Shifting Sands: The Crisis and Fluidity of Bangladeshi Identity in an Age of Political Decay

Introduction

In Bangladesh, identity has long been intertwined with the legacy of the 1971 Liberation War—an emblem of secularism, pluralism, and democratic aspirations. Yet, over the decades, this foundational ethos has been compromised by successive political regimes, opportunistic alignments, and the strategic misuse of religion and ethnicity. Amidst a growing crisis of democracy, Bangladeshi identity appears increasingly fluid—no longer shaped by enduring values, but by temporary alliances, global influences, and power struggles among elites. This fluidity is both a symptom and a signal: a symptom of eroding institutional trust, and a signal of deeper societal reconfigurations under the pressures of authoritarianism, extremism, and global geopolitics.

To delve deeper into the issue, I engaged in a thought-provoking conversation with Bangladeshi-Swedish writer Anisur Rahman.

In your opinion, how have political parties in Bangladesh used identity politics to shape their support base?

Anisur Rahman: At this stage, political parties have lost their ground to manifest their respective identity where, how and why they stand. With a few exceptions, they do not represent a specific line that guides their politics and shapes their base. However, despite the existence of such vague politics, the nation does have its own centre point which exists in the ideals from 1971, during the Independence struggle of the nation under the leadership of the country’s founding father Bangabandhu Sheikh Mujibur Rahman. The spirit of 1971 was in favour of socialist progressive democratic ideals. As the leading party fighting for the country’s independence, the Awami League is the largest stakeholder in this, along with other progressive parties.

Though the Awami League lost its secular progressive image in last four decades, it is still the largest actor in favour of the spirit of 1971. On the contrary, major left parties today have turned into retail shops of politics for their survival. Right now they collaborate with a pro-US capitalist led polarisation under the leadership of the West’s favourite puppet-boy Muhammad Yunus. Their talking of left identity is a kind of fashion or a rhetorical show. In a practical sense, they do not have any base in the working-class people with very minor exceptions.

In addition to the Awami League, the other two major parties, the Nationalist Party (BNP) and the Jatiya Party, were founded in late 1970s and early 1980s by two military generals Ziaur Rahman and Hossain Mohammad Ershad. Both parties somehow stand for almost similar political spirit lines. They do right-wing politics.

Other small parties do have their base in their individual leader’s personal benefit. Those parties are mostly founded by the dissidents from different major parties. Islamist parties play a role to be an corporate enterprise. They use religion as their business tool. Their strategy in this regard to misguide people, create confusion and thus gain benefits from that. However, they do not get the people’s mandate.

We are now witnessing the emergence of some new parties, including the so-called king party National Citizen’s Party (NCP). It has turned into the muscle power of the current unconstitutional interim regime. It has already caused a good number of scandals. It is going to manifest its identity consciously or unconsciously towards a blind alley. Their movement acts like the ‘politics of idiots’ and Muhammad Yunus deserves the credit in this regard when this will be put on the historical record.

All major political parties, including the Awami League, the BNP and the Jatiya Party, have some record of compromise with the Islamist parties, businessmen, civil and military bureaucracy. This reality has contributed to the identity crisis in sensing true politics and identity as a whole.

How has the political landscape in Bangladesh evolved regarding the role of ethnic or religious identities in recent elections?

Anisur Rahman: In the history of Bangladesh between 1970 to 2024, ethnic or religious political parties never did get remarkable mandates. One or two parties like Jamaat-e-Islami or Islami Oikya Jote could secure a few parliamentary seats being a coalition partner, notably with the BNP. If they contest separately, I have doubts whether they could secure any seat at all. People may be religious. That does not guarantee that people will support a religious party. It is obvious to the people that politics, as well as religion, is a lucrative business for the Islamist parties. In addition to that, people have not forgotten the crimes committed by Jamaaat-e-Islami in 1971. Let me remind you of their deeds briefly here.

