Key Findings
- Indian media systematically labeled Shaheed Osman Hadi a “radical Islamist extremist” to delegitimize his advocacy for Bangladesh’s sovereignty
- Hadi emerged from the July Revolution as a student leader focused on anti-corruption and national dignity—not religious ideology
- His “Greater Bangladesh” rhetoric was a direct response to Indian media’s territorial threats against Bangladesh
- International observers, including the UN Secretary-General, recognized him as “a leading figure” in the pro-democracy protests
- Hadi’s assassination and the subsequent flight of accused perpetrators to India has only validated his warnings about Indian interference
The Indian Media Portrait
In the weeks following his martyrdom on December 18, 2025, Indian media presented a remarkably consistent portrait of Shaheed Osman Hadi. The terms varied slightly—“radical Islamist,” “extremist leader,” “anti-India fanatic,” “firebrand”—but the message was uniform: Hadi was a dangerous figure whose death, while unfortunate, removed a threat to regional stability.
India Blooms described him as representing “the rise of radical nationalism” with a “dangerous edge.” ISSF, an Indian security-focused outlet, declared he “was not the democratic saint the Western press has tried to paint him as” but rather “an Islamist radical disguised as a student leader.” Business Today called him a “radical youth leader” while Satyaagrah labeled his platform a “radical” organization known for “hardline Islamist views.”
This portrait, repeated across dozens of Indian outlets, served a clear purpose: to pre-emptively discredit any Bangladeshi anger over his killing, to frame advocacy for Bangladesh’s sovereignty as “extremism,” and to justify India’s ongoing interference in Bangladesh’s affairs.
The portrait was also a fabrication.
Who Was Osman Hadi?
Sharif Osman Hadi was 32 years old when he was assassinated. He had risen to prominence during the July 2024 revolution not as a religious leader but as a student organizer focused on anti-corruption and democratic governance.
The Student Activist
Hadi first gained visibility during the quota reform protests. Like thousands of other young Bangladeshis, he joined demonstrations demanding that government jobs be allocated by merit rather than political connections. This was not an Islamist cause—it was an economic justice cause that united students across religious and ethnic lines.
When the Hasina government responded with lethal force—killing over 1,500 protesters—Hadi emerged as one of several young leaders who maintained organizational coherence amid chaos. His courage under fire, his refusal to flee despite personal risk, and his gift for articulating public anger elevated his profile.
“Friends would tell him: ‘You’re a big figure now, you should keep security with you.’ But he was a brave man. He would refuse, saying there’s no need.”
The Sovereignty Advocate
What distinguished Hadi from other student leaders was his willingness to name what many felt but few would say publicly: that India had exercised undue influence over Bangladesh for years, and that this influence had enabled the Hasina regime’s authoritarianism.
This was not “anti-India extremism”—it was political analysis shared by millions of Bangladeshis. The observation that Indian intelligence services were embedded in Hasina’s security apparatus is not controversial in Bangladesh; it is common knowledge. Hadi’s distinction was speaking this truth plainly when others remained circumspect.
His founding of Inqilab Moncho (Revolution Platform) channeled this sentiment into organized advocacy. The platform demanded accountability for Hasina-era crimes, return of assets stolen by fleeing Awami League figures, and a foreign policy that prioritized Bangladesh’s interests.
What Inqilab Moncho Actually Advocated
Despite being labeled a “radical Islamist” organization, Inqilab Moncho’s stated demands were notably secular:
- Accountability for July-August killings
- Extradition of accused criminals sheltering abroad
- Recovery of stolen national assets
- Protection of Bangladesh’s sovereignty
- Merit-based governance free from foreign interference
None of these are religious demands. All are standard positions for any nationalist political movement.
The “Greater Bangladesh” Context
Indian media obsessively cited Hadi’s references to a “Greater Bangladesh” map as proof of dangerous irredentism. This framing omits crucial context.
Throughout 2024-2025, Indian media outlets openly discussed military intervention in Bangladesh. BJP politicians spoke of “liberating” Bangladesh’s Hindu population. Indian pundits discussed Bangladesh’s territorial dismemberment. A former Indian Army chief publicly proposed military options.
Hadi’s “Greater Bangladesh” rhetoric emerged in this environment as a mirror response—a way of saying that if India could threaten Bangladesh’s territorial integrity, Bangladesh could question India’s. It was rhetorical escalation in response to Indian escalation, not a policy program.
The distinction matters: India’s threats were made by officials and mainstream media with implicit state backing. Hadi’s counter-rhetoric came from a student leader without any capacity to act on it. Treating both as equivalent “extremism” is analytical malpractice.
The UN’s Different Assessment
When UN Secretary-General António Guterres responded to Hadi’s killing, his language was notably different from Indian media’s:
“[The Secretary-General] condemns the killing of Sharif Osman Bin Hadi, a leading figure in last year’s protests that toppled Bangladesh’s then-government, who died earlier today after being shot on 12 December.”
