From exile in New Delhi, Taslima Nasrin continues to hold a mirror to her homeland, Bangladesh, and what she sees is alarming. In this searing conversation with Bikash C Paul, the renowned author and dissident speaks with unflinching candour about her country’s descent into political decay, moral collapse and religious radicalisation. She argues that Bangladesh’s crisis is not sudden but the outcome of decades of corruption, authoritarianism and the betrayal of the secular ideals of 1971. From Sheikh Hasina’s downfall to the rise of Islamist forces and the erosion of women’s rights, Taslima dissects a nation’s slow unravelling, and warns of a looming battle for its soul. Excerpts:
Bangladesh appears to be in the midst of an institutional meltdown, from governance and justice to public life itself. As someone who has watched her homeland from exile, what, in your view, has brought the country to this point of fragility?
Bangladesh has not collapsed overnight. This fragility is the result of years of moral erosion, political corruption and the systematic destruction of democratic institutions. When a government treats power as a personal inheritance, when the judiciary becomes a servant of politics, when truth is replaced by propaganda, a nation begins to rot from within.
But it’s not only politics that failed. The deeper decay lies in our mindset. Blind faith has replaced reason, obedience has replaced questioning and fear has replaced freedom. Religion has invaded public life, education has lost its purpose, and mediocrity is rewarded over merit.
The dream of 1971 was to build a secular, humane, and equal society. That dream has been betrayed. What we see today is not simply a political crisis; it is the death of conscience.
Do you believe Bangladesh is on the brink of a civil war?
I do not think so. But the danger is real if mob violence continues and hatred is allowed to grow. Violence can never bring justice; it only deepens division. What the country needs now is calm, dialogue, and a return to democratic principles. There must be a free and fair election, the rule of law must be restored and people must be allowed to speak without fear. Only through democracy can Bangladesh heal itself.
What is your opinion: Bangladesh is now under a communal, lame-duck government that has lost all legitimacy to rule.
Yes, I completely agree. A government that has lost the trust of its people and rules through fear and suppression cannot claim legitimacy. When citizens are denied their right to vote freely, when the opposition is silenced and when the press cannot speak, democracy becomes an empty word. This was true for the previous government, and it is equally true for the present one.
Bangladesh needs a government that reflects the will of its people, not the will of a ruling family or a religious majority. The sooner democracy is restored, the sooner the country can begin to rebuild its broken institutions. Without transparency, accountability, and secular values at the core of governance, there can be no real freedom.
The most crucial factor seems to be that the country has spiralled into a dangerous phase of Islamic radicalisation. How do you interpret this breakdown: is it primarily political, ideological, or does it stem from a deeper social decay?
The rise of Islamic radicalisation is the outcome of a long and dangerous mix of politics, ideology and social decay. Politically, religion has been used as a weapon — a convenient tool for gaining power and silencing dissent. Successive governments have made compromises with fundamentalists instead of defending secular values. Ideologically, decades of religious indoctrination have destroyed critical thinking. When belief replaces reason, intolerance becomes inevitable. And socially, it reflects a collapse of education, women’s rights and freedom of expression. A society that suppresses women, discourages questioning, and glorifies blind faith is bound to sink into fanaticism.
So, it’s not just one factor. Political opportunism feeds ideological extremism, and together they corrode the entire social structure.
Bangladesh today appears deeply polarised and split between pro-independence and anti-independence forces, echoing the divides of 1971.
- Have Islamist forces effectively replaced Bengali nationalism as the dominant political current?
- Do you think the secular spirit of 1971 has been completely extinguished, with Islamist elements now capturing the levers of power? Atrocities against Hindus are common and are being treated as a ‘non-issue’.
- And do you fear Bangladesh may be inching towards an overtly Islamist, Sharia-driven state in the not-too-distant future?
Yes, Islamist forces are working relentlessly to replace Bangladesh’s secular Bengali culture with an Islamic one. Their goal is to capture power completely and reshape the nation according to religious ideology. Yet, I still believe there is hope. The pro-Liberation War and secular forces are not dead. If they unite and act wisely, they can still defeat the Islamists in the coming election.
