By Ghulam Suhrawardi
The nation’s strongest and oldest political party, the Awami League, is again at the center of a historic reckoning. Having spearheaded the movement in the 1971 Bangladesh Liberation War to dominate the country’s politics for over four decades, the party has played an outsize role in shaping the republic’s hopes and nightmares. Now the beacon of democracy and freedom, the Awami League is increasingly the target of domestic opprobrium and international condemnation for presiding through authoritarian consolidation, democratic erosion, and contentious foreign alignments.
The article tries to plot the party’s multicolored political evolution—from its radical birth to its present incarnation as a centralized apparatus of executive power. It examines the way its dictatorship undermined democratic institutions, the way foreign alignments with India, in particular, fueled national resentment, and the way popular faith in democratic government wore out bit by bit. While exploring this tumultuous trajectory, the article also explores how, with new transitional leadership, Bangladesh today can capitalize on the moment to reimagine a more inclusive, open, and sovereign democratic future. The path of the Awami League’s transformation—from a movement of liberation to a unilateral consolidator of executive power. It reflects on how democratic institutions suffered during its rule, its realignment with external powers, and the subsequent disillusionment of the masses. Along this convoluted political path, the analysis sheds light on how a once-revered party was the vehicle for the autocratic tendencies it initially opposed—and how Bangladesh, now led by its transitional leadership, can perhaps chart a democratic destiny.
A Twisted Coming of Age
Bangladesh came into existence in 1971 in a gory and heroic war of liberation, a war which was accompanied by mammoth sacrifices by ordinary people, freedom fighters, and students. While the official narrative long insisted the war had cost over three million lives, veteran warhorse BBC journalist Sirajur Rahman and some other independent commentators have questioned this number and estimated it to be about 300,000. This difference has created historical controversy. Nevertheless, the human and emotional toll of the war is not to be argued.
Sheikh Mujibur Rahman—later lionized as Bangabandhu and the “Father of the Nation”—was imprisoned in West Pakistan during the war and did not play an immediate role on the battlefield. When he returned to independent Bangladesh in January 1972, he was welcomed as a national hero. The nation’s birth rested on promises of democracy, secularism, and freedom. Those ideals were, however, soon betrayed.
In the early years after the war, Mujib’s government took a line of centralization. The politics of the opposition were criminalized in 1975, opposition parties were banned, and free media was suppressed. The establishment of Bangladesh Krishak Sramik Awami League (BAKSAL) in January 1975 legalized one-party rule and erased the pluralistic culture enshrined during the liberation struggle. Parliament was stripped of its role as a representative body and was reduced to a mere rubber-stamp body, and civil liberties were curbed in the name of national unity.
Critics argue that this was the beginning of the authoritarian rule in Bangladesh—an early trial by fire of civilian dictatorship that set a political model his daughter, Sheikh Hasina, would expand upon and follow later. Thus, the liberation ideals were undercut from the very beginning of statehood, initiating a serial pattern of centralized control that still plagued the nation’s democratic aspirations.
Throughout her 15 years of unbroken rule between 2009 and 2024, Hasina elaborated on the centralized control system her father put in place, deepening state monitoring, repressing the judiciary, and enlisting electoral institutions. Numerous observers at home and abroad have drawn stark comparisons between BAKSAL-era repression and Hasina’s government—highlighting a tradition of dynastic authoritarianism that originates in the very birth of the state.
Fifteen Years of Democratic Erosion
Sheikh Hasina’s tenure, especially from 2009 to 2024, was marked by one of the most extended democratic setbacks in Bangladesh’s history. Her government progressively eroded constitutional safeguards, placing the judiciary, Election Commission, and state media under effective executive dominance. Elections became theater shows rather than democratic events, marred by systemic vote tampering, intimidation, and opposition repression.
The regime was infamous for wholesale extrajudicial executions, consistently conducted by the elite paramilitary Rapid Action Battalion (RAB), subsequently targeted by global human rights institutions. Political activists, journalists, and dissidents were forcibly abducted or found dead in conditions shrouded in mystery. The phrase “Ainaghar,” a secret prison and torture facility allegedly used to interrogate and ill-treat detainees, became identified with the state’s brutal apparatus of repression.
Freedom of speech and the press deteriorated significantly. Protest journalists who spoke out strongly against the government were harassed, arrested, or forced into exile, and repressive legislation like the Digital Security Act was employed to silence dissent. Civil society organizations were under continuous surveillance, and labor unions and student organizations were brutally suppressed.
Hasina’s geopolitical alignment with India further alienated broad portions of the Bangladeshi populace. With economic integration and regional connection taking center stage, most projects were considered unilateral concessions to Indian interests. Such actions included providing India access to Mongla and Chattogram ports, extensive use of Bangladeshi rail networks for Indian transit, and controversial water-sharing arrangements—or lack thereof—for the rivers Teesta and Ganges.
