DESPITE the initial optimism following the fall of the fascist regime, a moment many believed would usher in a new political culture in Bangladesh, a troubling pattern of misinformation and disinformation, hypocrisy and deception has re-emerged that now permeates the nation’s political discourse. Certain actors have positioned themselves as authentic nationalists of the state, yet their actions reveal a more cynical calculus: the strategic manipulation of public sentiment through demagoguery and the weaponisation of selective outrage to undermine political rivals. What has unfolded is not the integrity of democratic principles, but calculated opportunism cloaked in the lofty rhetoric of moral righteousness.
A recent report by Reuters revealed that Jamaat amir had held a meeting with Indian diplomats. It is important to acknowledge upfront that meetings between political leaders and foreign diplomats are not unusual. In any democratic political system, such engagements are routine and widely accepted. The problem, however, arises when this otherwise normal practice is selectively weaponised to attack rival political parties. Notably, Jamaat amir did not disclose the meeting voluntarily. It was only after Reuters reported the interaction and asked direct questions to Jamaat amir that he acknowledged meeting Indian diplomats. Surprisingly, voices that are otherwise highly vocal on political developments responded with conspicuous silence. Instead of asking why the meeting was kept secret for so long or why it became public only after the recent visit of India’s foreign minister, some chose to amplify the line that ‘he disclosed it himself,’ framing it as an act of transparency. This selective reaction exposes the deeper hypocrisy stymieing the development of a healthy political culture in Bangladesh. If another political party had held an identical meeting, as they have in the past, would these same voices and social-media activists have remained silent? Experience suggests otherwise. In such cases, social media would likely erupt with accusations of betrayal, foreign dependency and threats to sovereignty.
Another manifestation of this hypocrisy surfaced around the illness and death of former prime minister Begum Khaleda Zia. Specifically, unverified social-media claims alleged that her ICU stay had been politically timed, including coinciding with BNP chairman Tarique Rahman’s return. In reporting published on December 30, 2025, the Daily Inquilab rejected such narratives as baseless and medically implausible, emphasising that ICU decisions are made on clinical grounds, not political considerations. The spread of misinformation, un-Islamic speculative narratives and emotionally charged distortions crossed the line from political disagreement into inhumanity. For many observers, these actions amounted to an invasion of personal dignity at a moment that demanded restraint, empathy and responsibility. Instead, political calculation once again appeared to override basic decency.
Another reality has also become increasingly evident. Some within the same circles now display an exaggerated, almost performative fondness for Begum Khaleda Zia, at times portraying her as a detached ‘national symbol,’ separated from her party and political legacy. Critics argue that this serves a political purpose: to weaken institutional continuity. Paradoxically, these same actors often question her political judgement, particularly regarding leadership succession by advancing a range of unfounded conspiracy theories, including claims circulated by certain online actors that some leaders personally chosen by Begum Khaleda Zia were serving the interest of a neighbouring country. This contradiction represents yet another layer of double standards. History bears witness that similar attempts were once made to detach president Ziaur Rahman from his party legacy when Khaleda Zia was actively leading it.
Bangladesh’s recent political climate reminds us of the old saying, ‘More Catholic than the Pope,’ referring to a tendency to present oneself as more nationalist than the very forces that historically embodied those positions, often at significant political and personal cost. A similar expression exists in French political history: ‘More Royalist than the King.’ History shows that such performative loyalty often destabilises political balance, deepens social divisions and weakens rational discourse.
The return of Tarique Rahman after 17 years in exile marked the beginning of a new political chapter in Bangladesh. Yet, even this historic moment has been subjected to efforts aimed at diminishing its significance and undermining it politically. For example, a claim made by Barrister ASM Shahriar Kabir, a Jamaat leader, in an interview on a Pakistani television channel alleged that Tarique Rahman had struck a deal with India to facilitate his return from exile, citing a report from Anandabazar Patrika. However, a fact-check published on January 8 by Rumour Scanner found that Anandabazar Patrika carried no such report and that the claim was unfounded. These attempts are not only unjustified but also run counter to the spirit of post-uprising national reconciliation and the ideals of the July movement. Criticism has its place, but it must be principled, constructive and policy-driven. That is the hallmark of responsible political culture.
