South Asia has once again witnessed a turbulent government overthrow, a region long familiar with violent upheavals that often result in regime changes—whether through military coups or the dramatic rise of rival political factions. The recent developments in Bangladesh offer a unique case where both elements appear to have played a role. The abrupt departure of former Prime Minister Sheikh Hasina was quickly followed by a national address from Army Chief General Waker-Uz-Zaman and the release of Khaleda Zia, a former Prime Minister and leader of the opposition Bangladesh Nationalist Party (BNP), who had been serving a 17-year prison sentence since 2018 for a corruption case involving approximately $252,000. While some observers, particularly those sympathetic to the protest movement, see these events as a spontaneous chain reaction, a closer examination reveals carefully orchestrated maneuvers that have been deliberately concealed from the public eye—or at least some have tried to do so.
Public discourse often attributes the unrest to a student-led movement against a High Court ruling that reinstated a job quota, reserving 30% of civil service posts for the descendants of freedom fighters from the Bangladesh Liberation War of 1971. However, the protests intensified and turned more violent after the Supreme Court of Bangladesh reduced this quota to 5%, raising serious questions about the true motives of those behind these demonstrations. The Sheikh Hasina government had opposed the original quota system and welcomed the Supreme Court’s decision to significantly curtail it. Law Minister Anisul Haq of the ruling Awami League praised the decision as “well thought out,” and Shah Monjurul Haque, a lawyer representing some student groups, called it a “historic” step toward reforming the problematic quota system. Despite this, the protests escalated, leading to widespread violence. Why, then, did the demonstrators not stop their agitation?
The situation worsened after students at Dhaka University clashed with police, leading to the use of tear gas, rubber bullets, and smoke grenades by law enforcement. Initially, Hasina dismissed the protests, relying on the assurances of her supporters. Just a day before her departure from Bangladesh, Information and Broadcasting Minister Mohammad Ali Arafat downplayed the protests, claiming they were not a “mass upsurge” and alleging that the students were being manipulated by the BNP and Jamaat-e-Islami. The following day marked a shocking turning point, as Hasina fled the country, seeking temporary refuge in India. Thousands of so-called “student protestors” stormed Ganabhaban, the official residence of the former Prime Minister, looting TV sets, furniture, fish, live cattle, and personal belongings. Disturbingly, images emerged of protestors brandishing Hasina’s personal items, including innerwear, as trophies—a grotesque display that calls into question the true nature of these “protestors.” It is chilling to imagine what might have happened if Hasina had not left Dhaka in time.
As law and order collapsed across the nation, the protests took on a more sinister tone, with violent mobs targeting the most vulnerable—the Hindu minority. This community, which has dwindled from 33% of the population in 1901 to just 8% today, was subjected to horrific violence. With the army and police unresponsive, mobs torched Hindu homes, shops, and businesses, and specifically targeted Awami League members and Hindu police officers. Although international media, which often has opinions on everything under the sun, remained silent on these atrocities, social media was flooded with videos showing Hindu girls and women being raped, kidnapped, and tortured, while men were murdered, and properties were looted. Desperate citizens pleaded with the Indian government for intervention. This orchestrated violence was not an organic consequence of the protests but a deliberate and carefully planned riot, backed by the hardline Islamist leadership of the BNP. Despite clear evidence of religiously motivated violence, Western media and some Indian outlets attempted to frame the events as purely political, casting the brutality as a feud between supporters and opponents of the Awami League. However, thanks to social media, these attempts largely failed, as people across the globe recognized the targeted nature of these attacks and stood in solidarity with the victims.
ALSO READ: Muhammad Yunus takes Oath as Head of Bangladesh Interim Govt
At the same time, the United States’ involvement in this turmoil cannot be overlooked. The situation in Bangladesh bears all the hallmarks of a classic CIA operation, known for backing so-called “spontaneous popular uprisings”. The US has long been critical of Hasina’s administration, particularly due to Bangladesh’s growing alignment with China and Russia, as well as concerns over Hasina’s alleged suppression of democratic practices and political dissent. The US ambassador in Dhaka has actively engaged with opposition leaders, flouting diplomatic conventions, while Bangladesh has faced several US-imposed sanctions. Despite these pressures, Bangladesh maintained its trade relations with Russia even after the Ukraine conflict erupted.
The US’s frustration was further fueled by Hasina’s unwavering support for China’s stance on Taiwan and Bangladesh’s refusal to allow any external interference in Chinese affairs. Bangladesh was the first South Asian nation to sign onto China’s Belt and Road Initiative, securing substantial Chinese investments—totaling $1.4 billion by the end of 2023. Dr. Mohammad Yunus, who was hastily sworn in as the head of the interim Bangladesh government, is closely aligned with the US administration, making Dhaka a critical battleground for US influence. Hasina had earlier alleged that the USA aimed to oust her from power due to her refusal to cede control of Saint Martin Island, which would have allowed the USA to exert influence over the Bay of Bengal.
The US’s disapproval of Hasina’s governance, combined with Bangladesh’s tumultuous internal politics, set the stage for a regime change that is being portrayed as a democratic power shift. However, under this guise, rioters have been given free rein to loot, plunder, and vandalize, while the world is presented with a sanitized image of a Nobel laureate leading the interim government. This new government is being painted as a beacon of democracy, freedom of speech, and civil liberties, in stark contrast to the “authoritarian” rule of the previous administration. While Hasina’s government may have shown autocratic tendencies in its later years, it also presided over one of the most liberal periods in Bangladeshi electoral politics—a nation born out of the need to protect Bengali people from the brutality of Islamist mobs in West Pakistan.
As Sheikh Hasina’s 15-year rule comes to an end, Bangladesh seems poised to return to the dark days of its inception 53 years ago, when riots and violence against minorities were the norm. With the United Nations and the US administration welcoming this regime change as a democratic transition, the only hope for innocent Bangladeshis lies in the Indian government and vigilant citizens around the world who refuse to tolerate mayhem and religious bigotry.