Why Bangladesh Should Be Worried: Mud-Slinging, Ideological Shift, Democratic Erosion, 1971 Revisionism, and the Rise of Pseudo-Religio-Political Forces

Introduction

Bangladesh has come a long way since 1971: liberated from Pakistan, founded on ideals including secularism (as part of the original constitution, though qualified through later amendments), democracy, nationalism, socialism, and Bengali culture. Its successes in reducing poverty, achieving strong export growth, expanding education and health services, and more have been notable. But recently, a combination of political polarisation, ideological contestation, weakening institutions, and revived narratives of 1971 revisionism, coupled with religious-political mobilisation, has raised serious concerns among citizens, activists, and scholars. These trends point toward democratic backsliding, harassment of dissent, erosion of secular and nationalist legacies, and the possible ascendancy of forces less respectful of Bangladesh’s founding commitments.

This essay argues that people of Bangladesh ought to be alarmed because these trends are not just rhetoric but have a tangible impact: institutions, civic space, social cohesion, pluralism, and identity risk being transformed. We examine what is happening (mud-slinging, ideological shifts, threats to democracy, anti-1971 propaganda, rise of religious/pseudo-religio-political forces), why these matter, what the consequences may be, and what might be done.

Mud-Slinging and Polarisation

“Political mud-slinging” refers to character attacks, defamation, pervasive negative campaigning, accusations without evidence, echo chambers, smear tactics, insults, and other similar tactics. In Bangladesh, in recent years, mud-slinging has become a dominant feature of political discourse. Senior figures—both ruling party and opposition—have engaged in vituperative language, personal attacks, character assassination, and frequent negative framing. Some recent examples include warnings by the Army Chief that ongoing mud-slinging and bickering threaten national independence and unity. bdnews24.com

Why is mud-slinging dangerous?

It erodes trust. When politics is reduced to insults and rumours, people begin to distrust not just politicians but political institutions, the media, and even fellow citizens.
It delegitimises debate. Instead of reasoned argument, evidence, policy discussion, and public interest, much debate becomes reactive, defensive, and based on symbolic gestures rather than substance.
It increases social polarisation. Political lines become identity lines, loyalties more tribal than civic. Those who disagree become “the enemy.” That posture makes compromise harder.
It lowers the cost of authoritarian moves. When political rhetoric is charged, fear of retaliation or extreme speech becomes normalised, which can justify harsher crackdowns under the guise of restoring order.

In Bangladesh, the stream of mud-slinging has gone beyond just opposition vs government. It has expanded into cultural, ideological, and identity domains: questioning people’s secular/religious credentials, loyalty to the 1971 liberation, nationalism, asking whether someone correctly supports or opposes certain historical narratives, etc. These shifts often serve to mark “in-groups” and “out-groups,” which is dangerous for social cohesion in a diverse country.

Ideological Shifts: From Secular Roots to Religious/Revisionist Narratives

Bangladesh’s early years emphasised secularism and Bengali identity, with a strong focus on the Liberation War of 1971, the recognition of geo-ethnic minority rights, linguistic nationalism, and a commitment to non-communal politics. Over decades, however, constitutional amendments, political shifts, and alliances have gradually altered that equilibrium.

Some observable ideological shifts include:

Increased politicisation of religion: Religious identity is resurging as a political marker, not simply as a private belief, but as a public identity. Parties or movements use religious language and symbolism more explicitly, sometimes appealing to conservative religious sentiments. This also includes attempts to marginalise “secular” voices, liberal critics, and minority groups. (E.g. discussions in media and academia warning about “Islamization” of politics, political talking points about religion that target specific groups) ucanews.com
Revisions or reinterpretation of the history of 1971: repudiation or downplaying of particular narratives of the Liberation War; attacks or criticism of those associated with secularism or with certain political parties for their role or position in 1971; attempts to relativise the role of some actors or vilify those who prioritised secular or liberal values. This type of “anti-1971 propaganda” can manifest in school textbooks, political speeches, and media commentary.
Shrinking of democratic norms: what once were seen as democratic mechanisms or pluralism are being pushed aside. Elections with boycotts, allegations of rigging, massive arrests of opposition or student protestors, suppression of dissent, and legal or administrative measures that reduce space for opposition or civil society. Examples include protests over quotas, student uprisings, and crackdowns on protests. The “July Revolution” / “Monsoon Uprising” in 2024 illustrated both the demand for rights/democratic participation and the harsh response. Wikipedia+2Wikipedia+2
Weakening of institutional independence: judiciary, civil service, election commission, oversight bodies being influenced by political considerations, under pressure, or rendered less able to act as a neutral check on power. The judiciary, for example, has been repeatedly flagged as lacking independence, being politicised in appointments, promotions, postings, or in court outcomes. GOV.UK+3New Age+3The Financial Express+3

