Sheikh Hasina’s tenure as Prime Minister of Bangladesh has been a precarious balancing act, navigating domestic challenges while under intense international scrutiny. Her controversial decision in January 2023 at the inauguration of the new Padma Bridge across the Ganges to re-target Nobel laureate Mohammad Yunus—a figure deeply respected in the West, particularly in the United States—ignited widespread controversy and raised critical questions about her political strategy.
Yunus, who enjoys strong connections within American power circles, especially with Hillary and Bill Clinton - having received the United States Presidential Medal of Freedom in 2009 and the Congressional Gold Medal in 2010 – became the focal point of an international outcry that Hasina could ill afford. Following Hasina’s downfall, Yunus has now ascended to the role of chief advisor in Bangladesh’s interim government.
Hasina’s bold moves against Yunus coincided with her broader campaign to prosecute leaders of Jamaat-e-Islami for war crimes committed during Bangladesh’s 1971 War of Liberation. These trials, aimed at addressing historical grievances and reinforcing the government’s stance against religious extremism, have been a centrepiece of her leadership. However, her decision to simultaneously confront Yunus proved to be a critical miscalculation, overlapping with an already contentious political agenda.
The backlash from Yunus’s powerful allies in the United States only added fuel to an already volatile situation. Jamaat-affiliated lobbyists, who had long opposed the war crimes trials, found common cause with Yunus’s supporters, creating an unexpected alliance that intensified international pressure on Hasina. This convergence of interests between Yunus and Jamaat sympathisers in the U.S. complicated Hasina's domestic and foreign policy landscape, forcing her to confront opposition on multiple fronts.
The situation escalated when high-profile American figures, including former U.S. President Barack Obama and Hollywood actor George Clooney, publicly advocated for Yunus. Further complicating matters, as per multiple reports, it appears that the U.S. Ambassador to Bangladesh and other U.S. officials got involved in the electoral process leading up to the January 2024 elections.
This situation and the involvement underscored Yunus’s global influence and the substantial diplomatic support behind him, amplifying the international pressure on Hasina. For Yunus’s supporters, these interventions were part of a broader effort to shield him from what they perceived as a politically motivated campaign of persecution, further straining U.S.-Bangladesh relations.
Despite mounting pressure, Sheikh Hasina remained resolute, displaying her characteristic defiance even as the spectre of U.S.-led regime change loomed large – a large body of information and statements from various sources coincide on this matter.
Many believe that without support from New Delhi, her regime would have collapsed much sooner. Her decision to press forward with contentious policies, despite the risk of further isolation, highlighted her determination to maintain control at any cost. This was starkly evident during the recent Student Quota Movement, which was the spark that set off the protests and violence. The government’s heavy-handed response—reportedly resulting in over 600 deaths, according to the United Nations—severely damaged her domestic standing and fuelled widespread discontent. The brutal crackdown on students not only underscored the dangers of Hasina’s confrontational approach but also weakened her position both at home and abroad, paving the way for her eventual downfall.
Economist Jeffrey Sachs, writing in Common Dreams, added another layer to the narrative by drawing parallels between Hasina’s predicament and the broader pattern of U.S. influence in South Asia. Sachs suggested that Hasina’s hardline tactics were, in part, a response to the challenges of preserving national sovereignty in a region where U.S. geopolitical interests dictate political outcomes. Sachs’ said, “The very strong evidence of the U.S. role in toppling the government of Imran Khan in Pakistan raises the likelihood that something similar may have occurred in Bangladesh.” His analysis posited that Hasina's aggressive stance was a calculated effort to resist external pressures, though it ultimately contributed to her undoing.
Sachs has called for a United Nations investigation into the alleged roles of the United States in coups – regime change operations – in Pakistan and Bangladesh, which appear to be the case, according to multiple observers. It is further known that Indian security services and the national security community believe Washington’s trip wires for regime change were used. However, there is little in the way of hard evidence.
What’s more, Indian strategic thinker Brahma Chellaney further complicated the picture by highlighting the political instability surrounding Hasina's government as a factor in her eventual ousting. Writing in The Hill, Chellaney suggested that the U.S.’s historical preference for military-backed regimes in Bangladesh might have influenced recent events, though official denials from the White House and U.S. State Department have done little to dispel suspicions of external U.S. involvement. Chellaney said, “with a U.S.-friendly interim administration having replaced the Hasina government, which the Biden administration openly targeted over democratic backsliding, Washington has little reason to impose coup-related aid restrictions on Bangladesh.” A subtle nod to Washington’s approval of developments in Dhaka. These allegations, while contentious, lend credence to Sheikh Hasina’s public warnings of a potential regime change orchestrated from abroad.
In conclusion, Sheikh Hasina’s tenure, as Bangladesh recovered from the deep trauma and destruction of the War of Independence in 1971 and the murder of Sheikh Mujibur Rahman, president of Bangladesh and his family in 1975, has been defined by a series of high-stakes gambles, each fraught with the potential for significant domestic and international fallout. Her simultaneous confrontations—targeting Mohammad Yunus, prosecuting Jamaat-e-Islami leaders, and brutally cracking down on student protests—illustrate the intricate and perilous nature of her leadership in Bangladesh.
The convergence of U.S.-based Jamaat lobbyists, such as Cassidy & Associates and Yunus’s powerful allies in Washington DC and Hollywood, coupled with the interventions of influential American figures, exemplifies the immense international pressures Hasina faced. While figures like Jeffrey Sachs and Brahma Chellaney argue that Hasina’s downfall was the result of a broader U.S. strategy in the region, it was ultimately the fervent protests of Bangladesh’s youth that sealed her fate.
As the dust settles, the emergence of a new revolutionary interim administration will determine the future course of Bangladesh. The global community must recognise the importance of supporting Bangladesh in its quest for stability, justice, and progress, acknowledging that the aspirations of its people resonate far beyond its borders. In this complex geopolitical contest, it seems that Yunus—a master of soft power—may indeed have had the last laugh.
Kommentarer