By Matiar Chowdhury
Bangladesh stands at a perilous crossroads. Beneath the surface of political upheaval lies a deeper, more insidious struggle one shaped not by electoral contests alone, but by the convergence of four malignant forces, each vying to redefine the nation’s identity, sovereignty, and democratic future.
1. The American Deep State’s Strategic Calculus
According to Swiss historian Michael Kut, who has worked extensively in Bangladesh and speaks fluent Bengali, the U.S. deep state—an entrenched power network operating beyond elected administrations—has long influenced Bangladesh’s political trajectory.
From its ambivalence during the 1971 Liberation War to alleged involvement in the assassinations of Mujib and Zia, Kut argues that Washington’s strategic interests have repeatedly overridden democratic principles.
Kut suggests that Prime Minister Sheikh Hasina’s defiance—her refusal to cede land for a U.S. base, her alignment with China, and her resistance to American-backed civil society figures—has made her a target.
The involvement of figures like Dr. Muhammad Yunus, Badiul Alam Majumdar, and Syeda Rizwana Hasan, along with diplomatic maneuvers by Hillary Clinton and former U.S. ambassadors, point to a coordinated effort to reshape Bangladesh’s leadership.
2. Jamaat-e-Islami’s Politics of Revenge
Jamaat-e-Islami, once banned for its role in opposing Bangladesh’s independence, has re-emerged as a potent force. Kut argues that its long-term strategy is rooted in vengeance for 1971. Through alliances with both major parties, infiltration of institutions, and covert support for militant groups, Jamaat has sought to destabilize secular governance and reclaim ideological ground.
The party’s role in the August 21 grenade attack, its influence within banks and insurance sectors, and its ties to other Islamist factions reveal a broader agenda: to erase the spirit of the Liberation War and install a theocratic order.
3. ISI’s Covert Operations and Militant Networks
Pakistan’s intelligence agency, ISI, has allegedly operated in Bangladesh since the Ershad era, cultivating networks through Qawmi madrasa students who trained in Pakistan and Afghanistan. These individuals returned to form groups like JMB, Harkat-ul-Jihad, and Ansarullah Bangla Team. Though Jamaat supported these groups, BNP bore the political fallout.
Kut notes that these militant factions later coalesced under Hefazat-e-Islam, further blurring the lines between religious activism and extremism. Jamaat’s infiltration of both Awami League and BNP student wings has deepened mistrust and fractured political alliances.
4. Domestic Opportunists and the Collapse of Consensus
Kut’s final warning concerns internal opportunists—those who, disillusioned with Hasina’s rule, quietly aligned with external agendas. Secret meetings between Dr. Yunus, Jamaat, and militant leaders allegedly led to the formation of a new coalition under the banner of “anti-discrimination.”
This coalition, Kut claims, seeks to establish a consensus government that would release militants, empower Jamaat, and dismantle the constitutional legacy of 1971.
The emergence of new parties like NCP, with former student leaders now aligned with Islamist factions, signals a dangerous shift. The push for proportional representation, the erasure of Mujib’s legacy, and the targeting of both Awami League and BNP figures suggest a coordinated plan to rewrite Bangladesh’s political DNA.
A Nation at Risk
Kut warns that Bangladesh may be drifting toward civil war. The open display of ISIS flags, chants equating Awami League and BNP as “two snakes with the same venom,” and the systematic appointment of Jamaat loyalists across institutions point to a looming crisis. If these forces are not checked, the democratic and secular foundations of Bangladesh may be irreparably damaged.
The question now is not merely who governs—but whether the nation can preserve the ideals for which it was born.
Author: An eminent UK-based journalist
