Bangladesh: Democracy, Radical Forces and the Battle for Power
— Lalit Gargg —
Bangladesh once again stands at a critical juncture of its history, where the boundaries between democracy, power, and radicalism are becoming increasingly blurred. The return of Tarique Rahman—son of former Prime Minister Khaleda Zia and acting chairman of the Bangladesh Nationalist Party (BNP)—after 17 years of self-imposed exile is not merely a political event. It is a symbol of the deepening instability that has continued to engulf Bangladeshi politics since the removal of Sheikh Hasina from power. His return comes at a time when the head of the interim government, Muhammad Yunus, appears besieged on multiple fronts, and the very forces that were granted direct or indirect space in the hope of systemic change have now emerged as a serious threat to peace, harmony, and democratic processes.
After the fall of Sheikh Hasina’s Awami League government, the student-led movement that was projected as the “July Revolution” had generated widespread hope that the foundation of a new, transparent, and inclusive political order would be laid. Driven by this optimism, student leaders and a large section of civil society entrusted Muhammad Yunus with the leadership of the interim government. However, within a few months, the illusion that this struggle was about genuine systemic reform began to fade. Growing disputes over elections, the absence of a clear roadmap, and the concentration of decision-making power around a narrow circle made it evident that the battle was no longer about strengthening democracy, but about capturing power.
In this context, the murder of Sharif Usman Hadi, a young leader associated with radical ideology, has further inflamed the situation. Hadi was among the prominent figures to emerge from the July movement, whose influence was rapidly expanding. Following his killing, allegations by his brother—that the murder was orchestrated by elements linked to the interim government to delay elections—raise serious questions about the moral credibility and neutrality of Muhammad Yunus’s administration. If these allegations are true, they suggest that certain forces within the power structure are deliberately pushing the country toward instability and chaos to manipulate the electoral process in their favor.
The role of radical organizations in this entire scenario is the most alarming. The growing pressure of groups such as Jamaat-e-Islami on the interim government, the escalating street violence, and repeated attacks on minorities indicate a rapid erosion of law and order. Ironically, the very radical elements that were once seen as “democratic allies” in opposing the Sheikh Hasina government are now hollowing out Bangladesh’s social fabric from within. This mirrors a historical mistake repeatedly made across South Asia, where radicalism was accommodated for short-term political gains, only to result in long-term instability.
Tarique Rahman’s return must be viewed against this backdrop. After spending more than 17 years in the United Kingdom, his homecoming signifies not just the end of personal exile but the emergence of a new balance of power in Bangladeshi politics. It cannot be overlooked that the cases which had kept him out of the country saw relief during the interim government’s tenure, paving the way for his return. On the very day Tarique Rahman landed in Dhaka, indications also surfaced that Sheikh Hasina’s Awami League might be excluded from the upcoming elections. This appears less a coincidence and more a calculated strategy. The BNP currently holds the strongest position in terms of electoral arithmetic, and speculation is rife that Tarique Rahman could be the country’s next prime minister. Yet the fundamental question remains: can an election held without the Awami League truly reflect the will of the Bangladeshi people? Democracy is not merely about a change of power; it is a process that ensures equal opportunity for all major political currents. If a major party is systematically sidelined, doubts about the legitimacy of the electoral process are inevitable.
At the international level as well, pressure on Muhammad Yunus’s government is mounting. Human rights organizations have repeatedly expressed concern over atrocities against minorities, attacks on freedom of expression, and the deteriorating law-and-order situation. Despite this, it is surprising that India—a neighboring country directly affected by developments in Bangladesh—has not yet exhibited a sufficiently strong diplomatic and moral response. Prime Minister Narendra Modi’s expression of concern for Khaleda Zia’s health and India’s offer of assistance is a positive signal, and the BNP’s acceptance of this gesture points toward emerging new equations between the two countries. Nevertheless, it would be naïve to assume that this closeness is entirely free from political self-interest.
The continuous attacks on the Hindu community in Bangladesh are no longer merely an internal law-and-order issue; they have become a serious matter directly linked to India’s security, diplomatic responsibility, and moral obligations. The recent lynching of a Hindu citizen named Amrit Mandal is stark evidence that the targeting of minorities is becoming increasingly brazen rather than subsiding. Violence based on religious identity, attacks on temples, forced migration, and an atmosphere of fear are delivering a severe blow to Bangladesh’s democratic credibility. For the Indian government, this is no longer an issue that can be ignored. There is an urgent need to send a firm diplomatic message, raise the matter on international platforms, and make it clear that the protection of minorities is a non-negotiable prerequisite of any democratic system.
In the context of the upcoming elections, such communal violence must be treated as a central issue, because the very notion of free and fair elections becomes meaningless in an environment of fear and insecurity. If Bangladesh genuinely claims to be restoring democracy, it must form a government capable of guaranteeing the rights and dignity of minorities. Without ensuring the safety of Hindus and all religious communities, neither political stability nor regional peace is possible. India’s role here is not just that of a neighboring state, but of a responsible regional power that must not hesitate to take firm steps to safeguard human rights and democratic values.
Bangladesh’s current turmoil cannot be attributed solely to internal factors; the role of external influences cannot be dismissed either. Given Pakistan’s historical involvement and its links with radical networks, it is not unreasonable to suspect indirect external contributions to Bangladesh’s instability. This makes Muhammad Yunus’s responsibility even greater—to steer the interim government toward a fair, transparent, and democratic direction. However, developments so far suggest that he has not been entirely successful in managing the situation.
Still, amid this bleak landscape, some observers see a glimmer of hope in Tarique Rahman’s statements and political positioning. This hope rests on the belief that the BNP—despite its controversial past—may be able to balance radical pressures upon coming to power and attempt to restore democratic institutions. Yet this too is a bitter paradox: expecting democracy to be restored with the support of radical forces is inherently contradictory.
Ultimately, the greatest question before Bangladesh is this: will it choose the path of an inclusive, multi-party, constitutional democracy, or will it sink deeper into the quagmire of power struggles and radicalism? The answer does not lie in the hands of any single leader or party, but in the political wisdom that will shape the country’s direction in the coming months. If free and fair elections, the rule of law, and the protection of minorities are not ensured, Tarique Rahman’s return may also be recorded in history as yet another missed opportunity.
साभार :
© CopyRight Pressnote.in | A Avid Web Solutions Venture.