INDEPENDENCE DAY 2026 Rejoicing or reflecting?

A graffito painted on a wall in Dhaka during the July uprising. — New Age/Sony Ramani

by Obaidul Hamid

26 MARCH — Bangladesh’s National Independence Day — feels especially significant in 2026. After the dangers of protracted autocracy, we have returned to the promises of democracy. Yet the day is also a time for deep, sober, and clear-eyed reflection by the government and people from all walks of life.

Such reflection is essential if we are to reaffirm who we are as a nation, connect our past to the present, and link both to the future — while also renewing our ties to the region and the wider world. We must also ask what (and who) repeatedly derails us, what price we pay for those detours, and why we struggle to get back on track each time we go off-road.

Although this moment brings relief, lived experience at home — and events unfolding around the world — show there is little room for complacency. What is happening in the Persian Gulf should have alerted all conscientious nations. They will be recalculating their dos and don’ts, learning from the brutal political lessons that have unfolded in the region and beyond.

With that in mind, I offer a few lessons as I reflect on our Independence Day 2026.

This year’s Independence Day is certainly an occasion for triumph and joy. Just last month, a new government took office. An elected prime minister and his team began their journey with some positive gestures. Elected members joined the inaugural session of the 13th Parliament, which promises meaningful debate on issues affecting people’s lives, society, and the nation. We should remember that this renewed democratic order is the fruit of the ‘second independence’.

None of these standard democratic practices seemed imaginable less than two years ago. For over 15 years, democracy was overwhelmed by authoritarianism. An autocratic ruler weakened the democratic ethos through her characteristic dynastic habitus. Elections were held, but people were denied the right to choose. Freedom of speech existed in name, but only speech pleasing to the tyrant was safe. The country was said to have reached a magical height of development, yet the lives of the masses worsened day by day. Parliament was active, but its activism was used for the costly tamasha of hero worship and name-calling — at the people’s expense.

The Awami innovation of the aynaghar symbolised its intentions, strategies, and brutalities. In a sense, the whole country became this house of mirrors: people felt imprisoned at home, in workplaces and marketplaces, and even in places of worship. They were too afraid to speak, to write, to type, or to take to the streets.

Sadly, few could see a way out — there was no clear path to forcing the regime from power. As time dragged on, the state’s machinery of repression only grew bolder and more expansive. The autocratic ruler became more arrogant by the day and even began to believe her government was invincible and could never be toppled by the people.

But it ended. It always does, even if authoritarian rulers refuse to believe it. The end came in unpredictable ways and was made possible by those long assumed to have little power. It was students — not politicians — who, uncorrupted by the dominant political culture, wrote the political epic of July 2024 in blood in an independent country — however strange that may sound.

If the new democratic order feels like a collective dream realised, it was made possible by these students — those who gave their lives, those who lost their limbs — and by countless others who were ready to lay down their lives for the country. They paid for democracy and elections, and for our rights to speech and to life, with the currency of blood.

What should we learn from all this?

Learning from within

THE Bangladesh Nationalist Party, the incumbent government, was among the major victims of Awami autocracy. Hasina left no stone unturned to humiliate Khaleda Zia and inflict intolerable suffering in her old age. She was jailed through a controversial case; her son — the current prime minister — was forced into exile, away from his distressed mother. Dozens of BNP activists were subjected to enforced disappearance and/or taken to the aynaghar. Tens of thousands spent years in jail on trumped-up charges.

A key question is whether BNP will remember this dark period — or whether the magic touch of power will make it forget its own trials, as well as the people’s suffering. The world has recently seen a disturbing pattern: once-victimised groups, upon assuming power, can end up victimising others. It would be a tragedy if the BNP forgot its own dark days and subjected other political groups to similar fates. Such forgetfulness would be dangerous for BNP first and foremost, because the people have mastered the art of risking death to bring down autocracy.

To discredit the July 2024 movement would be an act of betrayal by the BNP. BNP is, no doubt, the principal beneficiary of the mass uprising. Many commentators rightly noted that if the heroes of July 2024 had not laid down their lives, Hasina would still be in power and BNP would still be living a precarious existence. Failing to recognise those who saved BNP from annihilation and cleared the way for its rise to power would be morally despicable and indefensible.

