Sheikh Hasina made significant strides toward advancing women’s economic empowerment, yet her efforts were ultimately overshadowed by the rapid growth of religious mobilization.

Sheikh Hasina. There’s a name that echoes in every conversation about women’s rights in Bangladesh. Awards? She’s got a shelf full of them. Global Women’s Leadership, UN’s ‘Planet 50-50 Champion’, Agent of Change. Sheikh Hasina, as one of the world’s longest serving female prime ministers, clearly merits recognition for her significant contributions to the economic empowerment of women. 

Barrister Mohibul Hossain Chowdhury Nowfel, the education minister at Sheikh Hasina’s cabinet, recently discussed a significant social development on the A Team podcast. He observed a direct correlation between the increase in women entering the garment industry and the proliferation of madrassa enrolments nationwide. For working mothers, this arrangement offers reassurance that their children are both safe and receiving an affordable education grounded in religious values during their long work hours.

When opposites correlate

What does all this glitter mean for the women sweating it out on the factory floors? I’m talking about the women stitching your next fast-fashion impulse buy. Factories across the country are crammed with mothers, daughters, wives. More women than ever are out there, hustling, earning, sometimes even outearning the men at home. While these women are bent over sewing machines, churning out clothes for the global market, who’s taking care of their kids? Affordable Childcare? Support? Most days, it’s a patchwork of neighbours, older siblings, or just pure luck. No number of shiny plaques can stitch up that hole.

Over half the parents out there, especially moms, ‘No babysitter, no job’. Simple as that. Some women just gave up working altogether. Others said “no thanks” to jobs they wanted. There really wasn’t much choice, honestly. Single moms? Even tougher. And if both folks at home had to work, forget it. Who’s watching the kid?

Most just went with what was available, the Deobandi madrassa down the lane. As women’s empowerment gained momentum, there was a notable rise in madrassa enrolment throughout Bangladesh. New madrassas began appearing across the country, offering mothers reassurance that their children were receiving education in a safe and supervised environment, under the pretext of Deobandi interpretation of Islamic texts. 

The Evolution of Deobandi ‘Qawmi’ Madrassa

The Barlevis and Deobandis both followed the Hanafi jurisprudence, it meant they prayed, fasted in the same way but religious interpretation significantly differed. Barelvi maintained strong Sufi traditions and a reverence for saints which held considerable sway in Bengal’s religious landscape. 

This dynamic began to change with the arrival and subsequent spread of the Deobandi movement, which originated in North India with the founding of Darul Uloom Deoband in 1867. The Deobandis promoted a return to scriptural sources, prioritizing the Quran and Hadith, and notably distanced themselves from many Sufi customs long associated with the Barelvi tradition. The Deobandis in Bangladesh also participated in the Afghan Jihad that empowered their ideology in Bangladesh. Prior to that Deobandis were against the British, which helped them gather huge following. 

Several factors contributed to the expansion of Deobandi madrassas in Bangladesh. These included the establishment of Qawmi madrassas that adopted the Dars-i-Nizami curriculum, financial backing from business communities, and the availability of land and resources particularly during the economic growth experienced in the 1960s. As these institutions began to organize themselves into federations and rationalize their curricula, they grew in influence, gradually eclipsing the older Barelvi-oriented institutions. 

Over time, the Deobandi approach became predominant within the Quomi madrassa system, leaving a lasting impact on the structure and focus of religious education in Bangladesh. The main scholar of Barlevi movement known as Ala Hazrat Ahmed Reza Khan Berlavi, declared the founders of Deobandi movement as disbelievers and heretics. However, these differences and debates, didn’t gather much attention in Bengal as the Deobandi influence kept multiplying and Barlevi depreciating. Till today many don’t know the Barlevi-Deobandi difference, despite having studied in Qawmi Madrassa. 

Qawmi Madrassas and Jamaat E Islami in the Sheikh Hasina Era

Under the Awami League’s administration, Qawmi Madrassas secured formal recognition, with the Dawra-e-Hadith degree attaining equivalence to a master’s in Islamic Studies or Arabic. As Bangladesh’s economy advanced, these madrassas saw a notable uptick in donations, which subsequently enhanced their institutional resources and reach to empower organizations like Hefazot E Islam. 

Notably, the government appeared to overlook the significant doctrinal rift between the Barelvi and Deobandi traditions a misstep that, in hindsight, echoes even among prominent figures such as Indian Prime Minister Indira Gandhi, who once attended ceremonies at Darul Uloom Deoband, inadvertently bestowing it with symbolic legitimacy. 

Apart from Barlevi and Deobandi groups, the third influential player under the Hanafi jurisprudence umbrella was Jamaat E Islami. Although doctrinal disagreements have historically separated Jamaat-e-Islami from the Deobandi leadership that dominates many Qawmi madrassas, Jamaat-e-Islami has nevertheless managed to exert notable influence over madrassa students in Bangladesh especially during moments of July political turbulence targeting Sheikh Hasina’s comparatively secular administration. 

Traditionally, Deobandis were careful in not letting their students mingle with Jamaat. However, after the accreditation, the Madrassa students joined coaching centres and classes for admission test and English learning. Jamaat saw this as an opportunity to unite with them especially during Covid, where online platforms were used to bridge gaps. This was despite huge theological differences, the unity for a common goal eventually emerged. 

Previously, senior Deobandi figures had accused Jamaat-e-Islami, particularly their founder Abu Ala Moududi, of heretical inclinations. These accusations were rooted in critiques by Moududi and Muslim Brotherhood of certain revered companions of the Prophet and their perceived theological affinities with Shia interpretations of Islam. 