These ideological shifts are often gradual but cumulative. They alter what is considered acceptable discourse, erode formerly foundational values, and shift power dynamics toward those who prefer religious or identity politics over secular nationalism, pluralism, or history-based commitments.

Democracy in Prison: Fear and Suppression

One of the most alarming trends is the increasing sense that democracy is being constrained—not just through bad policy but through suppression of civil liberties, shrinking space for opposition, interference in institutions, and co-optation of mechanisms of accountability. The people of Bangladesh have reasons to fear that democratic freedoms are increasingly symbolic rather than substantive.

Key areas of concern:

Electoral integrity and opposition suppression:
Elections have been subject to allegations of irregularities, boycotts, low turnout, violence, and manipulation. When major parties boycott elections, claiming unfairness or rigging, it erodes the legitimacy of the process. Arrests of opposition leaders, restrictions on party activity, and legal obstacles are increasingly reported. These undermine real choice and peaceful transition of power.
Freedom of expression under pressure:
Journalists, bloggers, writers, and activists who criticise government or political elites sometimes face detention, legal action, and intimidation. Media sometimes self-censor; online speech is monitored; dissent is framed as disloyal or traitorous. In such a climate, people fear speaking out.
Civil society under strain:
NGOs, community groups, and minority rights organisations are under pressure. Legal regulation, administrative harassment, funding challenges, or labelling of dissent as “anti-state” are used to limit activism. Citizens may fear that participation in protests, statements, or organising leads to personal risk.
Judicial intimidation and weak legal recourse:
As noted, the judiciary is sometimes seen as non-independent. Lower courts can be politicised, judges under pressure, and appointments/transfers handled by political authorities. Delays, corruption, backlog, and intimidation cause many people to fear that even if they attempt legal or constitutional recourse, they will not get fair treatment. justnewsbd.com+3GOV.UK+3New Age+3
Fear of ideological targeting:
Because the rhetoric is increasingly ideological (religious vs secular, “loyalty to 1971” vs “revisionist” views), those who hold minority opinions, secularist views, liberal values, or question dominant narratives may fear being labelled traitors, ‘undesirable’, or worse. That cultural intimidation flavours democratic space with fear.

Anti-1971 Propaganda and Revisionism

The Liberation War of 1971 is the foundational moment in Bangladesh’s national identity: independence from Pakistan, sacrifice of millions, widespread atrocities, and establishment of the sovereign Bangla state. Over decades, political parties and society have invested in remembering, commemorating, and institutionalising that history—in school curricula, national days, war crimes tribunals, etc.

But revisionism and anti-1971 propaganda have several worrying developments:

Relativisation or denial of war crimes: questioning or minimising the atrocities committed by collaborators or certain political actors. Sometimes the roles of individuals or parties are recast, sometimes public statements try to rehabilitate or soften criticisms of those previously condemned.
Political instrumentalisation: The narrative of 1971 is used as a political weapon: those aligned with certain parties are praised as patriots; opponents are attacked for being unloyal or revisionist. This binary undermines nuanced discourse, silences dissent, and instils fear in those who might critique aspects of the official historiography.
Textbook / cultural erasure or distortion: Any shifts in school curricula that omit certain events, downplay atrocities, or change the representation of what happened in 1971 risk generational ignorance, divisive memory politics, and loss of societal continuity. People who care about the truth, memory, and justice may feel their history is under threat.
Symbolic attacks on legacy: Physical sites, memorials, historical figures, or symbols of the Liberation War (e.g. the home of Sheikh Mujibur Rahman, certain memorials) become targets in political struggles. Destruction, defamation, or neglect of those symbols has psychological and cultural consequences. The destruction of the family home of Sheikh Hasina’s father, itself a heritage symbol, during protests, is one example. AP News