At the same time, if today’s BNP becomes merely a shadow of its earlier period in power, it may be writing its own future downfall. If the party in government allows its activists to return to corruption and chadabazi (extortion), it will sound an alarm — both for the party and for the country.

These points suggest that the BNP government must proceed carefully and deliberately. What is needed is honesty, integrity, wisdom, transparency, and accountability. The prime minister has set positive examples of punctuality, commitment, and pro-people leadership in his first few weeks in office. At the same time, there have been worrying signs in recent appointments. The choice of a businessperson as governor of Bangladesh Bank breaks with time-honoured convention. Questions have been raised about the appointee’s qualifications and capacity to deliver in this critical role. Similarly, recent appointments of university leaders appear to follow the old practice of rewarding party loyalty at the expense of merit. If this trend continues, it is likely to push the government off course and away from popular expectations.

More worryingly, the government’s stance on forming the Constitution Reform Assembly has been controversial. Based on the referendum results, BNP’s elected members of Parliament were expected to take an oath as members of the assembly. However, they stepped back, citing constitutional grounds. Expert views suggest that BNP’s justification is not supported by a clear reading of the rules governing the relationship between the constitution and the referendum. Moreover, if BNP insists on strict constitutional validity for the Assembly, the same standard could raise questions about the election itself — let alone the formation of the government.

Unfortunately, BNP’s position suggests it is not fully respecting the July National Charter endorsed by popular mandate. We may not know the government’s intentions, but these moves can be read as steps away not only from the July Charter, but also from the July movement and those who gave their lives for it. Whatever the motivations, the government appears to be entering dangerous territory.

Learning from the region

THE second lesson concerns the India factor. India has been a factor for Bangladesh since — indeed, even before — the birth of the nation, and it will remain so. A straightforward question is what kind of relationship the new government wants to build with its largest neighbour. Our bilateral relationship cannot deny India’s contribution to Bangladesh’s independence in 1971. Yet it must be anchored in the present and orientated towards the future, not merely centred on the past. The BNP did not spell out its position vis-à-vis India during the election — or even after forming the government — in sufficient detail. The government would do well to keep the following questions in mind:

1.    Did India sponsor and sustain an autocratic regime in Bangladesh for over 15 years, contributing to the destruction of democracy and the operation of the aynaghar?

2.    Why has India sheltered the head of the Awami regime and others who have been sentenced to death?

3.    What is the BJP government’s attitude towards Muslims in Bangladesh, India, and beyond — and will it ever show genuine sympathy for them?

4.    Has the Indian government stepped back from its controversial agenda of rebuilding an undivided India as a mythical Hindu empire?

Dealing with a would-be superpower next door is never easy for a small nation like Bangladesh. Still, there is no alternative to negotiating a relationship based on equality, mutual respect, and dialogue. We also hope the BNP government is not contemplating favours for India that it ‘will never forget’. As India pursues its national interests — as it has every right to do — Bangladesh should do the same, maintaining functional and respectful bilateral relations.

Learning from the world

THE third lesson comes from a global order that is rapidly moving away from rule-based multilateralism. Today’s geopolitics is scary for small nations, which find themselves highly vulnerable to neo-imperial forces and shifting alliances. Increasingly, the sovereignty of such nations is violated ruthlessly: elected leaders can be kidnapped or decapitated, countries can be invaded, and wars can be declared unilaterally — without reason or justification.

We are living in an era when genocide is not only tolerated but also enabled—through a profuse supply of money and arms, and through media backing. Worse still, people and institutions that seek to stop mass killing and injustice often face sanctions and other forms of punishment.

Taking a safe and neutral position in such geopolitical complexity is easier said than done. Still, a few bottom lines are clear: many conflicts pit imperial and hegemonic forces against vulnerable and oppressed peoples. The government’s stance should be guided by integrity and political ethics. There can be no justification for joining oppressive forces or acting as their accomplice. Diplomatic skill is essential for navigating this complexity.

In conclusion, if Independence Day is a moment of celebration, it is — perhaps more importantly — an occasion to seek wisdom, strategy, and sober calculation. Bangladesh and Bangladeshis must work hard as alert and committed observers of unfolding realities at home, in the region, and across the world.

Obaidul Hamid is an associate professor at the University of Queensland in Australia. He researches language, education, and society in the developing world. He is a co‑editor of Current Issues in Language Planning.