 "How The Economist's recognition of Bangladesh as ‘Country of Year 2024’ is a dangerous move")
UK-based The Economist’s recognition of Bangladesh as the ‘Country of the Year’ for 2024 is not merely misguided but a reckless misrepresentation of the real conditions. This anointment, designated to celebrate development and inspire optimism, instead fosters a dangerously confusing narrative that ignores the grim realities on the ground. The Economist’s logical explanation, a regime change and the emergence of a ‘more liberal government’, is a flimsy pretext that glosses over a deeply flawed and potentially destabilising political transition. Such accolades, bestowed without due diligence, risk emboldening authoritarian tendencies and undermining the genuine democratic progress in the region.
The Economist’s rationale for choosing Bangladesh stems from the recent ousting of Sheikh Hasina’s democratically elected government. The magazine lauded this regime change as a move toward liberalisation. However, the very foundation of this claim is troubling. Sheikh Hasina’s government, while criticised for certain autocratic tendencies, was elected through popular mandate and had provided a semblance of stability in a region rife with political upheaval. The new leadership, under Muhammad Yunus, has plunged the country into complete chaos, marked by economic turmoil, soaring violence, and worsening social conditions.
Bangladesh’s current situation is far from an example of liberal development. On the contrary, it paints a picture of a country spiralling into economic and social instability. Forex reserves have dwindled, exports have dropped, and inflation has skyrocketed. More than one fourth of their total population now faces extreme hunger. These numbers reflect a deteriorating economic landscape that cannot be ignored when assessing the country’s trajectory.
One of the most alarming regime change aftereffects has been the tremendous spike in violence against minorities, especially Hindus. Attacks on temples, rapes, forced conversions, and other forms of persecution have become disturbingly common. The international community, alongside the Western bloc, has condemned these actions, yet they seem to have little bearing on the magazine’s rosy assessment of Bangladesh’s so-called ‘improvement’. This ultra-level hypocrisy underscores a deeply troubling trend, the West’s selective outrage and its propensity to turn a blind eye to human rights violations when it suits their agenda.
Impact Shorts
More ShortsThe Economist has a questionable history of such selections. Myanmar was honoured in 2015 for its transition to democracy, only for the world to later behold the Rohingya genocide. Ukraine was awarded in 2022, amid its struggle against Russian aggression, but such a decision raised questions about the West’s selective focus on conflicts. Now, Bangladesh joins this list, reinforcing concerns that such awards are less about the authentic progress and more about propagating specific geopolitical narratives.
India, being Bangladesh’s immediate and longest border-sharing neighbour, faces major risks due to the latter’s vulnerability. An unstable Bangladesh could become a hotbed for extremism, cross-border terrorism, and illegal immigration, which directly threatens India’s regional security. In addition to it, rising brutality against minorities, especially Bangladeshi Hindus, has had a significant impact, putting pressure on India’s internal communal harmony.
India’s helping hand to Bangladesh during times of crisis, like through food security measures, underscores the interconnectedness of the two neighbors. Yet, such efforts are often undermined by the very forces that destabilise Bangladesh. The Economist’s recognition, far from encouraging genuine reform, risks emboldening elements that thrive on chaos and divisive agendas.
Such a decision reflects a broader hypocrisy in western media outlets. The very issues that are downplayed in Bangladesh—sectarian violence, human rights violations of minorities, and economic mismanagement—would be headlines if they occurred in a Western country. Adding to it, the Western media’s selective focus on certain global conflicts while ignoring others reveals an inherent bias that undermines its authenticity and credibility.
For example, while the plight of Bangladeshi Hindus is dismissed as an ‘internal matter’, similar issues in other parts of the world are treated as international crises. This double standard not only devalues the suffering of those affected but also exposes the ulterior motives behind such narratives.
The chain of events in the neighbourhood serves as a cautionary tale not just for India, but for the entire South Asia. The West’s track record in this regard, from Afghanistan to Iraq to Myanmar, should serve as a stark warning. For India, the lessons are crystal clear. A stable neighbourhood is crucial for India’s own security and development. India must also continue to support Bangladeshi people, emphasising the need for inclusive development and its minority protection.
This recognition appears to be part of a larger yet not so hidden agenda. By celebrating a regime change that has led to instability, the accolade diverts attention from Bangladesh’s real challenges. It also serves to legitimise external interference, setting a dangerous precedent for other nations in the region.
The timing in this case is particularly suspect. With Bangladesh’s economy crumbling, its social fabric under complete distress, and its political landscape deeply shattered, the recognition seems less about celebrating the real progress and more about endorsing a West-suited narrative. This manipulation of global opinion not only undermines Bangladesh’s sovereignty but also threatens to destabilise the region as a whole.
Lastly, The Economist’s decision to title Bangladesh the ‘Country of the Year’ is not just a cruel joke, but it is a dangerous move that risks exacerbating existing tensions in South Asia. The lessons from Bangladesh’s current predicament are stark, and they must serve as a warning against the dangers of prioritising narratives over realities!
Amarjeet Verma is a writer and policy researcher. He addresses contemporary issues spanning people, policy and politics. Views expressed in the above piece are personal and solely those of the author. They do not necessarily reflect Firstpost’s views.
 "Russian drones over Poland: Trump’s tepid reaction a wake-up call for Nato?")
 "As Russia pushes east, Ukraine faces mounting pressure to defend its heartland")
 "Why Mossad was not on board with Israel’s strike on Hamas in Qatar")
 "Turkey: Erdogan's police arrest opposition mayor Hasan Mutlu, dozens officials in corruption probe")
 "Russian drones over Poland: Trump’s tepid reaction a wake-up call for Nato?")
 "As Russia pushes east, Ukraine faces mounting pressure to defend its heartland")
 "Why Mossad was not on board with Israel’s strike on Hamas in Qatar")
 "Turkey: Erdogan's police arrest opposition mayor Hasan Mutlu, dozens officials in corruption probe")