In 1971, during the Bangladesh Liberation War, Jamaat-e-Islami played a deeply controversial and widely condemned role in what was then East Pakistan. The party strongly opposed the Bengali nationalist movement led by the Awami League, advocating instead for a unified Islamic Pakistan. As the Pakistan Army launched a brutal crackdown on the pro-independence movement through Operation Searchlight, Jamaat-e-Islami not only supported the military campaign but also actively collaborated with it. The party helped form and organize paramilitary forces such as the Razakars, Al-Badr, and Al-Shams, many of whose members were drawn from Jamaat’s student wing, Islami Chhatra Sangha. These militias became notorious for committing mass atrocities, including abductions, torture, rape, and killings of Bengali civilians, particularly Hindus and those aligned with the independence movement. One of the most horrific aspects of their actions was the systematic targeting and execution of Bengali intellectuals in December 1971, just days before Pakistan’s surrender—an attempt to cripple the intellectual foundation of the emerging nation.

People are aware and afraid of such fanaticism in politics.

Do you believe political parties in Bangladesh today effectively address the concerns of marginalized ethnic or religious groups in their platforms? Why or why not?

Anisur Rahman: I can see that political parties in Bangladesh today do not effectively address the concerns of marginalized ethnic or religious groups in their platforms. Because that is not their political agenda. Their agenda is not to do pro-people democratic politics. They use politics as their shortcut for making money, name and fame. It is a total fraud.

With some exceptions, politics in our country today has turned into a club for NGO executives, elements from civil and military bureaucrats, some professionals and a good number of idiots. The absence of intellectuals with self-dignity, backbone and integrity has made the situation worse. The media in Bangladesh is playing a sweet role – behaving like cute domestic pets. It is fueling the growth of anti-people politics and the growth of extremism in politics.

How has the Awami League’s framing of Bengali nationalism influenced the way people identify with the state?

Anisur Rahman: The Awami League emerged in the hands of legendary political profiles like Maulana Abdul Hamid Khan Bhasani, Shmasul Hoque, Bangabandhu Sheikh Mujibur Rahman, Huseyn Shaheed Suhrawardy, Maulana Abdur Rashid Tarkabagish, Tajuddin Ahmed and Syed Nazrul Islam. The party was founded in 1949 as a platform for relief of the working-class people in Pakistan which was an artificial state based on religious identity. During the progress and political growth of the Awami League, Pakistan was suffering from the dominance of civil and military bureaucracy plus elites in the Muslim League.

The times required alternative secular progressive politics for the relief of workers and farmers of the then East Bengal today’s Bangladesh. The founders of the Awami League realised that this was the reality. They successfully made a compilation of all that good ideals for the people of Bangladesh including all ethnicities, religions, backgrounds, ages, beliefs, colours and classes. It was a proper political platform for ordinary Bengali speaking people. Bangladesh is a language based secular nation in its making. The Awami League could nurse that sentiment from the beginning. That is why it has been a never-ending challenge to other parties to find a counter ideology.

Do you think there has been a shift in the way political elites in Bangladesh use religion or ethnicity to consolidate power, particularly in the context of secularism vs. Islamism?

Anisur Rahman: Yes. I see the signals of danger. Similar things happened in Afghanistan. Institutions are broken or made dysfunctional. In 1971 the conflict was between secularism and communalism or extremist idiotism. Jamaat-e-Islami is the champion of extremist idiotism from 1971 and up until today. They gave birth to some more illegitimate followers as well. The NCP, a brainchild of Mohammad Yunus, is nothing but an extension to Jamaat-e-Islami. In the long run, secularism will win. It depends on the political strategy of the Awami League and other pro-1971 parties though it is quite frustrating to watch the reorganization of leadership in this party. Following the regime change in August 2024, the Awami League so far has not shown a significant convincing role to try to reinstall its party program. They have not yet presented any clear guidelines for party activists and supporters.

How has globalization and the influence of global media changed the way people in Bangladesh identify themselves culturally?

Anisur Rahman: We can hardly find a thorough report on the things in global media. They lack competence and capacity to dig into the matters. They mostly report from the surface and such journalism sometimes even is not free from racial profiling. On some occasions, they suffer from favoring imperial agendas. The crisis of democracy in Bangladesh is a result of the greedy geopolitics of superpowers. UN bosses play a role as domestic dogs in the hands of those powers¹. A part of our civil society elements, media moguls, intellectuals, NGO executives and dollar brokers from US-sponsored projecst and initiatives, for instance USAID and NED, were part of this anti-nation ploy. As an outcome of it, the nation is witnessing the most corrupt, inefficient, unconstitutional puppet regime now.

