Bangladesh’s political future has become increasingly uncertain since the outbreak of protests in June 2024 against reservation policies favoring descendants of freedom fighters. What began as a student-led agitation has since evolved into a broader crisis marked by leadership change, rising political violence, and deepening regional and ideological fault lines.
Over the past year and a half, the country has witnessed dramatic shifts. Long-time Prime Minister Sheikh Hasina was deposed, and Nobel laureate Professor Mohammad Yunus assumed charge as head of an Interim Administration. His rise was backed by the students’ movement that led the protests and tacitly supported by the Army, which remained wary of the historical consequences of any overt military takeover.
Professor Yunus inherited the formidable task of restoring stability in a nation shaped by a complex socio-political fabric and a history of violence surrounding contested political transitions. However, critics argue that instead of unifying diverse political forces, the Interim Administration has presided over an expansion of existing political, religious, and socio-economic divisions.
The marginalisation and systematic undermining of the Awami League, Bangladesh’s traditional ruling party, was widely anticipated after effective control of governance shifted to forces hostile to it, both domestically and abroad. As the country prepares for national elections scheduled for February next year, these tensions have intensified into a full-blown crisis.
Bangladesh’s foreign policy posture has also drawn scrutiny. India reportedly reached out to Professor Yunus on multiple occasions, but relations with New Delhi have cooled. Instead, the Interim Administration has moved closer to Pakistan and China. Ties with Pakistan, in particular, have raised concerns in India, especially regarding access reportedly granted to the Pakistan Army and the Inter-Services Intelligence (ISI) near the sensitive Indo-Bangladesh border, including areas adjacent to India’s North East.
Domestically, several radical and vigilante groups have found greater operational freedom. Beyond Jamaat-e-Islami, multiple organisations have engaged in activities targeting not only India but also Bangladesh’s own institutions, ostensibly in pursuit of eliminating the Awami League’s political influence.
These tensions reached a critical point with the assassination of Sharif Osman Hadi, spokesperson of Inqilab Moncho. The group blamed India for the killing, declaring in a statement that Hadi had been accepted as a “martyr” in the struggle against what it termed Indian hegemony. Inqilab Moncho, which emerged from the Students Against Discrimination movement that fuelled the July 2024 riots, describes itself as a cultural organisation but is widely seen as driven primarily by opposition to the Awami League.
Following Hadi’s death, a wave of arson and violence swept through parts of Dhaka. Targets included offices of leading newspapers The Daily Star and Prothom Alo in Kawran Bazar, the cultural institution Chhayanaut in Dhanmondi, the residence of former education minister Mohibul Hasan Chowdhury Naufel, and Dhanmondi 32—the historic home of Sheikh Mujibur Rahman, Bangladesh’s founding leader. While police investigations are ongoing, the attacks appear linked by a common ideological thread hostile to the Awami League, liberal cultural institutions, and independent media.
Observers caution against viewing the violence solely as a reaction to Hadi’s killing. Instead, it reflects a deeper entrenchment of vigilantism driven by anti-Awami League and anti-India sentiment. These developments raise serious concerns about the feasibility of conducting free and fair elections, with fears that any failure could be politically attributed to the Awami League and external actors.
Analysts argue that the Interim Administration must urgently recalibrate its approach—reducing inflammatory rhetoric, restoring law and order, and acting decisively against vandalism and targeted violence regardless of the perpetrators’ affiliations. At the same time, calls have been made for the Awami League, whose activities remain restricted and whose leaders are largely in exile, to restrain rhetoric that could further inflame tensions.
As Bangladesh stands at a crossroads, many warn that only a conciliatory, inclusive approach by all political stakeholders can prevent the country from sliding into prolonged instability—or, worse, into a fractured and ungovernable state.
The notion that Bangladesh teeters on the brink of fragmentation is not an exaggerated narrative that misconstrues the current political turbulence for existential rupture. While it is undeniable that the country faces intense political contestation and significant fault lines in public discourse, such volatility does not equate to an imminent dissolution of the nation-state. Bangladesh has endured periods of acute political stress before and has emerged resiliently, anchored in a strong national identity forged over decades.
Instability and disagreement—however deep—are not synonymous with separation. What Bangladesh urgently needs is inclusive dialogue, steadfast democratic processes, and national unity that transcends partisan or ideological divides. Sensationalist prognostications of disintegration risk deepening despair rather than advancing constructive solutions. Solid nations are not defined by the absence of crisis, but by their capacity to confront and resolve it.
But more clearly, on 5 August 2024, Bangladesh crossed a dark and fateful threshold. What unfolded that day was not a spontaneous democratic correction, nor an organic uprising of the people, but a calculated regime change—engineered through a convergence of foreign manipulation and domestic collaborators. The American deep state, spearheaded by the CIA and operating in cynical alignment with Pakistan’s most sinister extremist networks, found eager local accomplices: Dr. Muhammad Yunus, the Jamaati–Shibir nexus of 1971’s ideological heirs, the BNP—an entity born and nurtured within the shadows of the Dhaka cantonment—and a motley alliance of far-right fundamentalists repackaged for a CIA “Model 2024” experiment. Together, they orchestrated the downfall of Bangladesh’s most successful Prime Minister, HPM Sheikh Hasina.
Since that day, Bangladesh has been bleeding—politically, socially, economically, and morally—with no reprieve in sight.
Extremists do not deserve to run a state, for their minds are shackled by dogma and blind zealotry. They lack the wisdom, vision, and humanity that a nation requires. In the face of our country’s current turmoil, one must ask: Will the people finally awaken to this truth? Only through collective conscience and enlightened resolve can we reclaim our nation from the grip of destructive forces and steer it toward justice, dignity, and real progress.
The crisis has now escalated to a terrifying magnitude. The spectre of a deadly civil war looms ominously, while the threat of widespread famine hangs over the nation. Peace of mind has vanished; human life has been stripped of its value under this illegitimate, puppet government led by Dr. Yunus and his direful cronies.
In these turbulent times, my voice is both a warning and a beacon—a summons to every citizen to uphold the spirit of freedom, to reject extremism, and to reclaim the promise of a peaceful, prosperous, and sovereign Bangladesh.
Bangladesh stands at a crossroads between light and darkness, between the unfinished promise of its liberation and the manufactured nightmare of foreign-sponsored regression. The choice before us is moral as much as political. To reclaim justice, dignity, and real progress, the nation must rise—decisively, courageously—and restore the leadership that once carried it forward with honor and resolve.
–Anwar A. Khan,
a direct witness of the brutal birth of Bangladesh from a very close proximity in 1971 and a frontline Freedom Fighter of the 1971 war field to establish Bangladesh.