For all latest news, follow the Daily Sun's Google News channel.
More than a month has passed since the interim government led by Prof Muhammad Yunus left office. However, controversy continues to haunt the Yunus administration. There is significant doubt as to whether any previous government in history has faced as much criticism as this eighteen-month-long administration. Allegations of limitless corruption among the interim government’s advisers have become an open secret. One could practically conduct research to determine which adviser outdid the others in abusing power and amassing wealth. With the sole exception of Commerce Adviser Sheikh Bashir Uddin, the list of corruption allegations against everyone else grows longer by the day.
The 133 ordinances passed during the interim government’s tenure are also a focal point of political debate. A special parliamentary committee is currently conducting a microscopic analysis to determine how many of these ordinances were in the public interest and how many were motivated by ulterior agendas. Constitutional experts argue that several ordinances were issued unnecessarily. The future of these laws now rests with the Parliament. Today, the integrity of the interim government regarding these legislative actions is under serious question.
Tension and debate also surround the secret and public agreements made with various countries during the interim period. Specifically, civil society members close to Yunus are now openly stating that the deal struck with the United States just before the government’s departure was contrary to national interests. Think tanks like TIB (Transparency International Bangladesh) and CPD (Centre for Policy Dialogue) have become vocal critics of this agreement. Various quarters are demanding that the details of this contract be made public.
As the image of the interim government hit rock bottom due to these controversies, the biggest debate yet was ignited by Prof Yunus’s close former adviser, Asif Mahmud Shojib Bhuyain. On March 26, Independence Day, the former student adviser dropped a “word bomb” that stripped away the last shreds of the Yunus government’s reputation.
Last Thursday, Asif Mahmud, the spokesperson for the National Citizen Party (NCP), spoke at a special discussion meeting at the party’s central office in Banglamotor, Dhaka. During the meeting, he said: “When we were in government, in the early days, we were offered by various powerful institutions – those who are actually called the “deep state” – that we should complete the remainder of Sheikh Hasina’s term until 2029. They told us, ‘You finish the term; we will cooperate with you.’”
The former adviser added that the deep state had certain conditions, such as being “facilitated” in specific areas. He claimed they even brought a complete roadmap, noting that BNP leaders had existing convictions. Under normal circumstances, those leaders would be unable to contest elections. The plan suggested by the deep state was not to overturn these sentences but to prolong the legal process through the courts – a tactic well-known in political circles – by shifting court dates. At the time, Tarique Rahman also had convictions against his name; had he remained a convict, he could not have participated in the elections even if they were held.
Asif Mahmud stated that a strategy for staying in power was laid out based on a form of negotiation and compromise. “But we did not agree to that,” he claimed. “We always kept democracy at the forefront. It was because of that commitment that the last government held the election, and we even resigned proactively to ensure the election’s credibility was not questioned.”
Asif Mahmud’s remarks sparked a nationwide uproar. Later, in an interview with a daily newspaper (which is also allegedly controlled by the deep state), he clarified his comments. He stated, “The deep state included many parties, including foreign ones. Therefore, I do not want to mention anyone specifically.” He mentioned that during the first few months of the interim government, proposals came from the deep state suggesting they were interested in keeping the interim government in power for a long time if certain interests were protected. “They approached us as part of a negotiation; perhaps they spoke to other advisers as well.” However, Asif Mahmud refused to clarify exactly who constitutes this “deep state.”
Asif Mahmud is not alone. Previously, Nahid Islam, the convener of the NCP and another former adviser, also brought up the deep state. On 10 March, during an event in Rajshahi, he said, “The deep state was involved behind the murder of Sharif Osman Hadi.” He, too, did not specify who the deep state was.
It is clear from the statements of these two student advisers that the interim government had a profound relationship with the deep state. Deep communication occurred between them on various issues. It is worth noting that former chief adviser Prof Muhammad Yunus shared a particularly close bond with the student advisers. The decision to include students in the advisery council was Yunus’s alone. Over the past year and a half, Prof Yunus consulted student advisers during various crises. When making important political decisions, he consistently invited the newly formed NCP alongside the BNP and Jamaat-e-Islami. Therefore, these two former student advisers are well aware of the internal secrets of the interim government. When they raise the issue of the deep state, the political significance cannot be ignored.
Generally, the deep state refers to influential forces existing outside the formal structures of the state that are capable of exerting direct or indirect influence on policy-making, the balance of power, or state decisions. It is not a constitutionally recognised or visible institution but rather an analytical concept used to explain the hidden powers behind visible governance.
The modern concept of the deep state originated in Turkey in the mid-20th century. There, the term Derin Devlet was used to describe a secret network involving the military, intelligence agencies, the bureaucratic elite, and sometimes elements of the underworld. The allegation was that this network influenced key state decisions from outside the elected government, particularly regarding security and nationalist politics.
