My Dear Readers,
Happy New Year to you all. Though it is not the first of January, this is my first encounter with you through writing in 2026, and for that reason alone, I wish to convey my warmest greetings.
As I began to write, reflecting on the country and the world around me, I found myself confronted by many urgent realities, both in our domestic context and globally, each seeming more volatile than the last. Dhaka has once again witnessed blood on its streets. A youth leader of the Bangladesh Nationalist Party (BNP) was shot dead amid political tension. This was not an accident of fate. It was the product of a climate in which violence has become routine and accountability remains absent. The question that must be asked openly is why such killings have not been confronted in our public life. The absence of any convincing response from institutions or leadership deepens public anxiety and erodes confidence in the future.
Alongside this unfortunate situation, new layers of concern continue to unfold. The recent decision by the United States to impose a visa bond requirement on Bangladeshi B1 and B2 applicants has unsettled thousands of families. For many, this measure feels like a silent verdict on trust. But who will bear this burden?
At the same time, human rights organisations have raised alarm over reports of thousands of enforced disappearances under previous AL governance. These wounds are not mere historical footnotes; they remain alive in the collective memory of society.
Meanwhile, Bangladesh and Pakistan prepare to resume direct flights after a decade of suspension. Military cooperation talks are under way, including discussions on the possible acquisition of JF-17 fighter jets. These developments signal shifting regional alignments even as relations with India show visible strain. For a nation at the crossroads of South Asia, diplomatic balance is not a luxury; it is a survival skill.
Beyond our borders, the world itself stands in a state of strategic turbulence. The United States has announced withdrawal from multiple international bodies, triggering uncertainty in global cooperation frameworks. Oil markets remain volatile as geopolitical tensions collide with economic signals. In Iran, prolonged nationwide protests continue under heavy repression. Deaths, arrests, and unrest dominate the headlines. These global movements matter for Bangladesh because no nation now exists in isolation from the pressures of the international system.
Amid these developments, one reality within Bangladesh demands deeper reflection: the growing social disturbance in the country is becoming dangerously structural. It manifests in rising intolerance, deepening political hostility, erosion of trust between citizens and institutions, the spread of misinformation, and the normalisation of fear. In this context, the recent report of the Commission of Inquiry on Enforced Disappearances requires careful attention. This is particularly important because certain national newspapers have published misleading headlines and narratives about the Commission’s findings, seeking to place blame on the entire military structure. But why? It appears they aim to use it as a Trojan Horse to deliberately damage the military’s image in order to serve the interests of certain shadowy quarters.
On 4 January, the Commission formally submitted its final report to the Chief Adviser, Dr Muhammad Yunus. Nowhere in the report, nor in the official briefing from the Office of the Chief Adviser, is the term military structure used in an institutional sense. Yet such news deliberately introduced the phrase all levels of the military structure in their headlines, creating a sweeping attribution of guilt that implicitly portrays the entire armed forces as criminal. The Commission’s actual findings state that enforced disappearances were politically motivated crimes carried out through the abuse of certain elements of the state apparatus. Responsibility is attributed to political decision makers, specific units, and individual officials, not to any constitutional force as an institution. While the report acknowledges that some field level military and security personnel were directly involved in criminal acts, it draws a crucial legal distinction between individual culpability and institutional responsibility. This distinction has been deliberately ignored in the reporting now circulating.
At no point does the Commission claim that the armed forces’ policies, doctrines, or command structure authorised enforced disappearances. Rather, it finds that certain individuals carried out illegal orders. Under established legal principles, such actions constitute personal criminal liability. When members of an institution commit crimes, the institution itself does not automatically become criminal. The central conclusion of the Commission is unequivocal, enforced disappearances were political crimes executed through the abuse of segments of the state machinery. By obscuring this reality and repeatedly inserting the notion of an institutional military structure into public discourse, certain newspapers are not practicing fact-based journalism. They are instead imposing a predetermined political narrative.
We must note that the armed forces are not a political disappearance apparatus. Assigning the crimes of particular individuals or units to the entire institution neither strengthens justice nor serves the truth; it undermines both. Certainly, enforced disappearance is a grave violation of human rights, and those responsible must be brought to justice. However, such justice must be pursued on the basis of truth, verified facts, and proper determination of responsibility. Placing a national institution in the dock misleads the cause of justice. It obscures the truth and weakens public trust in the military, the sole strength responsible for protecting the country’s sovereignty.
I am confident in saying that such malicious propaganda will not help heal the social fabric; rather, it risks creating further instability and fostering widespread disorder. Indeed, to navigate out of such a fraught situation, we must ensure a free and fair election scheduled for February. In this scenario, security will be a major concern in holding or supporting the election. In this frame, the protection of candidates must be treated as a national priority, with risk based personal security provided to all contestants, regardless of party affiliation. Polling stations must become safe and neutral zones of public trust. Adequate deployment of trained law enforcement should occur well before election day. Protection of voters and election workers is equally critical.
No wonder Bangladesh has confronted adversity many times in its history. It has survived because its people chose resilience over surrender. Once again, the coming election is more than a political exercise; it is a test of the nation’s path and a crucial moment for the process of democracy to be restored.
The writer is a poet, litterateur, and political analyst