Whether Bangladesh turns into a Sharia-driven state will depend on how skillfully the progressive politicians fight this battle. The threat is very real. If the Islamists succeed, they will destroy the secular fabric of the country, erase liberal values and push women back into the dark ages, confining them at home, denying them education and jobs. Women will be forced to wear veils, stripped of all freedom. When women lose their freedom, the whole society loses its soul.
Politicians must stop using religion to win votes. Instead, they must expose the true, ugly face of the Islamists — their hatred of freedom, fear of women, and rejection of modernity. Only then can Bangladesh reclaim the spirit of 1971.
Would you agree that the root of Sheikh Hasina’s ouster lies in Bangladesh’s unresolved conflict between pro-independence and anti-independence forces? After all, this fault line has never truly healed, with many still clinging to the belief that separating from Pakistan was a historical mistake.
That’s true. The pro-independence and anti-independence fault line has always been there, and never healed. The pro-Pakistani groups have always been the Islamist and jihadi forces; they never accepted the idea of a secular, independent Bangladesh. Hasina knew this, yet she tried to appease this force. She built thousands of mosques and madrasas, even when the country already had more than enough. Those institutions have become factories of radicalism, nurturing the same ideology that once opposed independence.
Some Islamists supported Hasina for their own benefit, and she mistakenly believed that by courting religious groups, she could secure their loyalty and stay in power. But that was a grave miscalculation. Islamists will never truly accept a woman’s leadership; their own scripture rejects it. In the end, Hasina strengthened the very forces that were waiting to destroy her.
New Delhi has long maintained that Bangladesh’s territory must not be used by anti-India elements, especially terrorist groups. Sheikh Hasina, to a large extent, respected that concern, which is why India felt relatively assured during her tenure. But since August 5, last year, the situation has changed dramatically.
Anti-India and pro-Pakistani elements have existed in Bangladesh since its independence in 1971. They never disappeared; they only changed faces. Some major political parties have long played the anti-India card to gain popularity, just as Pakistan did. When politicians fail to provide education, healthcare or security, they turn to emotional slogans like “our rivals will sell the country to India; vote for us, we’ll save Bangladesh”, etc. Unfortunately, a large section of the population remains politically naïve and emotionally driven. They become easy victims of such manipulation. The rise of anti-India sentiment isn’t about ideology; it’s about political survival for corrupt leaders.
Now, after Sheikh Hasina’s fall, the release of hardline militants has made the situation far more dangerous. They are not ordinary prisoners. Many of them are pro-Pakistani, Islamist and openly anti-India. Their empowerment reflects the growing influence of the very forces that opposed Bangladesh’s independence.
Muhammad Yunus, who is backed by Islamist and pro-Pakistani circles, has contributed to this instability, intentionally or not. The challenge ahead is enormous: how to protect Bangladesh from sliding into the same radical, anti-India path that once destroyed Pakistan.
Do you believe these forces are regrouping to target India, with direct or indirect backing from the Yunus-led government?
I don’t think the Islamists will be able to mount any serious threat against India. Their strength lies more in rhetoric than in real capability. Bangladesh is heading toward elections, and the transitional, non-political figure of Muhammad Yunus is unlikely to remain in power for long. Once an elected government takes office, it will recognise that keeping cordial and cooperative relations with India is essential for Bangladesh’s own stability and development. Both countries share deep historical, cultural, and economic ties, and no responsible leadership in Dhaka can afford to ignore that reality.
Don’t you think India’s security concerns are now being severely compromised, with Bangladesh effectively turning into an ISI playground where Islamist networks operate under political protection?
There’s no doubt that the current situation in Bangladesh has created an atmosphere of uncertainty, and India has reasons to be cautious. The release of hardline elements and the weakening of state control in certain areas have certainly opened space for Islamist networks to regroup. Pakistan’s ISI and other external actors will always try to exploit instability in Bangladesh for their strategic interests. However, Bangladesh is not yet an “ISI playground”. The country’s institutions, security forces, and a large section of civil society remain strongly opposed to extremism. India’s security establishment is alert and maintains significant intelligence coordination with its Bangladeshi counterparts.
In the long term, the key lies in restoring political stability in Bangladesh through free elections and ensuring that whoever comes to power prioritises national interest over ideological or external influence. A stable, secular, democratic Bangladesh is in the best interest of both countries.