Moulana Syed Fazlul Karim, a prominent Deobandi cleric and leader of Islami Andolon Bangladesh, recently communicated to journalist Khaled Mouhiuddin his vision for Bangladesh to implement Islamic Shariah governance, drawing explicit parallels to the systems in place under the Taliban in Afghanistan or in the Islamic Republic of Iran. Moulana Karim is also an official political ally of Jamaat E Islami for upcoming election. 

Sheikh Hasina made significant strides toward advancing women’s economic empowerment, yet her efforts were ultimately overshadowed by the rapid growth of religious mobilization. This widespread surge in religious activism played a critical role in her eventual removal from power and subsequent exile on August 5, often outplayed by same individuals who endorsed her honorary title as ‘Qawmi Janani’.

If the international community allows these narratives to disappear in silence, it becomes complicit in its own oppression, it claims to abhor.

Four hours. Seriously? That’s what justice boils down to now in Bangladesh? Just four measly hours of parole for Farzana Rupa and Shakil Ahmed. Dragged through handcuff by malicious charges and failed to say goodbye to a dying mom they hadn’t met in almost a year.

Did they have adequate time for travel, attending the funeral, and returning to jail? Did anyone even stop to think what a single hour with her mom meant to Rupa?

Her mother spent her last days begging for her daughter’s release, but sure, let’s pretend that’s not the headline in Bangladesh. 

Did anyone in power spare a thought for the wreckage left behind? Punishing a Professional journalist on murder charges she had no stake on. Not just playing with her career, her family, her honour and the life of her recently deceased mother. Who will take responsibility for the death of her mother? 

A heartbreaking conversation with Rupa’s friend

Ms. Charlotte Jacquemart, a respected Swiss journalist, criticized the ongoing detention of Bangladeshi journalists Farzana Rupa and Shakil Ahmed. Her statements are direct and deeply personal, underscoring what she describes as a tragic situation impacting not only the journalists but also their families and professional circles.

Both Rupa and Ahmed have been incarcerated for ten months. During this period, they have not been granted access to proper legal representation. Jacquemart, who has a close professional and personal relationship with Farzana Rupa, noted that multiple requests for bail have been denied, even as Rupa’s mother’s health deteriorated. The lack of release prevented Rupa from providing care or support during this critical time her mother needed. 

The consequences of their detention extend beyond the prison walls. Their families, particularly minor children, are left without financial or emotional support. Jacquemart highlighted that the absence of adequate medical treatment for Rupa’s mother—stemming from the journalists’ inability to intervene—ultimately resulted in a tragic loss, as confirmed by medical professionals.

On one occasion, authorities allowed the journalists four hours of parole to visit Rupa’s dying mother. However, logistical process meant three hours were spent in travel by prison van, leaving just one hour to see her mother’s dead body.

Jacquemart asserts that the case violates both international human rights standards and Bangladeshi constitutional guarantees, specifically regarding press freedom. She also criticized the Bangladeshi Interim leadership of Noble Laureate Yunus, alleging a targeted campaign against critics—including journalists, lawyers, activists, and minorities—while convicted criminals and terrorists are released.

In her concluding remarks, Jacquemart called on Western governments to reconsider their support for the current Bangladeshi administration, suggesting that the leadership prioritizes personal power and targeted retribution over the welfare of the Bangladeshi people or adherence to democratic principles.

Why was Rupa arrested?

Farzana Rupa’s professional trajectory was anything but ordinary—she made a name for herself by tackling high-stakes, controversial topics head-on. As principal correspondent and anchor at Ekattor TV, she played a pivotal role in shaping coverage of major political controversies and social issues in Bangladesh. Her leadership extended to hosting critical debates and shedding light on human rights abuses, which inevitably attracted both public attention and, regrettably, threats from more radical groups.

Her investigative work on cases like the Pohela Boishakh sexual assaults and interviews with polarizing figures such as Taslima Nasreen garnered international recognition. This visibility, while elevating her professional profile, also exposed her to significant personal risk. Rupa was known for open support for Prime Minister in exile Sheikh Hasina during the turbulent July protests of 2024, coupled with her readiness to challenge those in power, placed her squarely in the spotlight following the change in government.

Subsequently, both she and her husband faced arrest, charged with incitement to murder, and were held without bail. Many Political observers interpret these developments as part of a broader, politically driven effort to suppress independent journalism in Bangladesh.

Rupa’s tears to the UN

Farzana Rupa made urgent appeals to the United Nations while she was detained, but, frankly, there was no timely intervention. Her family paid the price. Her mother had passed away. Will the UN acknowledge any responsibility for a loss that perhaps could have been avoided? Given that Rupa couldn’t be present, advocate for medical care, or even offer basic comfort, one must wonder about the effectiveness of these international mechanisms.

The situation raises a larger issue: will this tragedy prompt any real reflection or policy change, or will it simply fade from attention, with Rupa’s unanswered appeals lost in the noise? The lack of response speaks volumes about the current state of international accountability.

A cruel crossroad in Bangladesh

The narratives around Rupa and Ahmed highlight a deep crisis in Bangladesh – a powerful mix of political alienation and human rights degradation. Individuals become collateral damage to state strategies to nullify dissent; Their bodies and psyche serve as dark reminders of the severe cost of Journalism in an increasingly authoritarian means. Government tactics, remnants of authoritarian regimes around the world, show a worrying model of governance based on the oppression. 

Farzana Rupa and Shakil Ahmed are like symbols. They are faces that marked a scenario of overwhelming darkness. They force us to examine not only their unfortunate circumstances, but to confront the systemic injustices that permeate Bangladesh’s political scenario. Their stories are a call of duty to global citizens, reminding them that true democracy cannot exist when dissent is criminalized.