Anger over India’s seeming interference in Bangladesh’s internal political affairs intensified. This reached a turning point in 2013 when then-Indian Foreign Secretary Sujatha Singh visited Dhaka to coax former army dictator Hussain Muhammad Ershad to contest universally considered illegitimate elections. India’s brazen political interference and continued support for Sheikh Hasina’s successive governments since 2008 have contributed to a growing perception of New Delhi as a regional hegemon, not a benevolent neighbor.
In addition, Bangladeshis viewed India’s strategic interests, or gaining access to Bangladesh’s ports, river transit, and energy corridors, as an encroachment upon their sovereignty. Connectivity and infrastructure projects, although termed shared benefits, were viewed as disproportionately accruing to Indian economic and military access without sufficient public consultations and parliamentary scrutiny.
Perhaps most concerning has been the reported weaponization of narratives. India’s media and part of its political circles actively propagated reports of an Islamist rebellion in the offing in Bangladesh—newspaper allegations, the critics claim, exaggerated or fabricated to discredit the 2024 uprising and turn world powers against the Yunus-led interim government. This, the majority claim, was all part of a grand design to present Bangladesh as an extremist hotbed and thereby attract global suspicion and ward off foreign aid.
Even more ominous are credible accounts that India fostered overt penetration of Bangladesh’s mainstream political parties. Senior journalists, commentators, and former intelligence officials have speculated that some senior political figures were de facto Indian agents, shaping domestic discussion and policy to align with New Delhi’s strategic interests. Such covert undermining fueled anti-India feelings and reduced public confidence in the country’s political autonomy.
To an increasingly vocal chorus of outraged and politicized young people, India’s behavior is tantamount to not alliance but proxy subjugation. This reemergent fury—based on cultural indignation, economic disparity, and political betrayal—has become a suffocating undertow in the new wave of nationalism and democratic reawakening washing over the country.
The Army’s Fraying Loyalty: A Country Questions Its Protectors
The military’s performance during the 2024 rebellion remains shrouded in doubt and controversy. At the forefront of this criticism stands General Waker Uz Zaman, the current army chief facing mounting public criticism. There have been allegations that he offered the shelter of 626 Awami League leaders in military cantonments across the nation to conceal themselves from justice and flee to foreign countries at the height of the crisis. General Waker was alleged to have initially teamed up with Sheikh Hasina’s directives. But when mass protests gained momentum and orders were issued to shoot protesters, the chain of command was broken.
Officer mid-ranks, some with close personal relationships with protesting youth, refused to shoot civilians. They disintegrated the military’s internal cohesion and openly defied General Waker’s commands. For many of its citizens, this moment highlighted a stark contrast between the regular soldiers who remained with the people and the high command seen as serving political elites. In the court of public opinion, General Waker is increasingly regarded not as a protector of the republic but as one beholden to political loyalty—some even believe that he serves as an agent of foreign influence, namely Indian.
George Orwell once said, “In a time of deceit, telling the truth is a revolutionary act.” For Bangladeshis, the truth regarding the internal division within the army is a painful but essential accounting. The betrayal perceived by a national institution meant to serve and defend the Constitution has only heightened calls for transparency, accountability, and a comprehensive overhaul of civil-military relations.
India, the Awami League, and Hegemonic Interests
One of the defining features of Awami League rule has been its deliberate alignment with India—a union that has provoked mounting widespread anger and charges of national subordination. Bangladesh is culturally and historically affiliated with its neighbor. Yet, the increased dependence of the Awami League, especially Sheikh Hasina, on India has led many to suspect that the sovereignty of Dhaka has been compromised further.
Bilateral agreements of recent times have been disproportionately in India’s favor. India was granted Chattogram and Mongla ports, Bangladeshi road and railway facilities for border trade, and Bangladeshi transit lines across land without economic or strategic compromises in return. Water sharing agreements on rivers, especially on the Teesta River, are yet to be agreed upon—systematically keeping north Bangladeshi farmers away from necessary irrigation facilities.
Besides, India’s alleged support for Hasina’s tainted 2014 and 2018 elections has also undermined the Awami League and New Delhi in the eyes of the majority of Bangladeshis. Indian media have been frank in their encomiums over Hasina’s “reliability,” with most referring to her as the one who has “kept Bangladesh stable” and “aligned”—a euphemism, in the view of most, for keeping Dhaka aligned with Indian strategic interests.
