H. M. Nazmul Alam

Recent reports alleging a potential military coup in Bangladesh, circulated by India Today, The Economic Times, and other media outlets, have ignited debate about the role of the Bangladesh Army in the country's politics. The Bangladesh Army has firmly denied these claims, calling them "false and fabricated," highlighting the dangers of misinformation and foreign influence in shaping narratives about Bangladesh's internal affairs. While political tensions are palpable, it is crucial to approach the subject with academic rigor and historical context.

The Bangladesh Army has historically played a crucial role during moments of political transition. Since the country’s independence in 1971, Bangladesh has witnessed military coups, political assassinations, and caretaker governments where the army has often been a key player. Political theorists such as Samuel P. Huntington, in his work The Soldier and the State, argue that military intervention in civilian governance often stems from weak institutional frameworks and prolonged political instability.

In Bangladesh, the army intervened in 1975, following the assassination of Sheikh Mujibur Rahman, leading to a series of coups and counter-coups. The 1982 coup brought General Ershad to power, demonstrating the military's ability to shape political outcomes. The military-backed caretaker government of 2007-08 also reflected the army’s influence during moments of national crisis. However, since 2009, the army has maintained a more restrained role, focusing on national security rather than direct political engagement.

Since Professor Muhammad Yunus assumed leadership of the interim government following the fall of Sheikh Hasina’s 16-year autocratic rule in 2024, tensions between political factions and the military have increased. Reports from news outlets indicate that the newly formed National Citizen Party (NCP) has accused the army of trying to rehabilitate the Awami League, fueling suspicions of military overreach.

Geo-political analysts suggest that the military’s dilemma in Bangladesh stems from two conflicting imperatives: maintaining national stability and avoiding accusations of political interference. Scholars like Zoltan Barany, in The Soldier and the Changing State, highlight that in transitional democracies, the military often finds itself caught between its constitutional duties and political pressures. The Bangladesh Army’s position today mirrors this predicament—tasked with upholding security while navigating a highly polarized political climate.

The claim by India Today regarding a possible military coup follows a long-standing pattern of external media speculating on Bangladesh’s internal affairs. The Bangladesh Army’s strong rebuttal emphasizes the growing frustration with misinformation campaigns that seek to destabilize regional politics.

The Inter-Services Public Relations (ISPR), the media wing of the Bangladesh Army, issued a categorical statement rejecting India Today's claims, calling them "a glaring example of journalistic malpractice and the decline of a once-reputed news outlet into a purveyor of disinformation." The army emphasized that "such false narratives continue to be propagated" and warned that "sensationalist reporting based on unfounded claims serves only to create unnecessary divisions and mistrust." Furthermore, the statement asserted that the Bangladesh Army remains steadfast in "upholding the principles of democracy, peace, and sovereignty," urging all media outlets, including India Today, to engage in responsible journalism.

The use of misinformation and disinformation by Indian media regarding Bangladesh is not a new phenomenon. Throughout history, Indian media have often engaged in speculative or misleading reporting, especially during times of political change in Bangladesh. Scholars like Noam Chomsky and Edward S. Herman, in Manufacturing Consent, argue that media can be weaponized as a tool for state-driven narratives, often serving geopolitical interests rather than objective journalism.

Reports from Indian outlets frequently present Bangladesh as politically unstable, often exaggerating internal tensions to fit a broader narrative of dependency on India. The disinformation campaign surrounding the alleged coup attempt fits into this pattern, as it attempts to portray Bangladesh as a nation on the brink of military rule, despite the firm denials by the army.

Additionally, scholars like Robert Entman emphasize in Cascading Activation: Contesting the White House’s Frame After 9/11 that selective framing in media can influence public perception and policy responses. In the context of Bangladesh, repeated narratives about military unrest serve to weaken international confidence in the country’s political stability while subtly reinforcing India’s perceived role as a regional stabilizer.

Bangladesh is currently at a critical juncture. The post-Hasina era has brought new challenges in governance, as the interim government under Yunus seeks to balance democratic aspirations with political realities. The rise of the National Citizen Party (NCP) and its opposition to any military-backed rehabilitation of the Awami League reflects a broader dissatisfaction with past governance models. Reports suggest that student-led groups, which played a key role in Hasina’s ousting, are now more vocal against perceived military interference. 

Moreover, the military’s expanded role in maintaining law and order has raised concerns among political analysts. While the army remains committed to its constitutional duties, its involvement in civilian security raises questions about long-term governance structures. Will the interim government be able to conduct fair elections without undue influence? Can a stable civilian government emerge without military oversight? These questions remain central to Bangladesh’s political future.

For the Bangladesh Army, maintaining public trust while avoiding political entanglement is a delicate balance. The institution remains one of the most respected in the country, largely due to its disciplined approach and nationalistic ethos. However, as scholars such as Alfred Stepan argue, prolonged political instability can drag even the most professional militaries into governance roles. The challenge for the army is to resist such pressures and allow civilian governance to shape Bangladesh’s political future.

Despite the misinformation campaigns, the Bangladesh Army’s clear and direct rebuttal of false claims suggests a commitment to transparency. The institution has repeatedly asserted its role as a guardian of national security rather than a political force. This distinction is vital in ensuring that Bangladesh’s democratic trajectory remains intact.

The ongoing debate about the Bangladesh Army’s role in national politics stresses the need for responsible journalism, both domestically and internationally. Misinformation, such as the false coup report, not only endangers stability but also undermines public confidence in democratic institutions.

For Bangladesh to move forward, it is crucial for all stakeholders—politicians, the military, and the media—to uphold transparency, accountability, and national sovereignty. The army’s reaffirmation of its constitutional role is a step in the right direction. However, sustained political maturity and media responsibility will be key to ensuring that Bangladesh does not become a victim of external narratives and internal discord. Furthermore, regional players, including India, must exercise caution in their media reporting to ensure that bilateral relations are not damaged by sensationalist and misleading narratives.

Ultimately, Bangladesh’s political stability depends on its ability to navigate this period of transition without falling into the traps of misinformation and external manipulation. Responsible media practices, a vigilant civil society, and a disciplined military will be key in ensuring that the country’s future remains democratic and sovereign.The 

Writer-  is an Academic, Journalist, and Political Analyst. He can be reached at nazmulalam.rijohn@gmail.com