If the international community allows these narratives to disappear in silence, it becomes complicit in its own oppression, it claims to abhor. A collective awakening for twin tragedies, though deeply personal, illuminates a much greater evil: the erosion of human dignity by another Noble laureate. 

Disclaimer: Views expressed by writers in this section are their own and do not reflect Milli Chronicle’s point-of-view.

Ultimately, it raises questions of profound importance: Is it possible to transform a nation without resorting to bloodshed? 

The movement to ban the Awami League was hardly an isolated event; rather, it traced its origins to the student unrest that erupted in July 2024. Initial grievances focused on education policy, persistent corruption, and the burdens of economic hardship, but the agitation rapidly escalated into violence. 

The coalition of dissent widened as Islamist organizations and right-wing groups joined the mobilization, their rhetoric coalescing with that of newly formed student parties, National Citizen’s Party. The public discourse became saturated with serious allegations: both the Awami League and its student affiliate, the Chhatra League, faced blame for violent reprisals and the deaths of hundreds during the previous year’s protests. Over time, the demonstrators’ demands intensified. Calls emerged for the party to be designated a terrorist organization and for its leadership to be prosecuted before the International Crimes Tribunal.

This pressure culminated in a significant government response. Chief Advisor Muhammad Yunus declared the party banned under the Anti-Terrorism Act, pledging that the prohibition would remain until all charges had been legally examined. While many protesters celebrated this outcome, the broader atmosphere in Dhaka remained charged with anxiety and uncertainty. The Awami League, a party whose history is deeply intertwined with the founding of Bangladesh in 1971, now found itself the subject of condemnation and legal scrutiny by the very populace it once liberated from Pakistan. 

A Unique Protest to ban

The demonstration against the Awami League rapidly escalated into a deeply unsettling display of extremist fervour. Islamist groups, including those reported to have connections with organizations such as Al Qaida, became highly visible among the protesters. Notably, Mufti Jashimuddin Rahmani—a cleric widely recognized for his radical ideology—publicly brandished the flag of Islam, a symbol that, after years of association with violent acts, now carries significant and troubling connotations.

Representatives from Hizb ut-Tahrir, Hefazat-e-Islam, and associates of Rahmani with criminal convictions gathered, their collective presence casting an unmistakable pall over the city’s atmosphere. The demonstration fragmented with Jamaat E Islami and Islami Chatra Shibir; both groups chanted slogans like, “No Awami League in the land of Nizami, no Awami League in the land of Golam Azam,” referencing individuals convicted of war crimes in 1971 as if they were figures worthy of admiration and they owned Bengal. Another segment of the crowd escalated the rhetoric further, openly issuing death threats: “Catch and slaughter Awami League one by one.”

The environment became saturated with hostility—a manifestation not of peaceful political dissent, but of incitement to violence. At this point, the gathering ceased to resemble a lawful protest; rather, it devolved into a perilous spectacle in which the boundaries between legitimate calls for justice and extremist violence were dangerously obscured, seemingly fuelled by both state endorsement and radical zeal.

The Controversial Ban

The international community observed the unfolding events with marked concern. Human rights organizations, like Human Rights Watch characterized the ban on the Awami League as arbitrary, raising questions regarding the government’s intentions—was this a pursuit of justice, or an attempt to suppress dissent? The United Nations previously expressed alarm over banning what it described as diminishing civil liberties, while India openly voiced apprehension on democratic future as a response to the ban. 

The government justified its actions under the pretext of national security. Yet, this raised a crucial issue: who defines the parameters of security when the opposition is excluded from participation? Many questioned the legitimacy of a democracy that outlaws its oldest political party. The ban’s reach extended beyond politicians—it affected students, women, and entire communities. Such measures prompted debate over whether this constituted justice or amounted to collective punishment.

Tensions escalated throughout Dhaka; the disappearance of protestors and the retreat of supporters into clandestinity reflected the climate of fear and uncertainty. While some framed the crackdown as a necessary purge, most observers interpreted it as symptomatic of broader societal anxiety.

International actors, including foreign governments and NGOs, called for transparency, adherence to legal norms, and meaningful reforms. The interim government promised stability, yet the cost of such “order” remained ambiguous and contested.

This situation provokes reflection: Is this the outcome for which Bangladesh’s founders struggled in 1971, or does it represent a cyclical return to past traumas under new guises? When national symbols are suppressed and political expression is stifled, what remains of democratic governance?

Critics drew a distinction between punishing an organization and addressing criminal behaviour, underscoring the dangers of conflating the two. The world now watches closely, questioning who ultimately benefits from the absence of opposition, and who might be targeted next.

What’s next for Awami League?

The recent ban is undeniably severe, and the authorities’ response has been rigorous, even unyielding. Yet, as reported by Voice of America, public sentiment does not overwhelmingly align with the ban. Notably, in district bar elections, lawyers affiliated with the Awami League performed unexpectedly well. However, in many districts the interim Government forced them not to participate. Online surveys continue to indicate that the party retains substantial support, frequently leading in popularity. So, is this a conclusion, or merely another episode in a protracted political journey?

Historically, the party has confronted similar obstacles. After 1975, the Awami League operated clandestinely but ultimately re-emerged, playing a pivotal role in the 1990 movement for democracy. At present, many of its leaders are in hiding; their residences have been ransacked and their financial assets frozen. Some face threats of violence, torture, and live under persistent fear. Nevertheless, history offers important lessons. The Awami League was conceived in resistance, matured in secrecy, and spearheaded the independence war of 1971. The critical question is whether such resilience can be summoned once again.

