can be lost if not defended. 15th August 1975 was a warning that the enemies of liberation never sleep. And today, as Bangladesh faces growing instability, that warning echoes louder than ever.

Let us, therefore, turn this day of mourning into a day of resolve:

• To remember the Father of the Nation with reverence.

• To honour the martyrs of 1971 by safeguarding their dream.

• To resist any attempt to drag Bangladesh back to the poisonous embrace of Pakistan.

On this black anniversary, let us bow our heads in grief, raise our fists in defiance, and renew our pledge:

“Bangabandhu Sheikh Mujibur Rahman, we salute you. Your Bengal will not be lost again. Your dream of Sonar Bangla will live on.”

The post 15th of August: The Day the Bengalis of Bangladesh Lost Their Father of the Nation appeared first on South Asia Corner.