Currently, Bangladesh is at political crossroads given the contestation between Interim Government Advisor Yunus versus military generals. This rift is marked by decisions proposed by Yunus; whereas on the other hand, General Waker believes that Yunus is crossing the redlines by taking such decisions.
The recent military durbar, which was convened by General Waker-uz-Zaman, sent the shockwaves given the reminding Yunus the redlines. These actions have underscored the growing rift between the interim civilian government led by Advisor Muhammad Yunus and the country’s powerful military establishment led by General Waker. Thus, the future of Bangladesh’s democracy—and indeed its political stability—now hangs in the balance.
General Waker has played an instrumental role in the interim government. Following Prime Minister Sheikh Hasina’s resignation and exile given the Student-People’s uprising in Bangladesh, General Waker-uz-Zaman announced the formation of an interim government, on August 5, 2024, with the backing of political parties and student’s protesters. He also assured the people that he would remain committed to investigate the violence against student protesters along with facilitation of the power transition.
Yunus, who was appointed as advisor of the interim government, has taken oath on 8 August. The oath ceremony has been witnessed by political leaders, civil society, generals, and diplomats. The interim cabinet was comprised of “advisers” rather than ministers. The cabinet included the student leaders Nahid Islam and Asif Mahmud, who were instrumental in the quota reform the organization of non-cooperation movements. This protest led to PM Hasina’s ouster.
Initially, the relations between Yunus and General Waker have been remained on the even keel. However, in the recent past, the relations between both started worsening given some mandate, military governance and foreign policy issues.
The Military Durbar was convened by General Waker on 21 May, 2025, highlighted a wider rift between Yunus and the military. General Waker had firmly rejected Yunus’s proposal to establish a humanitarian corridor from Chittagong to Myanmar’s Rakhine state. He warned the interim government that it could entangle Bangladesh in Myanmar’s internal conflict which further complicate the internal environment of the country. He explicitly argued that such critical decisions should be made by an elected government, not by the interim government. He also demanded that national elections should be held till December 2025 by arguing that only a democratically elected government of the country has the right to make key decisions for foreign and defense policies. Concomitantly, he expressed concern over the rising violence and lawlessness in the country. He exhorted Yunus that the military is not going to tolerate such lawlessness/violence, rather would act if needed to restore the public order. He reaffirmed the unity and autonomy of the military, claiming that the army should not be side-lined in decision making related to national security and sovereignty.
Yunus has been facing allegations of snooping in the military affairs, particularly with attempts to promote loyalist officers such as Lt. Gen. Kamrul Hassan. Military believed that this promotion is in violation of established seniority. General Waker expressed concern over this politicization of military governance, that would undermine military unity and provokes institutional resistance.
At the same, he cautioned that such actions could undermine the integrity of the armed forces.
The July Declaration is the another rationale for rift between Yunus and General Waker. The declaration calls for extending the interim government’s mandate to facilitate political reforms along with institutional restructuring, and the preparation of free and fair elections. Although, declaration seems noble in its intent, but the same has been sternly opposed by the General Waker. He is perceiving it as a veiled attempt to perpetuate an unelected regime over the people of the country. It is said that for the army, the declaration is not for institutional reforms, rather is dangerous jurisdictional overreach, which can threaten the country’s democratic foundations. These moves have intensified mutual mistrust between the two pillars of the current regime. It had widened the gulf between the military leadership and the interim government.
Bangladesh’s Political Future
Given this rift, first, it is crystal clear that the military is going to call the shots, a far more assertive role than it has in recent past. General Waker’s durbar was not just a show of strength, but it is also astern message that the army will not tolerate indefinite regime without electoral legitimacy. It may intervene if the Yunus regime fails to meet the set mandate. There is prospect of a “soft intervention” looms large over the interim regime. Although, it is said that military under the leadership of General Waker refrains from the outright takeover, but can exert pressure to shape the political outcomes.
Secondly, the interim government under Yunus has been facing an existential dilemma. If it is pushing too hard for extension for its term, it could invoke risks, provoking a military crackdown and further eroding its legitimacy and going to lose legitimacy in the country among the stakeholders. Concomitantly, if the same going by the military demands for early elections without introducing the necessary reforms, that could lead to instability and questioning the quality and fairness of the democratic processes. The military may ask the President to proclaim a state of emergency, that could further weaken the civilian control over the government.
In this volatile situation, the best hope for Bangladesh lies in dialogue and compromise among the stakeholders. All stakeholders such as political leaders, the military commanders, and civil society people must come on one platform and extend collaboration to uphold the constitutional norms/morality, ensuring the timely free and fair elections. The Former PM Sheikh Hasina criticized the current regime for coming under external pressure. She advised to resist the external pressures that undermine national interests. At last, it is argued that Bangladesh’s future could sustain as a stable democracy but that depends on navigating this current multilateral crisis with wisdom and democratic traditions.
At last, one can argue that Bangladesh stands at a critical juncture. It can reclaim its democratic trajectory going by the framework of inclusive dialogue, institutional compromise, and timely elections. Or it risks descending into prolonged military oversight/regime, erosion of constitutional legitimacy/morality, reminiscent of Pakistan/Egypt’s praetorian politics or Thailand’s cycle of coups. The road ahead for Bangladesh must not come ultimatums in military durbars, rather it should emerge by the people’s mandate. This is civilian rule may be guarded through transparency and unwavering commitment to the democratic principles.
About the authors:
- Prof Bawa Singh, Department of South and Central Asian Studies, Central University of Punjab, Bathinda (India).
- Jay Koche (Ph. D. Scholar), Department of South and Central Asian Studies, Central University of Punjab, Bathinda (India).