Terrorism in Bangladesh is a multifaceted phenomenon, intricately linked to local and global politics. Over the years, it has evolved into a tool manipulated for political advantage, an ideological battleground, and a product of external narratives imposed on the country. Based on my rare opportunity to interview 32 individuals who had been accused of terrorism under Bangladesh’s anti-terrorism law, a complex picture of victimization, ideological radicalization, and political opportunism emerges. These interviews reveal how the issue of terrorism in Bangladesh intertwines with West-centric narratives, ideological extremism, and the political strategies of the Awami League (AL).
The AL was continuously in power from 2009 until August 2024, when it was toppled by a mass protest movement. During its reign, the AL government effectively used the issue of terrorism to consolidate power and delegitimize political opposition. During interviews, nearly 70 percent of the individuals accused of terrorism revealed a common narrative: They were victims of the government’s policies and the ambitions of law enforcement officials. Most of these individuals claimed that security forces arrested them without substantial evidence, often citing orders from senior officers seeking promotions or political rewards. This recurring narrative suggests a systemic effort by the previous government to keep the issue of terrorism alive.
One of the interviewees recounted that the police had arrested him and several others six months before their supposed capture in an anti-terrorist raid. During those months, their hands and legs were bound as they were kept confined in a house. When the staged operation took place, gunfire rang out both inside and outside the building. Suddenly, the captors untied the prisoners’ hands and feet and ordered them to walk outside with their hands raised. Moments later, they were paraded as captured militants in front of the cameras.
Another individual shared a similar account, saying that he was arrested three months before being publicly unveiled. He was taken to Rajshahi and left in a jungle, where he encountered several others in a similar situation. The authorities choreographed a narrative, presenting the men to the media as members of a militant group who were caught while hiding in the wilderness. The media was fed the story that these individuals were well-acquainted and part of a coordinated network – despite the fact that most of them had never met before.
One of the most surreal accounts involved a detainee who had been in custody for four months before his official arrest. When the time came to present him to the public, the authorities altered his appearance to fit the stereotype of a militant. His long hair and beard were trimmed, and he was provided with shoes to replace his bare feet. By the time he faced the cameras, he looked like a completely different person – a carefully curated image to match the narrative of a dangerous radical.
These stories paint a picture of systemic manipulation, where individuals were not only deprived of their freedom but also forced to perform their part in a fabricated narrative to serve political interests.
The AL’s goal was to present itself as the sole force capable of managing terrorism – part of its broader strategy for securing international support, particularly from allies in the West. Sheikh Hasina, the leader of the Awami League, also exploited this narrative domestically, portraying the opposition, particularly the Bangladesh Nationalist Party (BNP) and its allies, as supporters or enablers of terrorism. In her remarks following the 2024 election, Hasina exemplified this sentiment, saying, “I have to prove credibility, right? To whom? To a terrorist party, a terrorist organization? I have my accountability to people, to ‘the people.’” This political strategy of conflating the BNP with terrorism not only delegitimized the opposition but also polarized public opinion, ensuring a divided political landscape that benefitted the ruling party.
The framing of terrorism in Bangladesh cannot be understood without acknowledging the influence of Western narratives, particularly the U.S.-led Global War on Terror. Following the September 11, 2001 attacks, the United States promoted a global counterterrorism agenda that emphasized the militarization of law enforcement and the surveillance of Muslim communities. This agenda extended to Bangladesh, where Washington provided training and resources to local security forces, embedding Western frameworks into the country’s counterterrorism strategies.
This West-centric approach significantly shaped Bangladesh’s counterterrorism discourse. It led to an emphasis on Islamic terrorism, reinforcing the association between Islam and violence. This narrative was readily adopted by the former Awami League government, which used it to justify its actions against political opponents and to portray itself as a responsible partner in the global fight against terrorism. However, this reliance on Western narratives had unintended consequences, including the marginalization of nuanced understandings of terrorism in the Bangladeshi context and the overlooking of homegrown factors contributing to extremism.
Another significant finding from my interviews was the impact of misguided policies and the misuse of anti-terrorism laws. Among the 32 individuals I interviewed, approximately 20 percent were were detained for minor activities, such as expressing solidarity with Muslims suffering worldwide or engaging with Islamic content online. These actions, while not inherently dangerous, were often interpreted as signs of radicalization by security forces eager to demonstrate their effectiveness.
Such policies not only violate individual rights but also risk alienating segments of the population, creating a breeding ground for genuine radicalization. When individuals feel targeted or unjustly treated, they are more likely to become disillusioned with the state, increasing their vulnerability to extremist ideologies. As part of Bangladesh’s post-Hasina reforms, a more nuanced approach to counterterrorism is needed, one that distinguishes between genuine threats and non-violent expressions of faith and solidarity.
While political manipulation and Western influence are critical aspects of Bangladesh’s terrorism discourse, the ideological underpinnings of extremism cannot be ignored. Among the individuals I interviewed, around 10 percent were genuinely motivated by extreme ideologies. They expressed frustration over global and local events, such as the killing of Muslims in conflict zones, the invasion of Muslim lands, and perceived attacks on Islam by atheist bloggers in Bangladesh. For these individuals, these events represented an existential threat to their faith and community, justifying a call to resistance.
They were often radicalized through online platforms, where extremist content glorifying Muslim brotherhood and condemning perceived enemies is widely shared. Social media has become a potent tool for spreading extremist ideologies, with individuals “liking,” commenting on, and sharing content without fully understanding its implications.
This group represents a genuine threat that cannot be ignored. However, their motivations are often rooted in complex socio-political and psychological factors, including feelings of marginalization, injustice, and a desire for belonging. Addressing these root causes is essential for developing effective counterterrorism strategies that go beyond punitive measures.
The politics of terrorism in Bangladesh is a reflection of broader global and local dynamics. It is shaped by Western-centric narratives, ideological struggles, and the political strategies of the ruling party. However, current discussions of terrorism in Bangladesh often oversimplify the complex realities of extremism, ignoring the socio-political and psychological factors that drive individuals toward radicalization. To address these challenges, Bangladesh needs a more holistic approach to counterterrorism.
While global counterterrorism frameworks have their place, they should be adapted to the local context, prioritizing Bangladesh’s unique socio-political realities. Anti-terrorism laws should focus on genuine threats rather than criminalizing non-violent expressions of faith or solidarity. Efforts should be made to address the grievances of marginalized communities, fostering a sense of belonging and inclusion. The ruling party should avoid using terrorism as a political tool, as this undermines trust in state institutions and polarizes society.
By adopting these measures, Bangladesh can move toward a more inclusive and effective approach to addressing terrorism, one that prioritizes justice, human rights, and social harmony over political opportunism and external pressures.