Too many foreign actors seem to be playing out their strategic games in Bangladesh today. The small country appears to have become a geopolitical pawn. In your opinion, what can or should be done to free Bangladesh from such external manipulation?
There are many rumours and speculations about foreign powers, particularly the United States, playing a role in Bangladesh’s political transition. Some people believe the so-called “deep state” in Washington wanted Sheikh Hasina out, perhaps to gain strategic access to St Martin’s Island or to assert influence in the Bay of Bengal.
Personally, I think such claims should be approached with caution. Bangladesh’s political crisis is largely homegrown — shaped by decades of corruption, authoritarianism, and ideological divisions. Of course, powerful countries always try to protect their interests, and Bangladesh’s location makes it geopolitically valuable. But it is too simplistic to think that an external power alone engineered regime change.
What’s most important now is that Bangladesh not become a chessboard for global powers — whether the United States, China, India, or anyone else. The people of Bangladesh must decide their own future through free elections, democratic institutions, and secular governance. Only a strong, transparent, and independent state can resist both internal extremism and external manipulation.
You’ve lived in exile for decades. Does exile sharpen your dissent, or does it silence the part of you that still belongs to Bangladesh?
Of course, exile sharpens my dissent. When you are forced to leave the land where you were born, for speaking the truth, you see your country more clearly: its wounds, hypocrisies and potential alike. Distance gives perspective.
Exile takes away your home, your familiar sky, your language’s daily music, but it cannot silence you. In fact, it often does the opposite. The pain of separation becomes a kind of fuel. You realise that freedom of expression is not just a right; it is oxygen. I still belong to Bangladesh, not to its political borders, but to its people, language and dreams. My dissent is my way of belonging.
You’ve long argued that religion institutionalises misogyny. Do you believe the younger generation of South Asian women, especially in Muslim societies, is challenging faith-based patriarchy in more assertive ways? How do you interpret the rise of hijab politics across South Asia — as empowerment, assertion of identity, or a regression into orthodoxy?
I don’t believe all South Asian Muslim women are fighting against patriarchal misogyny. Many are still victims of religious fanaticism — indoctrinated from childhood to see obedience and veiling as virtues. The hijab, burqa, or niqab are not just pieces of cloth; they are symbols of political Islam and tools of control over women’s bodies and minds.
In most cases, the hijab is not a matter of genuine choice. Women are pressured to wear it by their families, communities and a deeply conservative society. Even young girls, seeing everyone around them covered, conform simply to belong. That is social coercion, not freedom. I wish these women could look toward the women of Iran who are risking their lives to resist mandatory veiling. They are showing the world what real courage and resistance look like. True empowerment does not lie in accepting your chains, but in breaking them.
You’ve often criticised both Hindu and Muslim fundamentalism. Do you think South Asia today is trapped in a vicious cycle where religion has permanently colonised politics?
Yes, indeed. South Asia is trapped in a vicious cycle where religion has completely colonised politics. Religion dominates not only our political systems but also our minds. Every country in the region claims to be secular — India, Bangladesh, Pakistan, Sri Lanka, Nepal — but none of them are truly secular in the real sense of the word. Here, “secularism” has been twisted to mean treating all religions equally. In practice, that means accepting the injustices and barbarisms of all religions equally. Instead of freeing people from religion, our politics has become a slave to it. I believe that’s the only way forward. Politics must be completely separated from religion. Unless this separation happens, South Asia will continue to suffer from hatred, intolerance, and oppression in the name of faith.
If you were to rewrite Lajja today, in the current climate of Bangladesh, what would change — the characters, the state, or the moral fabric of society itself?
I would take out the factual sections from ‘Lajja’ and focus more on the human stories. The characters would be more complex, more conflicted because society itself has become more layered and hypocritical. The religious minorities in Bangladesh have continued to suffer under growing Islamic fundamentalism. Hindus were persecuted before, and sadly, they are still being targeted today. What was once occasional has now become almost normalised. Intolerance is not only accepted, it’s celebrated. So a new Lajja would not only show the visible brutality, but also the inner decay: the silence, fear, and loss of conscience that keep injustice alive.