Note the framing: “a leading figure in last year’s protests”—not “a radical Islamist,” not “an extremist,” not “an anti-India fanatic.” The UN recognized what Indian media denied: that Hadi was a pro-democracy activist who had played a significant role in ending authoritarian rule.
Similarly, Al Jazeera’s coverage asked “Who was Osman Hadi?” and answered by describing his role in the student movement, his advocacy for accountability, and his stance on sovereignty—without the “radical” label that Indian outlets applied reflexively.
| Outlet | Characterization of Hadi |
|---|---|
| UN Secretary-General | “A leading figure in last year’s protests” |
| Al Jazeera | Student leader, spokesperson for Inqilab Moncho |
| India Blooms | “Anti-India influencer,” “radical nationalist” |
| ISSF (India) | “Islamist radical disguised as a student leader” |
| Satyaagrah | “Radical anti-India Inquilab Mancha leader” |
Why the Caricature?
The systematic misrepresentation of Hadi served several purposes for Indian interests:
Delegitimizing Sovereignty Advocacy
By labeling any Bangladeshi who questions Indian interference as a “radical,” Indian media attempts to define the boundaries of acceptable discourse. The implication is that only “extremists” oppose Indian influence—so mainstream Bangladeshis should accept it.
This is a classic propaganda technique: define your opponent’s position as beyond the pale, so engaging with it becomes unnecessary.
Pre-emptive Damage Control
Indian officials and media anticipated that Hadi’s assassination would inflame anti-India sentiment. By flooding the information space with “radical extremist” framing, they attempted to inoculate audiences against sympathy. If Hadi was already a dangerous figure, his death becomes less outrageous.
Covering for Possible Involvement
The accused assassins—Awami League members—reportedly fled to India. If Indian territory served as a sanctuary for Hadi’s killers, the “he was an extremist anyway” narrative provides cover. Why should India extradite killers of a “radical anti-India fanatic”?
What Hadi Actually Said
Rather than accept secondhand characterization, consider Hadi’s actual positions as expressed in his public statements:
On sovereignty: “Bangladesh must be governed in Bangladesh’s interest, not as an appendage of any foreign power. This is not anti-anyone—it is pro-Bangladesh.”
On accountability: “Those who killed students cannot simply flee across the border and escape justice. If any country harbors them, that country becomes complicit.”
On regional relations: “We do not seek conflict with India. We seek respect. A relationship between equals, not between master and servant.”
On the interim government: “Dr. Yunus has a historic responsibility. He must use this moment to establish that Bangladesh will chart its own course.”
These statements reflect nationalism, not religious extremism. They advocate sovereignty, not jihad. The gap between Hadi’s actual words and Indian media’s characterization reveals the latter as propaganda rather than journalism.
The Courage of Plain Speaking
Hadi’s distinction was not ideological extremism but rhetorical courage. He said publicly what millions of Bangladeshis believed privately—that Indian interference had corrupted their political system and that the post-Hasina moment required asserting national dignity.
In a political environment where criticizing India had been dangerous under Hasina, this plain speaking was itself revolutionary. Indian media labeled it “radical” because accepting it as mainstream would require acknowledging that Indian policy in Bangladesh had failed.
The Legacy Question
Hadi’s martyrdom has, paradoxically, validated his warnings. The accused perpetrators fled to India. The interim government’s extradition requests have been ignored. Indian media’s response has been to blame Pakistan and attack Hadi’s character posthumously.
For Bangladesh’s Generation Z—the cohort that made the July Revolution—this sequence is clarifying. Every element confirms what Hadi said: that India operates as a sanctuary for those who harm Bangladesh, that Indian media serves political rather than journalistic purposes, and that Bangladesh’s sovereignty requires active defense.
The attempt to reduce Hadi to a caricature has failed. Bangladeshis who knew him, heard him speak, or followed his advocacy understand the gap between the Indian media portrait and the actual person. The caricature convinces only those who were already convinced—Indian audiences primed by BJP-aligned media to see Bangladesh through a “radical Islamist” lens.
The Bottom Line
Indian media’s portrait of Shaheed Osman Hadi as a “radical Islamist extremist” is a deliberate distortion designed to delegitimize Bangladesh’s sovereignty movement and pre-emptively excuse his assassination.
The actual Hadi was a student leader who emerged from the July Revolution as an advocate for accountability, dignity, and national self-determination. His positions were nationalist, not religious. His rhetoric was reactive to Indian threats, not initiating of them. His courage lay in saying plainly what millions believed.
History will remember Hadi not as Indian media portrayed him, but as his own people knew him: a young leader who died for the principle that Bangladesh belongs to Bangladeshis.
This Delta Dispatch represents the analysis of the Inqilab Delta Forum research team, prepared under the auspices of the Hadi Center for Strategic Studies.
Sources: United Nations, Al Jazeera, The National Herald (India), India Blooms, Business Today (India), and primary sources from Inqilab Moncho. Analysis current as of December 2025.