When revisionist narratives are accepted or allowed to proliferate, two things happen: first, the foundational consensus that binds Bangladesh together (sacrifice in 1971, secular nationalism, linguistic identity) is weakened; second, political actors who oppose secular/liberal history gain rhetorical power, which can lead to political legitimation of forces with agendas that might diverge sharply from those founding ideals.

Rise of Pseudo-Religio-Political Forces

Coupled with ideological and democratic erosion is the risk that forces combining religion and politics—sometimes radical, sometimes populist, often pseudo-religious or opportunistic—gain greater power or influence. The dangers are many:

Religio-political populism: Leaders or groups use religious sentiment to mobilise support, often painting enemies as impious or unreligious, or as threats to faith. This can quickly become a tool of division, exclusion, and even violence.
Targeting minorities: Religious minorities (Hindus, Buddhists, Christians, indigenous groups) already report incidents of harassment, discrimination, and violence. As religious identity becomes more partisan and politicised, these vulnerabilities increase. Reports of communal violence show that minorities often suffer disproportionately under weak oversight. Reddit
Erosion of secular legal norms: If religious law or sentiment begins to influence legal proceedings, public policy, or public funding beyond the norms of pluralism, secularism, and constitutional equality, it may shift the structures of governance in ways that marginalise dissent and minority beliefs.
Pseudo-religio-political actors exploiting social grievances, such as economic hardship, political alienation, youth unemployment, corruption, and grievances over elite capture, can be fertile ground for groups that offer simplified religious/political narratives. Such forces may promise justice, moral order, a return of “true values,” and may use that promise to gain power.
Potential for authoritarianism with religious legitimation: When political power is tied with religious identity or rhetoric, authoritarian moves may be justified as preserving moral order, protecting faith, or defending the nation from “internal enemies.” Oversight and dissent can be painted as threats to faith, treason, or heresy.

Given Bangladesh’s majority Muslim population, the weight of religious identity is always there, and the political potential of religious framing cannot be ignored. What we must watch, and what already gives cause for alarm, is how religious rhetoric is being used more explicitly in political conflict, how minorities are being portrayed, and whether democratic or secular credentials become suspect or dangerous.

Institutional Weakness and Loss of Checks and Balances

The risk posed by these ideological, rhetorical, and political trends is magnified where institutions meant to check abuse are weak, politicised, or compromised.

Judiciary – multiple reports and experts, including former justices, have pointed to the judiciary’s lack of genuine independence. Issues in appointments, transfers, promotions being influenced by government or political actors; delays; executive interference. Public trust declines. GOV.UK+3The Financial Express+3New Age+3
Civil Service and Bureaucracy – politicisation of administrative appointments (promotions/transfers based on loyalty rather than merit), possible vetting or ideological test, and sidelining dissenters. Such patterns harm service delivery and institutional integrity. themirrorasia.net
Freedom of Media and Civil Society – regulations, legal pressure, harassment, or financial constraints on independent media and civil society reduce the ability to monitor, critique, or mobilise. Without these, abuses go unchecked.
Electoral Bodies – the fairness of elections hinges on neutral electoral commissions, polling fairness, and redress of disputes. When parties believe outcomes are predetermined or that the legal or security apparatus is selective, legitimacy erodes.
Legal/Constitutional Reforms without Public Participation – when constitutional amendments or commissions are formed but do not involve broad consultation, or when reforms are pushed through parliament without adequate transparency, people may believe that changes serve elites rather than public interest.

All these weaken the shields against authoritarian drift or ideological takeover.

Why All This Should Worry Every Bangladeshi

Putting together the above threads: mud-slinging & polarisation, ideological revisionism, religious-political mobilisation, institutional erosion — these do not just make for unpleasant politics, but have serious stakes for individuals and society.

