Return, reckoning

The return of Tarique Rahman to Bangladesh after nearly two decades in exile is more than a personal political comeback. It marks a decisive moment in the country’s post-uprising recalibration, where power, legitimacy, and memory are being renegotiated all at once. In a political landscape cleared by the dramatic fall of Sheikh Hasina, Mr Rahman’s arrival signals the consolidation of an alternative centre of authority rather than the emergence of a genuinely new political order. For many Bangladeshis, Mr Rahman embodies continuity rather than rupture. As the heir to the Zia family legacy and the leading face of the Bangladesh Nationalist Party, he represents a familiar pole in a system long defined by dynastic rivalry. Yet timing matters.

His return comes at a moment when institutional trust has been deeply eroded by years of repression, violent protests, and the politicisation of justice. In such conditions, familiarity can feel reassuring, even if it carries unresolved baggage. The clearing of legal cases against Mr Rahman following the collapse of the previous regime underlines a persistent weakness in Bangladesh’s governance framework: the use of courts as instruments of political combat. While his supporters view this vindication as proof of persecution, critics see it as another example of how accountability bends with shifts in power. The danger lies in mistaking legal reversals for moral closure. Without transparent reckoning, political amnesia risks becoming the price of stability. Yet public euphoria should not be mistaken for democratic renewal. Crowds can signal momentum, but they cannot substitute for institutions weakened by years of executive dominance.

Advertisement

Without credible electoral safeguards, independent courts, and a culture of restraint, popular returns risk entrenching majoritarian authority rather than correcting the systemic failures that produced the crisis. The upcoming election, widely described as consequential, is therefore less about electoral arithmetic than about the nature of the state that will emerge. With the former ruling party effectively sidelined, the contest risks becoming an exercise in succession rather than representation. Mr Rahman’s popularity on the streets reflects organisational strength and pent-up opposition energy, but it also exposes the absence of institutional counterweights capable of broadening political choice. From an Indian perspective, this transition deserves careful, unsentimental scrutiny.

Bangladesh is not merely a neighbour but a strategic partner whose internal stability directly affects regional security, border management, and economic integration. A government born out of exclusion rather than reconciliation may find early legitimacy at home, but it could struggle with long-term coherence and external credibility. Ultimately, Mr Rahman’s return is a test not just of leadership but of learning. If Bangladesh’s next phase merely restores an older political equilibrium under new circumstances, the cycle of grievance and reversal will continue. If, however, this moment is used to rebuild institutions rather than personalise power, Mr Rahman’s homecoming could yet become a turning point rather than a prelude to repetition