Bangladesh in turmoil is result of synthesis of 'deep state' conspiracy with Islamic radicals ::: Hasina plus Modi (India) ... was a "stabiliser" ..... it kept Jamaat, fundamentalists contained ... and there was good civil-military balance,

When in August 2024, Bangladesh was known for the ouster of Sheikh Hasina. in December 2025 - it is not only chaotic.

It deserves a closer look on why Sheikh Hasina was much better than what Dhaka has now.

"... A nation born from a fight against genocide is now normalising political erasure, street violence, and silence on minority persecution," says former Indian diplomat Nirupama Rao. 

Rao says, Hasina's opponents in the west were "fixated" on her through a narrow lens: elections that didn’t meet Western democratic aesthetics, long incumbency, centralised power, human rights reports. 

Dhaka protest

Protest in Kolkata when Hindus were attacked in Bangladesh

These are all "real issues", but it ought to have been remembered that when "treated in isolation", things won't make such sense and may backfire too.

"Bangladesh was judged as if it were Denmark with a turnout problem, not a fragile, densely packed state with a violent Islamist history and a traumatised political culture," Rao posted on social network X. 

She is also right in pointing out that in doing so, three hard realities were ignored.

First, Hasina was a stabiliser, not a revolutionary hero, 

*** but it is also true that Hasina had proved herself a "state-builder in a hostile environment". 

"She kept Jamaat and its offshoots contained, maintained civil-military balance, protected minorities better than any realistic alternative, and kept Bangladesh economically and geopolitically predictable. Her western opponents knew this. They just chose to downplay it," says Rao.

Rao is actually being nice. 

Any frank and objective analysis would point fingers towards the west and the Deep State and what was their intention in Bangladesh. These lobbies and power that maybe were eyeing Martin islands and these were crucial from the 'necessity' or perspective of keeping a watch on Myanmar and South Asia and South East Asia.

On this Hasina was unrelenting for years and a strong committed in Delhi gave her a strength and neo-confidence to deal with the challenges.  

Rao points out how the west actually "overestimated the “democratic opposition”. There was no credible, unified, liberal alternative waiting in the wings. Removing pressure from Hasina didn’t empower democrats. It empowered street power, radicals, and actors who thrive precisely when institutions weaken".

Rao says:

"..... there was the old habit of believing that toppling or delegitimising a strong incumbent automatically opens space for pluralism. 

History says the opposite. 

In divided societies, power vacuums don’t fill with moderates. They fill with the loudest, angriest, and most organised forces. Often religious, often violent."

This is what exactly happened. 

"These were destructive missteps. Not because Hasina was flawless, but because state collapse is always worse than imperfect order. 

Chasing  democratic optics ended up accelerating a counterrevolution that hollowed out politics, normalised persecution, and destabilised an entire country," writes former diplomat.

"This wasn’t values-driven paternalism . It was context-blind activism masquerading as strategy. And Bangladesh will pay for it long after the policy memos have been forgotten."

She hastened to add: "If this is what victory looks like, Bangladesh has lost. 

Counterrevolutions always promise purity and deliver instability, fear, and blood on the streets."

Hasina and Modi : Made a Good Team for Stability and Growth in South Asia

It is true what Bangladesh has inherited today is - 'Counter Revolution' ::::

1.  Yunus is a proof that sheer manipulation and ambition is not enough to emerge as a ruler or a nation. The interim regime's biggest demerit was it didnot focus on governance -- least administration. 

2. It sided with the radicals and the "tide". 

-- The fall of Hasina left a huge vacuum. But then; gradually extremist elements took over.

3. Interim regime focused on absolutely meaningless priorities -- friendship with Pakistan and India-bashing. It did not enforce rule of law. Extremists took over the streets). 

4. Yunus was clueless and also complicit. Jamaat was brought back into the mainstream.

5. Ahmadiya Muslims and Awami League supporters--everything was brushed under the carpet of the so-called revolution. 

--- First the Chhatra League was outlawed and then the Awami League itself.

6. They ran a discredited Kangaroo court to prosecute Sheikh Hasina and thought

a capital punishment for a former PM would be a winning master stroke.