Loss of pluralism and erosion of identity: If the history of 1971 is rewritten or devalued, and secularist and liberal values are sidelined, younger generations may grow up with a distorted memory of the nation’s founding. Cultural identity, minority heritage, linguistic and religious diversity may be suppressed or marginalised.
Suppression of dissent and fear: Those who criticise, hold minority or unpopular viewpoints, or seek a secular/liberal society face the risk of retaliation. Fear of speech, fear of activism, false charges, imprisonment. This can lead to self-censorship, political apathy, and withdrawal from public life.
Governance failures occur when personnel, institutions, and courts prioritise ideology or loyalty over merit, resulting in public services that suffer—justice is delayed, access for the poor is weakened, and corruption spreads. Policies are more likely to be used for political ends rather than public welfare.
Social conflict and unrest: Polarisation can escalate into conflict. Minorities feel insecure; some people may feel excluded or disrespected. When people believe they have no constitutional or legal recourse, protest may become one of the few options—risking violence.
International isolation / reputational harm: Bangladesh has benefited from international goodwill for its development trajectory, but if democratic norms are perceived to be eroding, governments or donors may respond with criticism, conditionality, or sanctions. That may affect foreign investment, aid, and diplomatic relations.
Risk of authoritarian takeover: Mixed with religious rhetoric and legacy manipulation, political actors with majoritarian appeal could consolidate control, reduce checks, and rewrite rules of governance to entrench themselves. When institutions do not check power, the slide toward centralised, less accountable governance becomes possible.
Legal insecurity and rule of law collapse: Without impartial courts, equal application of law, protections for dissent, property, and minority rights, people cannot rely on legal recourse. Arbitrary detention, or laws used to punish dissidents, may increase.

Evidence: Recent Events in Bangladesh

To make these arguments concrete, here are several recent events, reports, or patterns that illustrate that the fears are not hypothetical.

Judicial Independence Concerns:
Former Justice Moinul Islam Chowdhury and others have noted that successive governments have neglected the judiciary. Though the judiciary was officially separated from executive functions in 2007, political influence still often overrides institutional independence, especially in promotions, postings, transfers. Lower courts are seen as influenced by executive pressure. New Age+3New Age+3GOV.UK+3
Mud-slinging and Political Hostility:
The Army Chief’s warning in early 2025 urged political parties to halt mud-slinging and verbal hostilities, stating these threaten sovereignty and national unity. bdnews24.com
Ideological and Religious Polarisation:
Commentary and reporting suggest that “demagogic politics” have pushed Islamization, that religious imagery, identity, and conservative religious politics are becoming more visible in political contests. Minorities allege neglect or targeted abuse. ucanews.com+1
Protests, Uprisings, and Responses:
The July 2024 student protests (quota reform movement) evolved into a mass uprising (sometimes called the July Revolution or Monsoon Uprising) over larger democratic grievances. The government’s response included arrests, use of force, and restrictions. This shows both citizen demand for rightful representation and the state’s willingness to suppress dissent. Wikipedia+2Wikipedia+2
Attacks on Symbols and Heritage of 1971:
The family home of former Prime Minister Sheikh Hasina’s father (Sheikh Mujibur Rahman), an icon of 1971 heritage, was attacked during protests. Critics see such actions not only as protests but as symbolic attempts to erase or damage the memory associated with the Liberation War. AP News
Minority Rights and Violence:
Minority groups report dates of violence, property attacks, arson, and harassment. According to reports, there were over 2,000 incidents of communal violence in a short span following the 2024 change in government. Allegations of state institutions failing to protect these groups are prominent. Reddit
Constitutional / Judicial Reform Efforts and Worries:
Commissions have proposed amendments to strengthen judicial independence, but there is also concern that reforms may be structured in ways that still allow executive influence, or even enable greater control by district magistrates or other politically influenced actors. Legal experts and associations have raised alarms. New Age+2Dhaka Tribune+2

Possible Drivers of These Trends

It helps to understand why these concerning trends are emerging. Several interacting drivers are likely:

Power consolidation incentives: Political actors (both governing and opposition) have strong incentives to concentrate control—to avoid checks, to ensure survival, to maintain patronage networks.
Polarisation and identity politics: When issues are framed in identity/religion terms, politics becomes zero-sum. This can generate ideological war: those on one side see the other not just as rivals but as threats to identity, faith, or national memory.
International and regional influences: Religious politics globally are resurgent; social media amplifies ideological movements. Additionally, global trends in authoritarianism and populism influence local politics. Additionally, external narratives, diaspora politics, and misinformation can accelerate revisionism or religious polarisation.
Weak accountability and oversight: When civil society, media, judiciary, election commissions, and oversight bodies are weak or compromised, then misuse of power, ideological manipulation, and suppression are easier.
Socioeconomic grievances: Poverty, inequality, unemployment, and lack of opportunity feed discontent. In such contexts, ideologies that promise moral order, religious coherence, or simplified solutions may appear attractive. Citizens frustrated with corruption or poor public services may accept or even support stronger authoritarian narratives in exchange for stability.
Generational shifts and digital media: Younger people, more connected via social media, face both new tools of political mobilisation and new tools of disinformation. Meme culture, symbolic gestures, and online networks can both empower dissent and spread polarising messages or revisionist histories.

Where the Slopes Are Slippery: Key Risk Areas

Some specific terrains are perilous, where small shifts or decisions could push Bangladesh further toward the feared outcomes.

Textbooks, curricula, memorial construction or destruction: Who writes history matters. If future generations are taught a version of 1971 that omits specific atrocities or glorifies particular actors while demonising others, then collective memory—and political identity—shifts.
Legal tools being used against dissenters: Use of anti-terror laws, defamation laws, public order laws, etc., in selective ways. When law enforcement, prosecutors, and police act in partisan ways, citizens fear using legal channels or fear criticism.
Judicial and bureaucratic appointments/transfers: If judges and civil servants must show ideological loyalty or religious credentials (real or perceived) to advance, then meritocracy erodes, and institutions tilt toward those aligned with the dominant ideology.
Symbolic suppression or targeting: Attacks on monuments, homes of independence heroes, remembrance events; use of symbols like the national flag, war memorials as tools of political conflict—these symbolic acts can both provoke and demoralise.
Media regulation, censorship, social media policing: If independent media are silenced, or regulation is used to punish critical voices, then public conversation becomes filtered, and dissenting or plural voices are marginalised.
Legislation and constitutional revision without oversight: Amendments to laws or the constitution that shift the balance of power (executive vs judiciary), reduce transparency, broaden executive power, restrict civil liberties—if passed without a broad consensus or oversight—can lock in changes that are hard to reverse.
Rise of radical religious or Islamist political actors: If they gain legitimacy—through electoral politics or extra-parliamentary mobilisation—they may push for laws or policies that privilege religiously conservative norms, curtail minority rights, limit secularism, or reshape public policy in line with religious doctrine rather than plural democratic values.

Counterarguments and Balance

It is important to note that these fears are not specific, and there are voices, movements, and structures pushing back.

Many citizens, civil society groups, and student movements have shown strong attachment to democratic values, to secularism, to the memory of 1971, and to inclusive identity. The protests of July 2024 are testimony to that. Wikipedia
Some legal or constitutional reform efforts are being proposed to strengthen institutional checks and balances, to enhance judicial independence, etc. These represent opportunities if implemented transparently and inclusively. New Age+1
Media and international scrutiny remain—it is harder to completely suppress dissent in the age of the internet, diaspora activism, and international human rights bodies.
Bangladesh’s political culture has always involved contestation; there are also cultural attachments to the Liberation War, secular traditions, and Bengali linguistic and cultural nationalism, which are resilient.

However, these countervailing forces are under strain. They can become overwhelmed if trends continue to accelerate unchecked.

What Should Bangladeshi People Do? What Must Be Done

Given the risks, what steps can citizens, civil society, political actors, and international partners take to mitigate the dangers?