Arguably, this period represents one of the most formidable challenges the party has faced. Growing anti-incumbency sentiment and the ban itself are compelling the organization to reassess its strategy and reconnect with foundational principles. This moment calls for a renewed study of Mujib’s legacy, the pre-independence struggle, and the dynamics of political survival. Operating covertly, the party must reorganize, adapt, and remain patient heading for a Non-violent cultural revolution. 

A non-violent cultural revolution, at its core, does not emerge through slogans or public altercations. Instead, it finds its genesis in artistic expression—music, poetry, and the collective act of remembering. Such change germinates in intimate gatherings, within the retelling of stories about figures like Mujib and the struggles of founding leaders, and in the songs that once served as a unifying force for the nation.

Both the young and the elderly revisit historical narratives, not for the sake of lamentation, but to derive lessons about resistance that is devoid of animosity. Art, within this context, evolves into a vehicle for protest, while protest, conversely, assumes the qualities of art. This form of revolution proliferates in educational spaces, in casual conversations at tea stalls, and within the quiet but resolute refusal to embrace violence. Ultimately, it raises questions of profound importance: Is it possible to transform a nation without resorting to bloodshed? 

The Awami League has demonstrated a remarkable capacity for cultural and political resurgence in the past. Whether it can transform present adversity into renewed opportunity is a new challenge. Ultimately, as has so often been the case in Bangladesh, the outcome will be difficult, but the grand return is far from over. 

Disclaimer: Views expressed by writers in this section are their own and do not reflect Milli Chronicle’s point-of-view.

Bangladeshi democracy has always been a bit of a balancing act—it’s fragile, often disputed, and shaped by deep mistrust among the parties involved.

Yunus stepped in like a hero after Sheikh Hasina’s narrow safe exit. Seriously, why Yunus though? Sure, that Nobel Prize glow—“banker to the poor,” all very inspirational. But running a whole country? That’s a bit out of his usual comfort zone, isn’t it? Critics aren’t buying his résumé for democracy. He’s got a squeaky-clean political record, yeah, but there’s the tiny problem of zero political success, too.

Did any of that bother the crowd of fired-up July protesters celebrating him? Or the business bigwigs who just wanted things to stabilize for a minute? Doubt it. People were desperate for any kind of shake-up. Someone new. Yunus just fit through the vibe—calm, politically unknown, totally untested on the big stage. Yunus on many occasions on International and National Media, claimed he or his cabinet has no plans to ban Awami League. He has gone to the extent that it is up to Awami League if they want to participate or not, yet Awami League activities were repressively banned without any referendum.

Islamists, NCP stage ‘Mist Spray’ protest in Summer to ban Awami league?

Awami League-oldest, secular, the party that led Bangladesh to freedom. But now, its legacy is questioned. Sheikh Hasina, the longest serving female Prime Minister, once stood in parliament and called Yunus the “Blood Sucker of the poor”. Now, the tables have turned. The UN’s fact-finding report blamed Hasina, her party, and security forces for the deaths of at least 1,400 people during the 2024 protests-children among the victims, crimes against humanity, said the report. Awami League pushed back: the report lacked their side, relied on unnamed witnesses and many more accusations. But who listens to the Awami League now? The UN’s word carries more weight, its credibility unshaken in the global court of opinion.

Protests went on for days, with people demanding that the Awami League be banned. The crowd was a bit of a weird mix — Islamists like Mufti Jasimuddin Rahmani, Asif Adnan, Hizbut Tahrir, Jamaat-e-Islami, and Hefazot-e-Islam all shouting for the party to be shut down. Some wondered if this was a real uprising or just a show put on by the government. Some said the ultimatum to Yunus wasn’t genuine, just a way to make the ban look legit.

Yet, Yunus, now acting as the caretaker, ordered a gentle mist spray at the summer camps — basically keeping the protesters hydrated, not firing bullets. Did that cool things down or just buy some time? The protesters weren’t all in agreement about singing the National Anthem. Some felt uncomfortable with singing it because it was written by Rabindranath Tagore, many referred to him as Hindu despite him being from the Brahma Samaj. The protest interestingly wasn’t joined by BNP, other centrist, leftist parties but the newly formed student party NCP looked like they were a cover to the Islamists.

Is Banning Awami league a legitimate move?

Some argue that banning the Awami League because, as the ruling party, it ordered killings and human rights abuses—many of its members carried out these acts—seems understandable on some level. However, doing so amounts to punishing the party collectively, which is problematic. International human rights laws and criminal justice principles emphasize that responsibility should be based on individual actions, not on group membership. Punishing the entire party ignores this important rule and can lead to more harm. History shows that punishing groups doesn’t stop violence; instead, it often fuels cycles of revenge, pushes authoritarian measures, and weakens efforts for real justice and reconciliation in transitioning societies.

Comparing Bangladesh’s current situation to transitional justice processes in places like South Africa after apartheid, Liberia following its conflict, or Bosnia is not quite accurate. Those scenarios involved extreme events like genocide, ethnic cleansing, or civil war. While Bangladesh faces serious challenges, it doesn’t meet the legal criteria for mass atrocities to that extent that would justify drastic measures like dissolving political parties. Even in those extreme cases, restrictions on political participation were used sparingly, temporarily, and often with international oversight or as part of negotiated agreements. So far, Bangladesh hasn’t experienced the kind of broad consensus or legal process needed to meet that high threshold. Also, frameworks like South Africa’s Truth and Reconciliation Commission were designed specifically for their contexts and weren’t meant to be general models for banning political parties in countries trying to rebuild democracy after authoritarian rule.