This regime is helping the growth of Islamist extremism, advocating for a corridor to the Rakhanie province in Myanmar and handing over the management of Chittagong seaport to a US company². Their trick is clear to the people. People do not like such a move. They do not have confidence in this regime. All of a sudden, Yunus may quit. People already started the campaign ‘Step Down Yunus’.

In a globalized world, do you think the concept of ‘Bangladeshi identity’ is becoming more fluid or rigid?

Anisur Rahman: A major crisis is always a challenge for a nation. Bangladesh is facing such a challenge. The Bangladesh identity is becoming more fluid. It is getting increasing media attention in international media, compared to other decades. That may partially help in the long run to have solid position as Bangladesh identity. Despite some critique, the previous regime under Sheikh Hasina’s leadership had a significant leading role in a global context for instance in regards to the development index, women’s progress, a balanced stand on geopolitical issues and climate politics.

How do you perceive the role of religion in defining personal identity in Bangladesh? Is religion a source of unity or division among different communities?

Anisur Rahman: These days, religion in Bangladesh has turned into a source of division instead of unity because of wrong interpretations and political use of religion. All areas – from policymaking to the education system, administration, media, intellectuals, political parties – in this regard should be blamed. There is a way out of it. We need to introduce a national cultural policy and increase investments and initiatives to promote socio-cultural programmes from the capital to the village. There is a need to reform the educational systems as well. Pro-1971 ideologies should be the guideline in this connection.

What is the current situation of religious minorities (e.g., Hindus, Christians, Buddhists) in Bangladesh? How does their identity relate to the dominant Bengali Muslim identity?

Anisur Rahman: The Situation of the religious minorities in Bangladesh is similar to that in a war-torn nation. Religious minorities are not safe at home, on the road, in marketplaces and not even in the workplace. There are long lists of incidents. They are systematically targeted by the current authority’s hidden mission of ethnic cleansing. One such example is harassment of Hindu religious leader Chinmoy Prabhu Das. He has been in prison without any specific reason.

How do you think the identity of the indigenous communities in the Chittagong Hill Tracts³ is portrayed in mainstream media and politics? Do they have a voice in the national conversation on identity?

Anisur Rahman: They have their voice in the national conversation and even in parliament. However, I have not seen this being reflected in the nation’s policy making the way it should be expected. This area has now been a victim zone in connection with the Rakhaine corridor issue, Arakan Army, etc. ⁴. This area is also a target zone for converting ethnic minority people to Christianity or Islam. It is a global game, an imperial agenda. We need to get rid of this game.

1. It refers the failure of UN secretary general and other top officials for their failure to play an objective political role. In the case of a proposed corridor through Bangladesh to Rakhaine Provice, it was first publicly announced by the UN secretry general. It is an echo of US interests. The UN Human Right Commission chief’s role is also controversial particularly in the case of Bangladesh, as his confession on the BBC referring to his pressure/threat for the Army not to act to control mass chaos in Bangladesh. In a way, it has promoted US interest of regime change in Bangladesh! ↩︎
2. See Govt plans to hire foreign firms to operate Ctg Port, Rakhine Humanitarian Corridor controversy and Pandora’s Box? Bangladesh and the Rakhine Humanitarian Corridor – The Diplomat. ↩︎
3. The Chittagong Hill Tracts in southeastern Bangladesh comprises three districts—Bandarban, Khagrachhari, and Rangamati—with a population of about 1.84 million, roughly half of whom belong to the indigenous “Jumma” communities. Major ethnic groups include the Chakma (largest), Marma, Tripura, along with smaller communities such as Bawm, Khyang, Khumi, Mro, Pankho, and others, each maintaining distinct languages, cultures, and religions. While Islam is predominant among Bengali settlers, nearly 42% of the indigenous population follows Buddhism, with minority Hindu and Christian communities also present. ↩︎
4. The Arakan Army is a rebel group active in Myanmar, near Bangladesh’s border. A Bangladeshi research group has warned that this group is now building ties with another powerful armed group called the United Wa State Army. This raises concerns. These connections could make the Arakan Army more unpredictable and dangerous, possibly threatening the peace and security of Bangladesh’s border areas. ↩︎