This dynamic is particularly troubling in the light of the expectations surrounding the July movement. Those who were injured or lost their lives envisioned a ‘Bangladesh 2.0’ grounded in truth, positive politics and merit-based leadership, not in smear campaigns or unfounded character assassination. Yet, within days of August 5, 2024, that promise began to erode. A wave of rhetoric from certain Jamaat-aligned voices and student activists has drawn criticism for undermining the unity the moment demanded. For example, post-movement rhetoric and behaviour, including offensive language and dehumanising slogans such as ‘Tiner chale kauya…’ and ‘Ek, dui, tin, char…’ from certain quarters on social media and the streets have clashed with the spirit of national unity that our young generation now yearns for. Slogans such as ‘Ek saper dui bish…’ were repeatedly used in rallies and online discourse to portray all mainstream parties as indistinguishable evils. Chants like ‘Ek jalimke sarai arek jalim….’ and ‘Ek fasistke sarai arek fasist…’ followed, pre-emptively discrediting any democratic alternative before it could even be tested after August 5. It is important to note that much of the rhetoric from the other side, including remarks such as references to something ‘flowing to the Bay of Bengal’ appears to have emerged in response to actions that were perceived by some as provocative or offensive.
With regard to allegations of post-August 5 extortion at the grassroots level, reports indicate that more than 7,000 activists were rightly expelled by the Bangladesh Nationalist Party before investigations were concluded. At the same time, it should be noted that allegations of extortion and corruption related to the appointment of deputy commissioners and other senior government officials were raised, yet no comparable actions were visibly pursued by the authorities or against those allegedly implicated. In cases where allegations of extortion or land grabbing were examined, available reports suggest that while some claims were substantiated, many others were either overstated or reflected disputes involving the recovery of property or businesses said to have been seized during the fascist regime. Although certain measures were taken by some political parties, including immediate expulsions, there has been no evidence of corresponding actions by the interim government or the law enforcement agencies. This has contributed to perceptions among sections of the public that some allegations may have been amplified to delegitimise traditional political parties and/or nationalist political forces ahead of forthcoming elections, particularly in the political vacuum following the collapse of the fascist regime.
Political disagreement, while inevitable in a democracy, should not lead to baseless accusations and mudslinging. Criticism must be grounded in facts, fairness, and responsibility. This has reignited debate over the July charter. While its emphasis on structural reform is welcome, many believe its preamble should have more clearly affirmed political civility, pluralism and good-faith engagement. Sustainable reform requires more than policy checklists; it depends equally on peaceful coexistence, mutual respect and a culture of political decency. Without these, none of the proposed reforms, however ambitious, can endure irrespective of the level of overwhelming public support they may receive in the upcoming referendum. Laws and institutions alone cannot sustain reform; political culture must do the rest.
Despite the failure of some of our current political actors to rise to the occasion, there remains cause for hope: the Bangladeshi people are not easily deceived. Decades of political struggle and hard-won democratic experience have cultivated an electorate both mature and politically astute. They grasp what many politicians do not seem to understand that governance requires responsibility as much as passion, that genuine leadership honours institutions and principles rather than merely commanding personal loyalty.
People’s silence should not be mistaken for blind loyalty. Time and again, history has shown that this silence eventually breaks, sometimes in roaring dissent, as was the case in July 2024, sometimes in the quiet resolve of the voting booth, as was the case in the February 1991 general elections. That people’s judgment, when rendered, stands as democracy’s most powerful and enduring truth. The upcoming election will reveal once more whether this truth prevails.
Wahid Shams is a licensed environmental engineer who now lives in the United States.