The UN Fact Finding report also simply mentions that elements connected to the party actively supported the repression. This makes you wonder: how much was the party involved in the violence? Recommendation 370 of the Office of the UN High Commissioner of Human Rights, Fact Finding report into the Bangladesh July/August killings state to refrain from banning political parties that would undermine genuine return to a multi-party democracy. Although, the report doesn’t qualify as a legal verdict, yet the report was unjustly cited by the interim to oppress, torture, imprison and attack on Awami League activities. The attacks happened with both law enforcement and mobs, sometimes through a mixture of both. After the forced resignation of Chief Justice through forced anarchy inside court premises and treating Awami League activists without ‘Innocent until Proven guilty’ shows the reality. The fairness of judiciary and trials are being questioned, many believe the verdict is ready and interim is just buying time for retribution.

The Amendment to repressive Anti-Terrorism Act

The newest update to the Anti-Terrorism Act really hits hard against free speech and the right to protest. First off, now the government can ‘temporarily suspend’ any group they suspect of being involved in terrorist activities, on top of their previous power to ‘prohibit’ an organization under Section 18. These powers, which previously only applied to prohibited groups under Section 20, now extend automatically to those that are suspended.

This means they can shut down offices, freeze bank accounts and assets, stop members from leaving the country, seize belongings, and even ban any public support or displays of solidarity for the group. Basically, the government can now quickly neutralize a party or organization with just a ‘temporary suspension,’ without having to go through the more permanent ‘prohibition’ process. But here’s the catch—how long does a ‘temporary’ suspension last? The law doesn’t say so, so in practice, it could go on forever, even if they call it temporary.

On top of that, they’ve massively expanded their power to prevent people from supporting or advocating for these groups under Section 20(e). It now clearly states that publishing statements, promoting online or through social media, or organizing marches, meetings, or press events in favor of or supporting the group is strictly forbidden. It’s an alarming step up in control, with serious implications for anyone speaking out or showing support.

Why Banning without referendum?

The Awami League, Bangladesh’s oldest and most influential party, was banned by the interim government without holding a referendum, even though surveys by Voice of America and others showed that most Bangladeshis didn’t support such a ban. While the interim authorities justified this move by citing the Anti-Terrorism Act and mentioning ongoing investigations into alleged crimes by Awami League leaders, they didn’t seek any direct public approval or hold a plebiscite. This has raised questions about whether the move really reflects democratic legitimacy.

Although the Awami League has faced serious accusations of electoral misconduct in the elections of 2014, 2018, and 2024, it has previously won allegedly free elections under caretaker governments, which shows it has broad support. In this case, it seems to be a victim of exclusion by an interim administration that has never gone to the electorate, not even at the local council level.

Gloomy path towards transition

Bangladeshi democracy has always been a bit of a balancing act—it’s fragile, often disputed, and shaped by deep mistrust among the parties involved. The accusations against the Awami League, whether it’s about election rigging or acting too heavy-handed, aren’t something new; they reflect a broader political culture where holding onto power sometimes seems more important than following the process.

Under the ban, millions of Awami League voter’s political rights are pretty much gone. Any kind of support for the Awami League—whether you say it out loud, write about it, or post online—could be considered a crime. Even just social meetings peacefully with other supporters might get you arrested. Prior to the ban, Bangladesh recently went multiple notches downward in the democratic index by the Economist Intelligence Unit (EIU).

Disclaimer: Views expressed by writers in this section are their own and do not reflect Milli Chronicle’s point-of-view.

Following a tough loss, the Liberals need to genuinely listen to the concerns of people, whether they reside in city apartments or in the countryside.

It was just another morning in Canberra when the Breaking News spread that President Donald Trump, back at the White House, had signed an important executive order. This order meant there would now be a big 10% tax on everything Australian exports to the United States. This sudden announcement was a huge shock for the Liberal Party. They had always believed in the strong friendship with the US, feeling secure because of it. But now, that relationship was causing problems. The American flag, once a symbol of safety and security, was now becoming a sign of economic trouble and challenges in upcoming elections. For many, this was a wake-up call to rethink how this alliance impacts the future.

Political Rust due to Liberal’s ‘Mateship’ Relationship

For a long time, the Liberals were known to rely on their strong ties with Washington for their foreign and economic policies. This close relationship was seen as a key part of their strategy, starting with John Howard and continuing with Scott Morrison, who focused on building friendly alliances. They promoted this connection as a kind of safety net against the unpredictable nature of the Asia-Pacific region. However, when President Trump imposed tariffs, it had a negative impact on many Australian products like beef, wine, lithium, and education services. The previous promises of security no longer seemed dependable. Exporters were frustrated, business leaders rushed to adjust their supply chains, and farmers in rural Australia became increasingly worried as American buyers could vanish quickly.

Failure of ‘Make Australia Great Again’

The “Make Australia Great Again” campaign led by Peter Dutton ended in disappointment instead of victory. The campaign offices and Liberal Party halls were partially empty, signalling a possible failure. Dutton had adopted strategies like those of Donald Trump. He opposed “woke” culture, talked tough about immigration, and wanted to reduce the public service. While these ideas excited a small group, most Australians found them out of touch with their daily lives. Trump’s trade tariffs had already hurt Australian exports and increased living costs, causing people to reject the chaos linked to Dutton’s approach. Many felt Dutton acted too much like Trump, and his campaign failed on election night as he even lost his own seat. When Anthony Albanese celebrated his win, it was clear Australians wanted stability instead of chaos. The Liberal Party’s attempt to imitate American politics turned into a lesson on the risks involved.