Later, the concept spread globally, gaining new dimensions in the United States. There, it is sometimes used to describe the permanent bureaucracy, intelligence agencies, the military-industrial complex, and influential policy-making groups that consistently influence state policy regardless of the elected government. However, in the US, the term is often used as part of political rhetoric to strengthen a particular side’s position.
Donald Trump raised the issue of the deep state after being elected US President. Upon taking office for a second term, he took steps to dismantle it. Trump issued nearly fifty executive orders immediately, signaling a robust use of power to shift existing US policies on immigration, the environment, and diversity. His goal was to reverse the path set by outgoing President Joe Biden. The effort to break what Trump and his colleagues termed the “deep state” was evident in these first steps. Consequently, Trump halted US AID-funded activities in several countries, including Bangladesh. However, Trump later claimed that the deep state played no role in the change of power in Bangladesh on 5 August 2024.
Regardless of what Trump says, US authority over Bangladesh increased after the Yunus government took power. The influence of various US agencies and deep state-linked institutions like the IMF grew regarding political and economic reforms. Thus, the authority and influence of the deep state over the Yunus government cannot be denied.
However, Asif Mahmud’s statement requires deeper analysis. He claimed that the discussion about staying in power until 2029 occurred within the first few months and that the government rejected the proposal in favor of establishing democracy. Yet, this claim does not align with reality. Reviewing the eighteen-month rule of the Yunus government shows that for the first ten months, the interim government was averse to elections. Many advisers would become agitated at the mention of elections. The government repeatedly stated: “Reforms first, then elections.” The chief adviser himself indirectly expressed a desire to stay in power for a long time, saying, “The people want us to stay in power for another 50 years.” Echoing him, the then home affairs adviser also expressed a desire for a long tenure. The controversial and talkative adviser Syeda Rizwana Hasan had criticised politicians, asking, “Why the rush for elections?” and stated the government wasn’t there just to hold a vote. Another adviser, Sakhawat Hossain, said that if elections were held before reforms, the fate of the people would not change.
In other words, the first ten months of the interim government were focused on avoiding elections. This reluctance was harshly criticized by the BNP, the country’s most popular party, which announced movements demanding elections. In such a situation, the interim government eventually backed away from its desire to stay in power indefinitely. On 13 June of last year, the chief adviser met with the BNP Chairman (then acting chairman) in London. Following this, a portion of the government began moving toward an election footing. On the first anniversary of the government, Prof Yunus finally announced that the election would be held in the first half of February 2026.
An analysis of the interim government’s tenure shows that after forming with massive public support, its popularity steadily declined. The uncontrolled spread of “mob justice,” limitless extortion, and a severe economic crisis caused by flawed policies left public life in tatters. While the people suffered, the interim government was busy implementing its own agenda. Unemployment and poverty rose, and inflation pushed the prices of goods beyond the reach of the common man. Yet, the government remained indifferent. In this climate, people from all walks of life moved in favor of an elected government. The state of the country was such that no honorable exit remained for the government except for an election.
Nevertheless, information is now emerging that a powerful circle within the government tried to sabotage the election until the very end to prolong their power. It is alleged that three advisers – Syeda Rizwana Hasan, Adilur Rahman Khan, and Fouzul Kabir Khan – engaged in various tactics to delay the vote. Their primary tool, reportedly, was inciting “mob violence” or public hysteria. Even after a prominent daily published this report, no one protested its accuracy. Therefore, Asif Mahmud’s claim that the interim government rejected the deep state’s proposal lacks alignment with the facts.
The actions of the interim government during its first year show they were more focused on the deep state’s agenda than national interests:
1. Efforts to provide a humanitarian corridor for the Arakan Army.
2. Restrictions on tourist travel to Saint Martin’s Island.
3. Haste in leasing Chittagong Port to foreign companies.
4. Creating a crisis in the banking sector under the guise of reforms suggested by the IMF, ignoring the interests of ordinary depositors.
5. Implementing a blueprint to silently kill the private sector through lawsuits and harassment.
6. Secret agreements with the United States.
All of these serve as evidence of the interim government’s loyalty to the deep state. We must find the truth based on Asif Mahmud’s statements. Investigating where corrupt advisers laundered illegal money will reveal information about deep state involvement. Identifying and questioning those who tried to engineer the 12 February election will untangle the mystery of the deep state. Deep research into why the chief adviser expressed interest in staying in power for 50 years will reveal what the deep state’s agenda was – and whether it still exists. For the sake of the country and democracy, finding the truth is essential.
Audite Karim is an author and a playwright. Email: [email protected]