Shrinking democratic space, Yunus going jihadist way and western powers weary of his idiosyncrasies has turned Bangladesh a hotspot.
Rohan Giri
Bangladesh is in the midst of a major crisis given the political chessboard that exposes changing power dynamics, jihdist takeover, assertion of the military junta and people left to fend for them with the state giving up on governance.
It’s not mere domestic political reconfiguration but a crisis in the making with both national and regional consequences. At the heart of this narrative lies decline of a figure once championed in Western capitals, Muhammad Yunus and subdued recalibration of power that tells extensively about where Bangladesh is headed and how the world must understand this transition.
Muhammad Yunus, once hailed as a Nobel laureate and Grameen Bank microfinance model builder, was long seen as a link with Western liberal values. But in today’s Dhaka, Yunus no longer commands the stature of a unifying reformist and an elderly statesman.
His legal troubles, political marginalisation and increasing distance from the country’s current power centres suggest a systemic and perhaps irreversible break from liberal-democratic experiment that he once symbolised.
His estrangement from the Bangladesh Nationalist Party (BNP), historically the principal opposition to erstwhile ruling Awami League, marks a decisive shift. Even Yunus lacks institutional support from security establishments, rendering such alliances practically ineffective.
A recent massive rally titled “Rally for Establishing Youth Political Rights” was held in Dhaka by three BNP-affiliated groups, Jatiyatabadi Chhatra Dal, Jubo Dal, and Swechchhasebak Dal as Yunus left for a four-day visit to Japan.
BNP Acting Chairman Tarique Rahman addressed the rally virtually, criticising the Yunus-led government. Days earlier, a BNP delegation demanded an election roadmap by December and urged the interim government to avoid long-term policy decisions especially on issues like the Rohingya corridor and Chattogram port.
The political gap left after fall from the Awami League’s unquestionable supremacy has not resulted in democratic transition, realignment of democratic forces.
Once a prominent player in Bangladeshi politics, Awami League under Sheikh Hasina, has been accused of authoritarian drift, methodical repression of opposition and getting alienated from voters. The conditions are ripe for alternative centres of power to emerge not necessarily from existing political formations but actors whose influence is wielded from behind the veil of legitimacy.
One such actor is Bangladeshi military that has distanced from Yunus. Historically, taking a cautious, if not aloof, approach to overt governance. The current climate indicates its willingness to fill the power vacuum. Notably, words and postures emanating from within the army reflect displeasure with both existing political leadership and personalities, like Yunus, who are frequently portrayed as associated with Western liberal objectives.
The military’s reluctance to re-embrace Yunus reveals a deeper strategic concern: aligning too closely with an internationally admired but locally polarising individual risks alienating burgeoning nationalist sentiments and undermining internal cohesion.
Compounding the uncertainty is reemergence of hardline Islamic factions, particularly the Jamaat-e-Islami, long banned but far from being irrelevant. In times of institutional fragility, such groups often find space to maneuver, projecting themselves as defenders of moral order and religious authenticity.
Their attempt to “call the shots” politically, often through proxies and sympathetic networks, is no longer a fringe development but a potential axis of influence, especially in disenfranchised and conservative constituencies. Under the guise of populism and faith-based legitimacy, ideological extremists are bound to acquire traction due to the Awami League and BNP’s combined weakness or non-existence in political arena.
In this calculus, pro-democracy actors, while vocal and active, remain largely performative in impact. The civil society fabric of Bangladesh, which once brimmed with journalistic bravery, legal advocacy, and grassroots mobilisation, now finds itself overpowered by a combination of state repression, media censorship and judicial intimidation.
Though aligned ideologically with purported liberal reformists such as Yunus, these elements are neither organised nor empowered to counter the influence of either the security apparatus or resurgent Islamist formations. Individuals who are more concerned with maintaining institutional or ideological domination than with preserving democracy are increasingly filling the gap left by middle-ground political participation.
From a geopolitical standpoint, these internal realignments have not escaped the attention of regional and global powers. United States, under shifting administrations, have shown signs of strategic disinterest in Yunus continued involvement in Bangladeshi politics.
At the same time, US seems to be investing in other forms of influence projection, most notably through declaration of interest in Saint Martin’s Island, a location with increasing significance due to its naval and logistical potential. Although formally within Bangladeshi territory, US maneuvers signal a willingness to challenge regional hegemonies through presence rather than partnership.
Interestingly, the Bangladeshi army’s own worldview appears increasingly decoupled from traditional alignments. While military engagement with China continues through defence procurements and limited logistical cooperation, the army remains skeptical of Pakistan, a country with which historical scars and ideological differences remain deeply etched. Since New Delhi is well aware of Pakistan’s ongoing attempts to retain influence in Dhaka through both ideological and illegal means, this suspicion may be a means of fostering understanding with India.
India’s own perspective on these developments is complex and evolving. New Delhi has traditionally favoured stability over unrest in its eastern neighbourhood. Assam Chief Minister Himanta Biswa Sarma has however articulated concerns about Bangladesh’s vulnerability to becoming a chokepoint, a potential “chicken neck” in a broader strategic contest involving China, US and radical Islamic networks.
The parallel highlights a concern about India’s own strategic bottleneck, the Siliguri Corridor and how instability in Bangladesh could lead to logistical and security issues in the northeast. Indian engagement, therefore, is not only about diplomatic alignment but about protecting crucial linkages and resisting China’s growing influence.
The present course of Bangladesh raises uneasy concerns for democracies in the West. Common trends that are frequently disregarded in favour of short-term strategic collaboration or economic stability include the emergence of hardline forces, dwindling liberal voices and the assertion of military prerogative.
If these trends are not addressed, they run the risk of combining to create a hybrid system characterized by latent volatility, ideological control, and selective pluralism that is neither wholly dictatorial nor democratic. For policymakers in Washington, Brussels, and London, this may mean rethinking how democracy promotion is operationalised in South Asia, especially in contexts where soft power tools have diminishing returns.
In conclusion, Bangladesh is not merely walking away from Muhammad Yunus; it is veering into a new, uncertain terrain where democratic backsliding, militarised governance and ideological radicalism intersect.
While the Western notion may have once seen Yunus as the embodiment of Bangladesh’s democratic potential, his sidelining reflects not just personal fallibility but erosion of an entire paradigm. The future of Bangladesh, therefore, cannot be defined by nostalgia for liberal reformers or blind faith in electoral processes.
It must be understood through the lenses of power, identity, and regional consequence. And as the lines harden between secularism, Islamism, militarism, and populism, the West and particularly India must engage not with illusions, but with clarity and foresight.
(Author is a doctoral fellow at Amity University in Gwalior, content head at Centre for Integrated and Holistic Studies)
About The Author