PM Anthony Albanese capitalized despite Dutton’s attacks

Anthony Albanese initially faced a difficult situation when Trump’s tariffs had a big impact on Australia’s economy. Peter Dutton criticized Albanese, claiming he was so unimportant that Trump ignored him while deciding the tariffs. Instead of getting upset, Albanese took the opportunity to address the concerns of Australians. He called the tariffs “totally unwarranted” and said they were “not the act of a friend.” However, he made it clear that he did not want to respond with more tariffs. Albanese emphasized, “We will not join a race to the bottom that leads to higher prices and slower growth,” expressing his belief in finding better solutions for the economy.

Albanese remained calm in his leadership. He introduced specific support for industries that were affected, starting with a $1 billion resilience fund. Alongside this, he promised to help exporters discover new markets. He pointed out to voters that the US takes only five percent of Australia’s exports, assuring them that Australia was better prepared than most to handle these tough times. Meanwhile, Dutton’s campaign may have faced difficulties due to uncomfortable comparisons with Trump and a shift to extreme right-wing allegations. This approach made his campaign seem loud and disconnected from what the public really expected for this term, which was steadiness and reliability, not showy displays.

Dutton claimed he was the only one who could have gotten an exemption from Trump, but many people didn’t buy it. This was because there were photos of his party members wearing “MAGA” hats and praising Trump, which were still fresh in voters’ minds during the campaign. Meanwhile, Albanese stayed calm and didn’t blame others, which appealed to voters who were tired of external chaos. Instead of getting involved in loud disputes, he promised to fight for Australian jobs, industry, consumers, and values. By doing this, Albanese turned Dutton’s criticisms into evidence of his own strong leadership.

A Confused campaign launched by Liberals

In 2025, the Liberal Party’s campaign was confusing and inconsistent. They kept changing their policy plans, and their announcements usually came too late to make an impact on voters. Peter Dutton was once considered a strong leader, but his leadership lacked the charisma during the campaign. The campaign put too much focus on his personality, but the reality is Australia and American voters are far different. The party’s message wasn’t precise to voters, and they reversed their positions on important issues like cutting public sector jobs and remote work. They also failed to provide clear alternatives to Labor’s cost-of-living plans. Liberal MP Keith Wolahan said, “We must recognize that things went awry,” which showed that many people in the party thought things didn’t go well.

A new dawn waits for Liberals

Following a tough loss, the Liberals need to genuinely listen to the concerns of people, whether they reside in city apartments or in the countryside. To make a comeback, they must address the problems from their last campaign and refocus on their core mission: supporting families, small businesses, and those who feel left out by rapid changes. By zeroing in on real solutions – like managing inflation, lowering living costs, and creating a balanced energy plan that includes renewables, gas, and nuclear – the Liberals can begin to rebuild trust where it’s needed most.

The party should admit where it went wrong, let go of outdated slogans, and present a clear vision for Australia’s future. This includes focusing on sustainable economic growth and tackling the housing crisis by developing new homes and infrastructure. It also involves restoring trust in public services such as Medicare and local roads. For the Liberals to regain their footing, they must pursue bold and credible reforms. This means cutting down on excessive regulations, supporting small businesses, and ensuring that every policy directly addresses the real-life issues Australians face, like stagnant wages and rising bills. The Liberals must work as a Team instead of highlighting focus on their leader, which requires a unifying leadership who is more accepted and cherished among common Australian circles. 

Disclaimer: Views expressed by writers in this section are their own and do not reflect Milli Chronicle’s point-of-view.

Now, Kashmir is at a crossroads again. The hard-won calm is in danger, and people are left wondering if the dream of a normal life was always meant to be just that—a dream.

The valley is calm, with only the distant sound of gunfire and the fast footsteps of tourists who want to leave before nightfall. In the grassy areas of Pahalgam, where people used to laugh with the sound of the Lidder River, there is now a red flag waving. This flag is a warning and shows that something is wounded or damaged.

New Mirage in the ancient Valley

For many years, the government talked about growth and peace, calling it “New Kashmir.” They said it was a place ready for business and tourists, with its problems being fixed through development. They pointed to the new train lines, hotels, and the increase in visitors as signs that the region was finally leaving its troubled past behind. But then, in April, when 26 tourists were killed, this carefully built image was destroyed. The hope, promises, and positive stories quickly faded on the bloodied grass of Pahalgam. This attack did more than take innocent lives; it showed the deep questions hiding underneath the government’s positive talk and statistics.

Pahalgam turned into Battleground

For the people in Kashmir, having tourists return meant more than just making money. It brought a spark of hope, offering a chance to show the world that their valley was more than just bad news headlines and conflicts. However, when attackers targeted people by asking their names, their religion, or how they belong to the area, it made a frightening point: in Kashmir, your identity could be relevant. 

Attacking outsiders, particularly Hindus, is not new. This has been allegedly a common tactic since the beginning of the conflict. It is meant to send a message to New Delhi and the world that Kashmir is not as safe as it appears. Some believe the militants are not only trying to control the land but also trying to decide who is accepted there and who isn’t.

Normalcy to Darkness

After Article 370 was removed, Kashmir seemed like it was slowly coming back to normal. Markets were busy again, and Dal Lake was full of boats with tourists from all over India. The well-known meadows echoed with laughter, a sound that was missing for many years. Local elections were held again after ten years, and the economy—which had suffered a lot from conflict—began to recover. In fact, people in Kashmir were earning even more than those in Delhi and Punjab. For the first time in years, Kashmiris started to hope that peace might finally start to grow in a place that had seen much sadness.

