Control Without Occupation: The Unseen Reality of Bangladesh
The global imagination easily recognizes places like Kashmir because its condition is visible soldiers on the streets, curfews, checkpoints, and emergency laws that make control unmistakable. Bangladesh, however, has remained far less understood. This is not merely an oversight; it reflects the different ways power can operate. Where Kashmir is governed through overt military presence, Bangladesh-particularly until August 5, 2024-was shaped by more subtle instruments: political alignment, economic dependence, controlled dissent, and an enforced culture of silence. What is often framed as partnership from India can, from within Bangladesh, appear as a form of structural dominance. Years of observation abroad reinforce how perception is shaped. In places like Türkiye, discussions in public spaces-tea stalls, mosques, and community gatherings-frequently revolve around conflicts such as Kashmir or Gaza. These are contexts where suffering is easily identifiable: occupation, blockades, refugee camps. When Bangladesh enters such conversations, it is often through simple questions: Is it a Muslim country? Do its people live in peace?
The answers complicate expectations. Bangladesh is overwhelmingly Muslim-over 90% of its population-yet the idea of repression within such a demographic context is difficult for many to grasp. This is because repression in Bangladesh has not followed conventional patterns of majority versus minority conflict. Instead, it has emerged through state structures that have, at times, used nationalism, secular frameworks, and regional alignments to regulate political expression- particularly when that expression challenges external influence or domestic authority.
Since its independence in 1971, Bangladesh has existed as a sovereign state in formal terms. In practice, however, questions of autonomy have often been intertwined with regional dynamics. Bilateral relations with India are frequently described as cooperative, yet the nature of this cooperation has varied depending on political leadership in Dhaka. Periods of close alignment have often coincided with tighter internal controls, where dissenting voices, especially those critical of regional power asymmetries-have been framed as threats to stability.
One of the starkest indicators of this tension lies along the Bangladesh–India border. Despite the absence of declared war, it has been among the most lethal frontiers for civilians. Various human rights reports estimate that between 1972 and 2026, nearly 2,000 Bangladeshi civilians were killed by India’s Border Security Force (BSF), averaging around 30–35 deaths annually. These incidents, often justified under border security operations, have rarely resulted in sustained legal accountability or major diplomatic consequences. The persistence of such violence raises difficult questions about how asymmetry operates even within so-called friendly relations.
Over the past 15 years, internal political dynamics in Bangladesh have further intensified scrutiny. Opposition figures, journalists, and activists have faced varying degrees of repression. The killing of university student Abrar Fahad in 2019, following his criticism of a water-sharing agreement, became a symbol of how dissent could be treated as a security threat. Cases such as the disappearance of political figures like Ilias Ali, the repeated imprisonment of journalist Mahmudur Rahman, and the legal and political marginalization of parties such as Bangladesh Jamaat-e-Islami illustrate a broader pattern where political competition often blurred into systemic exclusion.
These developments unfolded alongside regional events that influenced public sentiment. India’s Citizenship Amendment Act (CAA) in 2019 triggered concern across South Asia, including Bangladesh, where it was perceived not only as a domestic policy but as part of a wider regional narrative affecting Muslim populations. Protests in Bangladesh during subsequent high-profile visits, including that of Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi in 2021, led to violent clashes, resulting in multiple fatalities. Such events reinforced the perception among segments of the population that dissent on sensitive regional issues carried significant risks.
Following the political upheaval of July 2024 and the departure of former Prime Minister Sheikh Hasina, Bangladesh entered a new phase marked by both uncertainty and competing narratives. International media coverage often framed the transition in terms of instability or ideological shifts, sometimes portraying interim leadership under Muhammad Yunus as vulnerable to extremist influence. Domestically, however, these portrayals did not always align with observed realities. Reports from within the country indicated a complex environment where fears of widespread minority persecution were not substantiated in policy or systematic violence.
This divergence highlights the role of narrative in shaping geopolitical perception. Political figures who resisted external influence, such as Khaleda Zia, experienced prolonged legal and Political Pressure, reinforcing the idea that domestic institutions could reflect broader geopolitical alignments. At the same time, the targeting of younger voice-activists and emerging leaders suggested that control extended beyond established Political structures to the shaping of future discourse.
The strategic environment has also evolved. Bangladesh’s recent efforts to diversify its defense partnerships-including engagements with countries such as Türkiye and China-have drawn attention from regional observers. Such moves indicate a shift toward greater strategic autonomy, but they also expose underlying assumptions about the limits of that autonomy within existing regional relationships.
In this context, describing Bangladesh as analogous to Kashmir is not about equating conditions but about identifying a shared structural logic: control exercised without formal occupation, influence sustained without overt domination. Where Kashmir is governed through visible force, Bangladesh has, at times, been shaped by more diffuse mechanisms-legal frameworks, Political alignment, and narrative control.
This distinction also explains why Bangladesh remains less visible in global discourse. Overt repression is easier to identify; subtle Restraint embedded in diplomacy and governance is harder to define.
Recent political developments suggest that this dynamic is being reassessed domestically. The general election held on February 12, 2026-reportedly involving nearly 20 million first-time voters—reflected not just a routine democratic process but a generational shift. For many young citizens, the election was not merely about changing a government; it was about defining sovereignty, identity, and the limits of external influence.
Public expressions-particularly among the youth-have increasingly reflected these concerns. Slogans emphasizing autonomy, people’s power, and the idea of freedom are manifestations of this broader sentiment. These are not just emotional outbursts, but compressed expressions of long-standing experiences, silence, and political realities.
In this context, critical attitudes toward India should not be viewed simply as opposition. Rather, they represent a response to a broader structure-a judgment on a system shaped over many years through political, economic, and strategic dynamics.
Therefore, Bangladesh’s future will not depend solely on current political alignments, but on these deeper experiences-formed through blood, silence, and memory-which will shape the statecraft and policymaking of the next generation.
The views expressed in this article are solely those of the author and do not necessarily reflect the views of The Opinion Desk.
