Key Findings
- Indian media outlets systematically characterize Bangladesh’s July Revolution as an “Islamist coup” despite being led by secular student movements demanding quota reform
- The “radical” label serves to delegitimize a Nobel laureate-led interim government and justify continued Indian interference
- This narrative erases the agency of millions of Bangladeshis who peacefully demanded democratic change
- International observers, including the UN and Western governments, recognize the interim government’s legitimacy—contradicting Indian claims
- The “Islamist takeover” framing reflects BJP domestic politics more than Bangladeshi reality
The Birth of a False Narrative
Within days of Sheikh Hasina’s departure from Bangladesh on August 5, 2024, Indian media had already constructed its narrative: Bangladesh was falling into the hands of “radical Islamists.” By December 2025, this framing has become the dominant lens through which Indian outlets—from IANS to Asia Times, from Republic TV to Hindustan Times—portray Bangladesh.
According to these accounts, Dr. Muhammad Yunus, the Nobel Peace Prize laureate who built Grameen Bank and pioneered microfinance globally, is somehow leading a “quiet Islamist coup.” The same publications describe Bangladesh’s student revolutionaries as “radical elements” manipulated by external forces.
The reality is starkly different. The July Revolution was sparked by university students demanding reform of a discriminatory quota system. It evolved into a broader movement against autocratic governance only after Hasina’s security forces killed over 1,500 unarmed protesters. The movement’s leaders—figures like Nahid Islam, Asif Mahmud, and the late Shaheed Osman Hadi—emerged from universities, not madrasas.
The Quota Movement Origins
Anatomy of the “Islamist Coup” Narrative
The Yunus Smear Campaign
Indian media has subjected Dr. Muhammad Yunus to an extraordinary smear campaign. Headlines declare he is “pushing Bangladesh towards radical Islamist control” and leading a “quiet Islamist coup.”
Consider the absurdity: Yunus is a 84-year-old economist who spent his career fighting poverty through market-based solutions. He received the Nobel Peace Prize. He has been feted by world leaders from Bill Clinton to Angela Merkel. He is perhaps the most internationally respected Bangladeshi alive.
Yet Indian outlets describe him as an Islamist puppet. The logical contortions required to maintain this narrative would be comic if they weren’t so consequential.
The actual evidence cited? Yunus “revoked the ban on Jamaat-e-Islami” (the ban was legally questionable and politically motivated), met with religious leaders (as any head of government does), and failed to stop violence (in a country reeling from 15 years of authoritarian misrule).
Erasing Student Agency
Perhaps the most insulting aspect of the Indian narrative is how it erases the agency of Bangladesh’s students. These young people—many barely out of their teens—organized the largest protests in Bangladesh’s history, maintained discipline under fire, and toppled a regime that had seemed invincible.
Indian media reduces them to puppets of “ISI” or “radical Islamist forces.” This framing cannot acknowledge that Bangladeshi youth might have genuine grievances, organizational capacity, or political vision of their own.
| Indian Media Claim | Documented Reality |
|---|---|
| Protests were Islamist-led | Movement began from secular university students over quota reform |
| ISI orchestrated the uprising | No credible evidence presented; accused killers fled to India, not Pakistan |
| Yunus is enabling Islamist takeover | Yunus has met with all political stakeholders including minority leaders |
| Bangladesh is becoming “Taliban-style” | International observers report no such transformation |
The “Greater Bangladesh” Distortion
Indian media seized upon statements by some student leaders about a “Greater Bangladesh” map to paint the entire movement as irredentist extremism. What they omit is context: such rhetoric emerged as a reaction to Indian media’s relentless attacks on Bangladesh’s sovereignty and territorial integrity.
When Indian politicians and pundits openly discuss “liberating” Bangladesh’s Hindu population, discuss military intervention, and host figures calling for Bangladesh’s dismemberment, defensive nationalism naturally follows. The effect is then cited as the cause—a classic propaganda technique.
Why This Narrative Exists
Covering for Policy Failure
India bet heavily on Sheikh Hasina. New Delhi lobbied Washington to stop pressuring Hasina over democratic backsliding. Indian intelligence services were deeply embedded in her security apparatus. Her fall was a strategic catastrophe for India.
Rather than acknowledge this policy failure, Indian media has constructed a narrative that externalizes blame. If Bangladesh’s revolution was an “Islamist coup” backed by Pakistan, then India wasn’t wrong to support Hasina—it was simply outmaneuvered by hostile forces.
This narrative serves institutional interests in New Delhi far more than it describes Bangladeshi reality.