However, the Pahalgam attack changed everything, like a sudden storm in spring. Twenty-six people, including tourists and locals, were killed in a meadow that symbolized Kashmir’s return to normal life. This was more than just an act of violence; it was a clear message. It tried to drag the valley back into the darkness, reminding everyone that old problems were not gone. Now, Kashmir is at a crossroads again. The hard-won calm is in danger, and people are left wondering if the dream of a normal life was always meant to be just that—a dream.

The Crisis of a decade

Prime Minister Modi was in Saudi Arabia when he heard about the tragic events. He was in discussions with Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman on important subjects like energy and trade. As soon as he realized the seriousness of the situation in Pahalgam, he decided to return to India without delay. His urgent flight back to Delhi highlighted the critical nature of the crisis. Upon arrival, Modi’s motorcade hurried through the rainy streets, and he quickly convened emergency meetings with Air Chief Marshal Amar Preet Singh. The entire nation was attentive, eager to see Modi’s response. In the valley, there was a strong awareness that Delhi’s attention was once again focused on them, bringing both the hope for justice and the risk of further tensions.

Muslim Parliamentarian Asaduddin Owaisi blames Pakistan

Owaisi, known as a great critic of Prime Minister Modi, spoke out strongly against the attack, saying Pakistan acted like ISIS by attacking innocent people in India. He asked what type of faith could justify such violence. He also argued that Pakistan should not claim to be a nuclear power while causing terror in other nations. Owaisi warned that India will not remain silent against these threats. His remarks were very clear, particularly when he blamed powerful groups and terrorist networks in Pakistan for purposely trying to stir up religious tensions in India. He accused them of targeting non-Muslims and trying to create conflicts between Hindus and Muslims.

Pakistan’s former Cricketer blames Pakistan

After the Pahalgam massacre, Danish Kaneria, a former leg spinner from Pakistan, raised his voice when the government in Islamabad remained silent. He questioned, “If Pakistan has no part in the Pahalgam terror attack, why hasn’t Prime Minister Shehbaz Sharif publicly condemned the incident? Why have your military forces become suddenly more alert? Deep down, you’re aware that you’re protecting and supporting terrorists. Shame on you.” His early remarks challenged the usual denials and diplomatic confusion. In a region already suffering from violence, his accusation spread like ripples in still water, breaking the silence and drawing attention from across borders.

Pakistan’s Response and the diplomatic, border war

Islamabad insisted it was not connected to the militants. They called for an independent investigation and accused Indian leaders of using the tragedy as a “false reason” for military action. India reacted strongly. They expelled Pakistani diplomats, suspended the Indus Waters Treaty, and closed their borders and airspace to Pakistani flights. Pakistan responded by closing its ports to Indian ships, shutting its own airspace, and threatening to leave the 1972 Simla Agreement, which is crucial for maintaining the Line of Control in Kashmir. This breakdown in diplomatic communication, suspension of important agreements, and back-and-forth economic and military actions caused tensions to rise quickly. These actions led to fights across the LoC, pushing the two nuclear-armed neighbours into a new border conflict.

What’s Next for Kashmir?

Kashmir, known as “paradise on earth,” is now going through tough times. Its beautiful rivers are witnessing violence and struggle. The United Nations is urging everyone to act carefully and ensure the safety of people. India is at a crucial point where it must decide whether to respond with anger or choose a wiser and more peaceful path. To move forward, India needs to focus on smarter intelligence, advanced surveillance technology, and building strong trust with local communities. This can turn local people from passive onlookers into active partners in maintaining safety. By addressing wounds, restoring dignity, and ensuring the protection of all Kashmiris, India can work towards ending the violence. This approach will help Kashmir regain its peaceful identity, allowing a song of peace to echo through the mountains and reach across the world, rather than a song of sorrow.

Disclaimer: Views expressed by writers in this section are their own and do not reflect Milli Chronicle’s point-of-view.

This situation clearly showed that in the new Bangladesh, if you are Hindu, fighting for your rights is considered sedition.

Bangladesh in 2025 feels like a place weighed down by memories. While the events of 1971 linger in the air, the reality on the ground seems more like the partition era of 1947. The once hopeful vision of a Bangladesh where Hindus and Muslims could join hands to create a unified nation has been eroded by the passage of time and the impact of politics.

Today, speaking against India is no longer just a slogan on the streets. It casts a dark shadow over every Hindu teacher, lawyer, and activist who is brave enough to express their views.

The Reported Persecution

Get in touch with Chinmoy Krishna Das’s family. He was a monk who became an activist. His arrest for sedition in late 2024 deeply affected the Hindu community. Why was he arrested? He demanded constitutional protections for minorities. This action sparked not only protests but also violence. Temples were destroyed by fire, homes were robbed. This situation clearly showed that in the new Bangladesh, if you are Hindu, fighting for your rights is considered sedition.

Utsav Mondal was taken and beaten in a police station because of a Facebook post. He survived, but it sent a clear warning: staying quiet is safer. People speak quietly about Bhavesh Chandra Roy, another demised Hindu leader admired for his bravery. Teachers, lawyers, and everyday Hindu citizens find themselves part of a crossfire that battles with history and the future.

Human rights groups and the BBC have been reporting issues faced by Hindus in Bangladesh, particularly after political changes in the country. Hindus are often pressured to prove they are not in support of India as anti-India hatred among the extremists grow stronger. 