Protecting historical memory actively
- Ensure school curricula are open, historically accurate, inclusive, and taught without partisan distortion.
- Support memorials, museums, and archives that document the Liberation War and its complexities.
- Encourage public education, oral histories, and community memory projects.
Defence of secular values and pluralism
- Civil society and citizens should continue to assert secular, inclusive values in public life: through arts, culture, education, and social media.
- Minority rights organisations require stronger legal protection; minorities need access to legal recourse and state protection.
Strengthening institutional independence
- Judicial reform: transparent appointment/promotion, protection from executive interference; ensuring lower courts have adequate resources; clearing the backlog; and providing adequate salaries and working conditions.
- Civil service reform: merit-based promotions, protection for civil servants from political reprisal.
Promoting free, impartial media and safe dissent
- Legal protections for journalists, bloggers, and activists; freedom of the press; ensuring laws are not weaponised.
- Use of digital platforms responsibly, with awareness of misinformation; activism both online and offline to assert democratic rights.
Legal/constitutional vigilance
- Monitor legislative or constitutional proposals for clauses that centralise power, reduce oversight, or erode civil liberties.
- Demand public participation, transparency, and broad debate in such reforms.
Political accountability and civic engagement
- Citizens should exercise their right to vote, protest peacefully, and demand accountability. Local communities, student groups, and grassroots movements can play essential roles.
- Support organisations working on rights, legal aid, and human rights monitoring.
International engagement
- Bangladesh’s international partners can encourage democratic norms, human rights, and pluralism without harming sovereignty; offer support for judicial capacity and civil society.
- International media and human rights bodies should continue to shine a light on abuses, discrimination, and threats to democratic norms.
Awareness and education
- Media literacy, critical thinking in schools; citizens are aware of ideological manipulation and propaganda, so not easily misled.
- Encourage open dialogue, debate, tolerance, forums or spaces for dissent.

Possible Scenarios: What Might Happen If These Trends Continue

If the concerning trends outlined above are not addressed, here are possible paths Bangladesh might follow (not predictions, but plausible risk trajectories):

Authoritarian consolidation: Executive power becomes harder to check. Opposition marginalised, elections become less competitive, institutional checks weakened, public dissent punished.
Religious majoritarianism: Religious identity becomes central to political legitimacy; minority rights erode; public policy shifts toward conservative religious norms; secular elements of the constitution or practice get de-emphasised.
Historical amnesia & distortion: Future generations may grow up with incomplete or biased knowledge of 1971; public memory might be skewed; war crimes accountability might stall; symbols lose their meaning or become politicised.
Social fragmentation: Polarisation escalates. Religious vs secular, political loyalty vs identity divides may deepen. Trust between communities decreases; minorities may feel unsafe.
Civic fear, withdrawal, apathy: Citizens may become afraid to speak, organise, or protest. Institutions that once served as a check may decline—democratic culture withers.
International cost: Foreign investment, international cooperation, aid, and reputation may suffer. Bangladesh has to balance relationships. Loss of credibility in the rule of law or rights can deter investment or lead to conditionality.
Economic decline tied to political instability: Political upheaval, policy inconsistency, suppression of dissent, loss of human capital (if people emigrate, self-censor, etc.), all can degrade economic performance.

Conclusion

Bangladesh stands at a critical juncture. The very identity forged in 1971, grounded in secularism, liberation, and democracy, faces threats—in the language of political rhetoric, in institutional erosion, in ideological revisionism, in religious-political mobilisation, and in suppression of dissent. These are not abstract dangers: they are being lived by ordinary citizens, students, minorities, and civil society. If unaddressed, they risk transforming Bangladesh into a nation where democratic rituals persist but substance is hollow; where memory is contested, history distorted; where pluralism is tenuous; where institutions serve power rather than justice.

Being worried is justified—and not only worried, but vigilant. Actions, awareness, resistance, legal protections, civic engagement, protection of independent institutions, vigilant media, inclusive public discourse—these are essential. The lessons of history are clear: when foundational values are compromised, reversal is difficult. Bangladesh’s future depends not just on its economic growth or infrastructural projects, but on preserving its moral, cultural, democratic, and institutional foundations. The cost of losing those is far greater than any short-term political gain.

Why Bangladesh Should Be Worried