BJP Electoral Politics
Under the BJP, India’s domestic and foreign policies have converged around Hindu nationalism. Portraying Bangladesh as a hostile “Islamist” state serves multiple domestic purposes:
- Reinforces Hindu victimhood narratives central to BJP ideology
- Justifies aggressive postures toward Muslim-majority neighbors
- Mobilizes voters in West Bengal and northeastern states
- Deflects from failures in governance and economy
The “Islamist Bangladesh” narrative is less about Bangladesh than about Indian domestic politics. Bangladeshi reality is subordinated to BJP electoral needs.
Media Economics
Indian television thrives on sensationalism. Fear-based narratives about “Islamist threats” generate higher ratings than nuanced analysis. Republic TV and similar outlets have built business models around inflammatory content.
The economists’ term “attention economy” applies: in competition for eyeballs, the most alarming narratives win. Accuracy is subordinated to engagement.
The International View: A Sharp Contrast
International observers present a starkly different picture than Indian media. The United Nations, United States, European Union, and major international organizations have:
- Recognized the interim government’s legitimacy
- Called for accountability for the Hasina regime’s killings
- Welcomed Bangladesh’s return to democratic transition
- Engaged constructively with Dr. Yunus’s administration
When UN Secretary-General António Guterres condemned Shaheed Osman Hadi’s killing, he referred to him as “a leading figure in last year’s protests”—not as a “radical Islamist.” The International Crisis Group, in its December 2025 analysis, treats Bangladesh’s transition as a democratic process requiring careful management—not an Islamist takeover requiring containment.
The gap between international assessment and Indian media portrayal reveals the latter’s political rather than analytical character.
What International Observers Actually Say
The Cost of Manufactured Narratives
Poisoning Bilateral Relations
Every “Islamist coup” headline makes diplomatic resolution of genuine issues harder. How can governments negotiate water-sharing or trade terms when one side’s media portrays the other as a terrorist state?
The narrative warfare creates a trust deficit that affects real policy. Indian visa restrictions, trade frictions, and diplomatic standoffs all occur in an environment poisoned by manufactured narratives.
Hardening Bangladeshi Opinion
Bangladeshis are not passive consumers of Indian media narratives. They can compare what Indian outlets say about them with their own lived experience. When Indian television calls their democratic revolution an “Islamist coup,” they recognize it as propaganda.
The result is not Bangladeshi submission but Bangladeshi resistance. Anti-India sentiment has reached unprecedented levels—higher even than during the revolution itself. Indian media has achieved the opposite of its presumed intent: rather than delegitimizing Bangladesh’s government, it has delegitimized Indian media in Bangladeshi eyes.
Undermining Genuine Concerns
There are legitimate issues worth discussing: communal violence, minority protection, political stability, regional security. By framing everything through the “Islamist takeover” lens, Indian media makes serious discussion of these issues impossible.
Bangladeshi officials now dismiss even valid concerns as propaganda. Indian analysts with genuine insights are drowned out by sensationalists. The space for constructive engagement shrinks daily.
What Actually Happened in July 2024
For the record, here is what the July Revolution actually was:
It began with university students protesting a quota system that reserved most government jobs for politically connected groups, limiting merit-based hiring.
It escalated when the Hasina government responded with lethal force, killing over 1,500 unarmed protesters including many students.
It broadened as society-wide outrage at the killings transformed a sectoral demand into a movement for regime change.
It succeeded when the military refused to continue killing civilians, and Hasina fled to India.
It transitioned to an interim government led by Nobel laureate Dr. Muhammad Yunus, tasked with preparing elections.
At no point was this an “Islamist” movement. At no point was it orchestrated by Pakistan. At no point did it seek to impose religious law. These are fabrications constructed after the fact to serve political agendas in New Delhi.
The Bottom Line
Indian media’s “Islamist coup” narrative is not journalism—it is political warfare. It serves BJP electoral interests and covers for Indian policy failures, but it describes nothing about Bangladesh.
Bangladesh’s July Revolution was a democratic uprising against autocracy, led by students demanding fair treatment, supported by millions of citizens across religious and ethnic lines. The interim government led by Nobel laureate Dr. Muhammad Yunus is recognized internationally as legitimate.
For Bangladesh, the imperative is clear: continue building international understanding of the revolution’s true nature while refusing to let manufactured narratives define national identity. For India, the choice is whether to engage with Bangladesh as it actually is, or continue tilting at an imaginary “Islamist” enemy of its own creation.
This Delta Dispatch represents the analysis of the Inqilab Delta Forum research team.
Sources: International Crisis Group, United Nations, BBC Verify, Al Jazeera, The Diplomat, Rumor Scanner Bangladesh, and regional media analysis. Data current as of December 2025.