Bangladesh is experiencing a resurgence of violence, with political figures being targeted in street shootings, minorities being lynched due to rumors, news organizations under attack, and the state's authority visibly weakening. This situation is not merely random unrest or isolated incidents of lawlessness; it represents a systemic collapse. For India, this is not a remote issue but a pressing strategic concern.
Muhammad Yunus was appointed as the temporary leader with global support and high hopes. He was intended to stabilize Bangladesh following Sheikh Hasina's ousting and lead the nation towards a democratic revival. However, during his tenure, Islamist groups have gained strength, political violence has become commonplace, and the anticipated 'reset' has deteriorated into instability.
The turmoil currently engulfing Bangladesh is not by chance. It is the foreseeable result of a political experiment that dismantled an established power structure without establishing a viable alternative. The removal of Sheikh Hasina in August 2024 did not lead to reconciliation or reform. Instead, it created a void, which has been occupied by violence, extremism, and a fierce battle for power.
In December, Bangladesh experienced a series of targeted killings. Sharif Osman Hadi, a student leader who rose to prominence during the previous year's July uprising, was fatally shot at close range by gunmen on motorcycles in Dhaka. A few days later, Md Motaleb Sikder, a senior labor leader from the National Citizens Party, was shot in the head in Khulna. These incidents were not spontaneous acts of violence; they were professional assassinations carried out with precision, followed by smooth getaways, clear indicators of organized political violence resurfacing on the streets of Bangladesh.
The murder of Hadi was especially provocative. Despite not being a mass leader, he rose to prominence in the media following Hasina's downfall, emerging more from a political void than from genuine grassroots support. Similar to many groups that emerged from the July protests, his influence was more pronounced on television and social media than in reality. Nevertheless, his assassination sparked widespread unrest across the country.
The Rise of Islamism
After Hasina was ousted, Bangladesh's political landscape shifted significantly to the right. The Awami League, which still retains the support of a large segment of voters, was completely excluded from the political framework. This gap was filled by Islamist groups that had been biding their time for years.
Jamaat-e-Islami not only gained from Hasina's downfall but also asserts that it orchestrated it. Its student faction dominated university elections, and its leaders received significant media attention. Their narratives became widely accepted. Other groups from the protest era, such as those associated with Yunus's National Citizens Party, were pushed to minor roles, appearing on screens but having little impact on the streets.
Yunus was anticipated to oversee this transition and curb extremist aspirations. However, during his leadership, Islamist groups have been empowered instead of being controlled.
The indicators are unmistakable. Islamist groups are moving about without restriction. Flags of ISIS and Al-Qaeda are making a comeback. Large numbers of extremists are being freed from incarceration. Secular cultural organizations like Chhayanot and Udichi are under assault. The home of Bangabandhu Sheikh Mujibur Rahman has been vandalized once more, driven by evident ideological motives.
A Lynching That Altered Everything
The extent of Bangladesh's decline was starkly revealed with the brutal killing of Dipu Chandra Das, a 27-year-old Hindu garment worker. Based solely on a rumor of insulting Islam, Dipu was fatally beaten by a mob. His body was stripped, tied to a tree, whipped even after death, set ablaze, and then burned again on a highway while crowds chanted religious slogans and obstructed traffic.
This was not an outburst of sudden anger. It was an act of staged aggression, intended as a signal to minorities, dissenters, and the government. It was a proclamation that the exclusive control over violence is no longer held by the authorities.
Yunus's reaction adhered to a recognizable pattern: arrests occurred after the incidents, critical remarks were made on social media, but not much else happened. Seven individuals were taken into custody. No preventive measures were implemented. Authority was lacking. Fear persisted.
Rejection and Breakdown
The lynching was not an isolated incident. It happened during a period of national unrest following Hadi's murder. Demonstrations escalated into riots. Government structures were damaged. Newspaper offices were targeted. Streets were set ablaze. India was quickly drawn into the story.
Social media was inundated with unverified assertions that Indian 'sharpshooters' were implicated or that the perpetrator had escaped across the border. None of these claims were verified, yet they were widely circulated. India was used as an easy target, a common strategy to obscure internal divisions and rally Islamist backing.
In truth, the details surrounding Hadi's death suggest internal conflicts within the regime. The alleged shooter had connections spanning different factions and was reportedly freed despite facing severe charges, highlighting a system where political allies are released while adversaries remain imprisoned.
Instead of addressing these issues, the Yunus administration has opted for denial. They deny the increase in extremism, the influence of Islamist forces, and even the harassment, arrest, and physical attacks on journalists by mobs encouraged by political inaction.
Editors who previously dealt with pressure from intelligence agencies during Hasina's tenure are now encountering potentially more severe challenges: public mob trials, online witch-hunts, and assaults on newsrooms with police as passive observers. This situation does not signify a revival of democracy; rather, it indicates a loss of state control.
A Local Chessboard - And India's Predicament
Globally, the situation is critical. Bangladesh is not solely an issue for Dhaka anymore. The United States has a vested interest. China and Russia are observing closely. Turkey and Pakistan are applying ideological and strategic pressure. The nation has become a piece in a complex and unstable regional chess game.
There is an undeniable reality that must be acknowledged. Sheikh Hasina committed significant errors. She assumed that Islamism could be controlled, integrated, or restrained. Jamaat was not dismantled but merely pushed into hiding. Hefazat was tolerated, and madrassas multiplied. When the system faltered, these forces re-emerged with greater strength.
However, Yunus's shortcomings are of a distinct nature. While Hasina led with force, Yunus leads with uncertainty. Where Hasina oppressed, Yunus seeks to placate. Where Hasina exerted control, Yunus chooses to ignore. In the current climate of Bangladesh, such denial can be deadly.
For many years, India engaged with Bangladesh with a spirit of goodwill and moderation, trusting that collaboration would lead to stability and safeguard minorities. That trust has now been shattered.
Today, Bangladesh exhibits ideological similarities with Pakistan that are somewhat uneasy. The influence of political Islam is significant. Dhaka is historically significant as the origin of the Muslim League. Bengal experienced severe communal violence prior to Partition. These underlying tensions persisted even after 1971.
Hindus have been the primary sufferers of this path, facing systematic dispossession, demographic decline, and persecution under Islamist governments, while being overlooked by those claiming to be liberal. For numerous individuals, India remains their sole sanctuary.
A Moment for Difficult Decisions
India must face reality as illusions are no longer sustainable. The contradictions in Bangladesh cannot be addressed solely through diplomatic efforts. The government led by Yunus is not contributing to stability; instead, it is overseeing a process of fragmentation.
New Delhi needs to strengthen its borders. Instability in Bangladesh has a direct impact on India's Northeast, leading to infiltration, radicalization, and smuggling. These are not just hypothetical threats but actual operational challenges.
India should exert measured pressure, avoiding rash interference or public posturing, while delivering strong messages, limiting leniency, and establishing a definitive boundary regarding the safety of minorities. Additionally, it should brace for extended instability. Elections by themselves will not resolve the issues in Bangladesh, particularly when key parties are sidelined and Islamist groups are likely to gain strength.
Broadened humanitarian and legal structures for oppressed minorities have moved beyond optional ethical discussions. They are now strategic imperatives.
Most importantly, India needs to understand this moment as a cautionary signal. Bangladesh, under Yunus, is not merely drifting; it is coming apart. Historical evidence suggests that when neighboring states to India begin to disintegrate, the repercussions are never limited.
Bangladesh is in turmoil. The pressing question is whether India will keep observing from the sidelines or step in with decisiveness, practicality, and determination.