Opponents explain that Hasina became an Indian geopolitical asset, making way for Indian predominance in the South Asian eastern corridor and eliminating oppositional voices and political opposition to Delhi’s hegemony. Indian spy agencies were typically involved in tight cooperation with Bangladeshi security agencies, primarily in suppressing opposition activists and civil movements.
This asymmetrical relationship generated fierce nationalist ire. Indian symbols of control, such as the Awami League, now regarded no longer as a national political party but as a tool of foreign domination, were repeatedly assailed by demonstrators and youth movements. The cry “Desh ke becha deoya hobena” (We will not sell our country) echoed from student campuses to village bazaars, documenting the outrage at Hasina’s alleged sale of national sovereignty.
Bangladesh requires a new beginning under transitional leadership and must urgently reimagine the terms of its bilateral engagement. Regional cooperation is crucial, but it must be based on mutual respect, equality, and national self-respect, rather than asymmetry and political dependence.
The Role of Indian Godi Media and Disinformation Warfare
With the 2024 revolution and formation of Bangladesh’s interim government by Nobel Laureate Dr. Muhammad Yunus, a systematically coordinated campaign of misinformation started from India’s mainstream media platforms famously referred to as “Godi Media”—media channels awarded the nickname for working in blind harmony with the current Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) and Prime Minister Narendra Modi.
All these media outlets, such as Republic TV, Zee News, Times Now, and parts of NDTV, waged a coordinated campaign to label the new Bangladeshi government as unstable, Islamist-tinged, and anti-minority—without any evidence to support them. The playbook took on familiar tropes used by the BJP-led government at home to stifle opposition and divide the public in their opinion. It was used to delegitimize the ousting of Yunus, framing the popular uprising as an Islamist coup d’etat rather than a democratic people’s revolution.
This news report was second-hand but parroted official spokespersons’ voices in New Delhi. By labeling the interim government as “radical” or “anti-Indian interests,” Indian reporting attempted to justify support for Sheikh Hasina, whose 15-year tenure of office had been decisive to India’s strategic hegemony of the subcontinent. Indian press served as a de facto foreign policy mouthpiece—shaping public opinion and discrediting Bangladesh’s transitional leadership.
Secondly, the campaign was duplicated on social networking sites, Indian troll farms, and bot networks to spread disinformation and doctored documents. The campaigns extended to local and foreign targets, aimed at delegitimizing the Yunus government and projecting India as the regional standard on stability issues. The reports contrasted with objective reports from international news sources and human rights monitors, which most had presumed had acknowledged the nonviolent and popular nature of the uprising.
The disinformation war fought by the Indian media has not only raised diplomatic ties but also raised anti-India feelings in Bangladesh. It has shown to what degree the media could be used for a geopolitical benefit at the expense of journalistic fairness for propaganda ends. While Bangladeshis aspire toward democratic resurgence, a fact-based narrative of openness, regional brotherhood, and democracy must prevail over such a war.
As George Orwell once warned, “Journalism is printing what someone else does not want printed; everything else is public relations.” The actions of Indian Godi Media have shown us how rashly thin that line can become.
South Asia’s Geopolitical Faultline
Bangladesh’s internal conflicts have become entangled in the grand powers’ regional rivalry. The country’s geostrategic position has attracted international powers. The United States is said to be backing Rakhine anti-junta forces under the Burma Act, with China and Russia competing for influence in Myanmar. Bangladesh is, thus, trapped in an emerging multipolar world politics where its choices have do-or-die consequences.
India’s northeastern states and Mizoram, specifically, have witnessed increasing separatist movements. Instability in Bangladesh would be directed at border disputes. Dhaka’s craving for independence must be laid down with a diplomatically designed foreign policy with China, America, Russia, and India, without being ensnared by any bloc.
Charting a Way Forward
Bangladesh is in a moment of turning and definition today. Yunus’s Interim Government has the divine mandate to restart the country’s democratic compass. It is greater than procedural change—how things are done—it is a remaking of the world of governance in terms of transparency, inclusiveness, and justice.
Democratic institutions must be restored not as instruments of political control but as guardians of the people’s will. The integrity of elections must be ensured by impartial observation, and civil liberties must be safeguarded against future erosion. Transitional justice must occur—not to administer retribution but to put accountability and room for collective healing.
Above all, the path forward has to be unity. The Bangladeshis have been fiercely courageous, braving guns, falsehoods, and decades of political repression to regain their birthright and shape their future. They need to be served by one who listens, empowers, and serves them.
The rest of the world cannot afford to be blind. It must stand with Bangladesh, not through intervention but through respecting its sovereignty and people’s democratic ideals.
As the country takes its initial steps away from the dark shadow of authoritarianism, it cannot only reclaim its democratic passion but also serve as a model. “It always seems impossible until it is done,” Nelson Mandela once instructed. Now, it is time for Bangladesh.