 "The photograph shows former Bangladeshi Prime Minister Sheikh Hasina. (Photo: Reuters)")
Ousted Bangladeshi Prime Minister Sheikh Hasina has said the street violence that toppled her government last year was a “premediated coup”.
In an interview with CNN-News 18, Hasina further said the government of Muhammad Yunus, the unelected leader propped by protesters and the military, was actually run by extremists of Hizb-ut Tahrir. She said the speed witch which he seized power suggests it was their plan all long.
Hasina said, “The speed with which Yunus seized power, the immediate immunity granted to perpetrators, and the dissolution of our judicial inquiry are all acts that indicate a preconceived strategy. Yunus, it seems, had been preparing to seize power, or those who installed him had.”
Hasina fled Bangladesh for her life on August 5, 2024. She arrived in Delhi and she is supposed to be staying here since then.
Here is the full interview:
What precise intelligence or threat indicators compelled you to leave Dhaka — was it a genuine coup attempt, a collapse of command structure, or an orchestrated “forced exit" with tacit consent from your own security circle?
By early August, the once peaceful protests had transformed into a state of lawlessness led by a violent mob of radical agitators. This was a far cry from the initial student protests over civil service job quotas. Of course, the full scale of the conspiracy only became clear much later. When Yunus granted immunity to all the perpetrators of last summer’s violence and dissolved the inquiry we set up to investigate the cause, it was obvious that a plan had been devised to overthrow my government.
At the time, leaving was a matter of survival. I did not want to leave Bangladesh, but it was made clear to me that remaining would not only have put my life in danger but also the lives of those around me.
Quick Reads
View AllHow far was Army Chief General Waker-uz-Zaman involved in negotiating your exit, and do you believe he was acting independently, under US diplomatic pressure, or as a balancing actor to prevent bloodshed?
The military was faced with an impossible situation: defending a constitutional government against overwhelming mob violence while avoiding any further loss of life. Our discussions focused on preventing a complete breakdown in law and order and ensuring the safety of my family and staff and of ordinary civilians on the streets of Dhaka. Whether or what kind of external pressure influenced decisions, I cannot say.
Were you aware of a coordinated plan within the civil-military establishment to install a “caretaker façade" government once you left, and if so, who were the key intermediaries?
I was not aware of any coordinated plan at the time. I was focused only on the safety of my country and my people. It was only after the events of August 5 that I started to discern the premeditated nature of this coup. The speed with which Yunus seized power, the immediate immunity granted to perpetrators, and the dissolution of our judicial inquiry are all acts that indicate a preconceived strategy. Yunus, it seems, had been preparing to seize power, or those who installed him had.
How would you describe Washington’s role — was the US merely signalling for political reform, or was it actively backing the military-intellectual bloc that wanted you out in the name of “restoring democracy"?
We have always had good relationships with successive US administrations and have no reason to believe that the US government or other foreign powers were actively involved. While Yunus has cultivated a network of influential Western admirers from his work as an economist, those who admired him mistook his economic theories for democratic credentials. Now, this illusion is fading, and those admirers are increasingly seeing him for what he is: an unelected head of state who has placed radical extremists in his cabinet, dismantled Bangladesh’s constitution, and stood silent while minorities have been oppressed. President Trump, with whom I have very good relations, has publicly expressed his dislike of Yunus.
Did Beijing advise restraint or provide silent assurances during your final days in office? How do you assess China’s current policy towards Bangladesh’s military-political transition?
We have always prioritised good relations between China and Bangladesh for reasons of trade and security. To maintain stability in our region and in our foreign relations, our neighbours must have confidence in us. This confidence is under threat while the unelected Yunus government remains in power and pursues volatile foreign and trade policies. My hope is that Bangladesh regains its position as a reliable economic and diplomatic partner through the election of a legitimate government that represents the interests of its people.
How have Indian agencies and political leadership treated you post-departure — as a strategic partner needing protection, or as a liability in the new geopolitical equation emerging in Dhaka?
India is a longstanding friend, and I am deeply grateful to the Indian people for welcoming me. As Bangladesh’s most important ally, India has an interest in seeing a stable, legitimate and democratically elected regime in Dhaka backed by the support of its people. Yunus’s evident problems with Delhi have nothing to do with me. They are caused by his sponsorship of extremists, his failure to protect religious minorities, and the anti-India rhetoric emanating from his administration. These are actions of an inexperienced leader who does not recognise the value of our partnership. I am grateful for India’s patience as they wait for a leader with the authority and expertise to return our country to stability.
Do you still envision returning to active politics, or are you building an international platform (possibly under Awami League diaspora networks) to maintain influence and legitimacy?
I have dedicated my life to improving Bangladesh. In our 15 years in power, we grew Bangladesh into an economic powerhouse, invested in major national infrastructure, built meaningful trade links with our international partners, and lifted millions out of poverty.
But the Awami League has never been about me or my family. We are a party ingrained in the fabric of Bangladesh and a voice that must be heard if the politics of our country are to remain truly democratic. For Bangladesh to achieve the future we all want, there must be a return to constitutional rule through free, fair, and inclusive elections.
How central do you believe Dr Muhammad Yunus is to the transition narrative — is he a Western-fronted “civilian face" for regime change, or merely symbolic of a broader anti-Awami coalition?
It is no secret that Yunus was popular at California salons, owing to his former work as an economist. But he is not a symbol of democratic regime change, nor does he command any broad support. He is an unelected figure who is now seeking to bar from the election a party that is supported by millions and which has been elected nine times in the past, including the last time Bangladeshis were able to go to the ballot box.
If Westerners think Yunus is a friendly face, they are being fooled. In fact, he is being used as the front man by the extremists in his administration, who are pursuing a sectarian, score-settling, and socially regressive domestic agenda.
What kind of concrete help do you expect from India — political asylum, diplomatic lobbying at multilateral forums, or covert support to rebuild an Awami-aligned ecosystem within Bangladesh?
India has already provided sanctuary and diplomatic support, calling for inclusive elections and highlighting minority persecution. The Awami League does not need rebuilding within Bangladesh while it commands the support of tens of millions of ordinary Bangladeshis. The ties that bind our countries run very deep, and this will not change. All we ask from India, as our steadfast friend, is that she support ordinary Bangladeshis in their desire to choose their own government and disregard the hostility of the Yunus administration, which does not represent what most of our countrymen and women think.
In your view, what is the single most effective step India and regional partners can take to prevent Bangladesh from sliding into a Pakistan-style hybrid or Islamist-military regime under a foreign (US-China) tug-of-war?
As I’ve mentioned, my fear is that Yunus is the cardboard-cutout leader of a regime actually run by Hizb-ut Tahrir extremists. I ask our friends in India to persist in their calls for Yunus to enable free, fair, and inclusive elections and not to disenfranchise millions of his own people. The only way to restore good health to Bangladesh’s political system is by enabling a government to be elected and genuinely rule by the consent of the people. That is the best way to future-proof our country against regime degradation.