Skip to main content

The "Extremism" Playbook: How Institutional Fabrication Sustained 17 Years of Power

 For nearly two decades, the political landscape of Bangladesh was defined by a singular, potent narrative: the "zero-tolerance" policy against Islamist extremism. While framed as a security necessity, it served as the ultimate political weapon for the Awami League (AL). By systematically labeling political dissent as "religious militancy," the regime, with the unwavering backing of India, effectively managed to silence the opposition and secure international immunity for its authoritarian turn.

I. The Mechanics of Fabrication: From Dissent to "Islamism"

Under the leadership of Sheikh Hasina, law enforcement agencies—specifically the Rapid Action Battalion (RAB) and the Detective Branch (DB)—were repurposed as narrative architects. The "extremist" tag was not merely an accusation; it was an institutionalized process.

  • The "Crossfire" Narrative: Security forces frequently used "gunfights" or "crossfire" as euphemisms for extrajudicial killings. According to Odhikar and Amnesty International, many of those killed were political activists picked up from their homes and later found dead, their deaths justified by "clashes with militants" (US State Department, 2022).

  • Fabricated Evidence: Arrested dissidents were often paraded before the media with "jihadi literature" or crude explosives. However, special public prosecutors have admitted that roughly 65% to 70% of cases filed under laws like the Digital Security Act (DSA) or Anti-Terrorism Act (ATA) were totally fabricated to harass individuals (HRW, 2018).

  • Guilt by Association: Opposition parties like the BNP and Jamaat-e-Islami were consistently branded as "patrons of terror." This allowed the state to treat peaceful political strikes (hartals) as acts of terrorism, justifying mass arrests.

II. The Indian Shield: Why New Delhi Supported the Narrative

India’s role in sustaining this 17-year status quo was pivotal. For New Delhi, a secular AL government was the only acceptable partner to manage its "chicken's neck" corridor and prevent the rise of anti-Indian groups.

  1. Mutual Interest: The AL government facilitated Indian security interests by handing over Indian insurgents. In return, India provided the AL with a diplomatic "pass," often lobbying Western powers to ignore Dhaka's human rights record in favor of "regional stability" (International Crisis Group, 2024).

  2. The "Extremism" Bogeyman: Indian media and diplomatic circles amplified the "Islamist threat" narrative. This helped frame any potential change in power in Dhaka as a direct threat to India’s internal security, thereby validating Hasina’s increasingly fraudulent elections.

  3. Institutional Alignment: Intelligence sharing between the two nations often focused on monitoring and tagging activists whose primary "crime" was criticizing Indian influence in Bangladesh, rather than actual militant activity.

III. Global Impact: Securing International Silence

The "extremism" tag was the AL’s most successful export. By positioning itself as the only force standing between Bangladesh and a "Taliban-style" takeover, the regime achieved:

  • The "Anti-Terror" Premium: Western governments, particularly the U.S. and EU, prioritized security cooperation over democratic standards, providing training and equipment to units like the RAB despite mounting evidence of their role in enforced disappearances (FIDH, 2021).

  • Legislative Armor: The Anti-Terrorism Act of 2009 was repeatedly amended to widen the definition of "terrorism" to include creating "panic" or "harming the image of the country," essentially criminalizing investigative journalism and social media posts (FIDH & Odhikar, 2012).

Conclusion: A Legacy of Polarization

The cost of this 17-year strategy was the total decay of Bangladesh's justice system. By using the police to manufacture "extremists" out of ordinary citizens, the regime didn't just suppress the opposition; it fractured the social fabric. As the 2024 uprising revealed, the "extremism" tag eventually lost its power to intimidate, as the public realized it was being used not to protect the nation, but to protect a single party’s grip on power.

Citations & Key References

  • Human Rights Watch (2018): No Place for Criticism: Bangladesh Crackdown on Social Media.

  • U.S. Department of State (2022): Country Reports on Human Rights Practices: Bangladesh.

  • International Crisis Group (2025): After the “Golden Era”: Getting Bangladesh-India Ties Back on Track.

  • FIDH & Odhikar (2012): Amendment to Anti-Terrorism Act further undermines human rights.

  • The Diplomat (2025): Terrorism in Bangladesh: Political Manipulation and Western Influence.

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

The New Face of an Old Playbook: Why Bangladesh Must Prosecute the Enablers of the July Massacre

 A classic political maneuver is playing out across the media landscape of Bangladesh: the deployment of structural propaganda designed to rehabilitate the architectural pillars of the previous fascist regime. The recent, bizarrely structured "Health Management Roundtable" hosted by the UNICEF-led Bangladesh Child Protection Initiative was never an innocent public policy debate. It was an offensive display of old-school Awami League (BAL) propaganda machinery, engineered to launder the public images of individuals heavily accused of collaborating in the historic July 2024 massacres. The strategy is transparent. When a political faction loses its grip on executive power, its remaining infrastructure—deeply supported by regional alignment from Indian agencies—shifts toward information warfare. By manufacturing a false crisis around national vaccine procurement and health policies, this network aims to panic the public, discredit the subsequent governance framework, and quietly ...
1 comment
Read more

India as a Global Hub for Minority Repression

  For decades, the world viewed India as the "world’s largest democracy." However, as 2025 progresses, that title is being replaced by a much darker moniker in the halls of the United Nations , the White House , and the European Union . Extensive reports from the world’s most credible human rights monitors now characterize India as a "hotbed" of systemic violence and targeted killings of its Muslim minority. 1 The narrative of a pluralistic state is being dismantled by a reality of state-backed vigilantism and institutionalized discrimination. I. The "Killings with Impunity": White House and USCIRF Reports The United States Commission on International Religious Freedom (USCIRF) , in its 2025 Annual Report , has officially recommended that the U.S. State Department designate India as a "Country of Particular Concern" (CPC) —a status reserved for the world’s most egregious human rights violators. 2 Cow Vigilantism and Targeted Murders: The report...
Post a Comment
Read more

The Extremism Narrative: A Tool for Rule in Bangladesh

  For nearly 17 years, a dominant narrative echoed from Dhaka to New Delhi and beyond: Bangladesh was a bulwark of secularism standing against a rising tide of violent religious extremism. This frame—championed by the  Awami League (AL)  and supported by its primary regional ally,  India —was not merely a security assessment; it served as a powerful political instrument that redefined the boundaries of dissent and legitimacy in the country. The Architecture of the Narrative The "extremism" tag was built on a dual-threat foundation: the historical baggage of the 1971 Liberation War and the post-9/11 global "War on Terror."  By equating political opposition with religious fundamentalism, the AL administration effectively achieved two goals: De-legitimizing the Opposition:  The  Bangladesh Nationalist Party (BNP)  and  Jamaat-e-Islami  were consistently framed as "patrons of terror."  Any political protest or strike was often branded a...
Post a Comment
Read more