In Bangladesh, a troubling wave of violence and fear forced at least 49 minority teachers to resign. These teachers faced physical attacks and threats. Sajib Sarkar from the Bangladesh Chhatra Oikya Parishad shared that out of all the teachers who left their jobs, only 19 were able to return. Across the country, this situation has left classrooms and staff rooms empty and damaged.

Besides targeting homes and temples, attackers are also focusing on schools, where the future generation is being educated. In today’s Bangladesh, even a simple blackboard for education has become unsafe for minority groups.

From August 5 to 20, there were 2,010 incidents of communal violence, resulting in the death of nine people belonging to a minority community. Additionally, a report by TIB highlighted that religion-based politics is gaining more influence in Bangladesh.

The unreported Persecution

In this setting, Tulsi Gabbard, the US Director of National Intelligence, expressed concern: “The ongoing problems of persecution, killing, and mistreatment of religious minorities—Hindus, Buddhists, Christians, Catholics, and others—are a big issue for the US government.” For Hindus in Bangladesh, fear is a longstanding issue, but recent silence about it is something new.

British Journalist Sahar Zand walks through the remains of a burned Hindu barn in northern Bangladesh, calling the scene “gut-wrenching.” A year’s worth of harvest has been destroyed, and the farmer is too scared to speak, his silence a sign of the community’s fear.

Zand’s BBC documentary reveals details that headlines often miss. She notes that “Attacks on the Hindu community happen daily, with 8 to 9 cases reported each week in Northern Bangladesh,” according to local activist Bonamali.

She highlights the despair by mentioning that “Most people are planning to leave. They’ve already packed their important belongings. Every Hindu in Bangladesh has this plan,” a voice shared with her. Zand shows that the violence against Hindus is ongoing, their silence is forced, and often the world is looking away.

At the sidelines event of United Nations, Journalist Sahar Zand stands strongly and speaks the truth that many avoid: “Minorities in Bangladesh are facing attacks. I witnessed it myself, and it’s very frightening. The world needs to pay attention.”

Zand, who has reported from conflict zones such as Afghanistan and Iran, describes Bangladesh as “extremely terrifying.” This is not due to what is in the news, but because of what is not being reported.

“The situation in the country is not being shown in the international media. It feels like the world is ignoring it,” she warns with a clear and strong voice. For Hindus in Bangladesh, Zand’s comments are a rare sign—showing that someone is watching, even as the silence becomes overwhelming.

How Interim Regime Controls Media?

American Researcher and former Pentagon official Michael Rubin attended congressional briefing stated: “Bangladeshi journalists and civil society are in danger. At the same time, Yunus is spending a lot of money to promote his image in international media,” he says. He highlights that the arrest of Farzana Rupa and Shakil Ahmed is now a regular occurrence under the Interim government.

Rubin points out that more than a thousand journalists have lost their jobs for being “too secular,” making newsrooms dangerous for those who don’t align with the authorities’ views.

Political Expert Chris Blackburn, who has been observing the situation in Bangladesh for many years, warns about ongoing efforts by the interim authorities to intimidate and silence the press. His concerns are felt in every newsroom, where editors think twice before deciding to publish.

In Dhaka, journalists are learning to be extremely cautious which is leading to censorship of news about minorities and persecution. Therefore, reports like at-least 49 minority teachers persecution could possibly only be a trailer of the incident. 

 Interim’s lack of accountability Diplomacy

The Interim government in Dhaka often denies reports about attacks on Hindus. They claim these reports are just made-up stories from social media or have political motives. When India raises its concerns, Dhaka’s government accuses India of interfering in its affairs and puts the false blame on Sheikh Hasina’s supporters or outside troublemakers. Instead of dealing with the violence, like the killing of Bhabesh Chandra Roy—which India says shows ongoing persecution—the government’s spokesperson criticizes India.

They talk about communal issues in West Bengal regarding Waqf Bill which is a policy driven issue and nothing to do with targeted minority persecution. They prefer this diplomatic sorcery possibly to make false comparisons based on tactical disinformation. Instead, the Interim Government’s rhetoric fuels mob violence as radical supporters of the interim government declare war against India, Seven Sisters and Hindus getting inspired and radicalized from the theocratic Ghazwa E Hind (Battle against Hindus) sourced from broader Islamic literature (Hadith).

Dhaka surprisingly disregarded DNI Tulsi Gabbard’s statement as misleading, which shows how relentless Bangladeshi authorities are to sabotage facts on persecution. But why Dhaka hasn’t been able to refute Journalist Sahar Zand’s field-based report of unreported persecution of Hindus remains a riddle. 

Disclaimer: Views expressed by writers in this section are their own and do not reflect Milli Chronicle’s point-of-view.

S M Faiyaz Hossain

Cultural and religious minorities in Bangladesh are also suffering due to rising extremism.

The New York Times published a report titled “As Bangladesh Reinvents Itself, Islamist Hard-Liners See an Opening,” detailing the rise of Islamist extremism in Bangladesh during political changes. The report discusses how religious extremists are taking advantage after the removal of former leader Sheikh Hasina. 

It highlights incidents like bans on women’s soccer and public harassment of women who do not follow conservative dress codes. 

There have been rallies demanding the death penalty for actions seen as blasphemy. The report notes that some Islamist groups, including previously banned ones, are pushing for stricter religious rules in the government. 

Officials are working on a new constitution that might change secularism to pluralism. This shift is causing concern over weakening democratic values and increasing risks for women and minorities.

Bangladesh used to be known for its secular roots and cultural diversity, but in recent years, extremist ideas have been resurfacing. Although this isn’t an entirely new foundation, it has become more noticeable and concerning since 5^th of August 2024.

Extremists are attacking secular bloggers and targeting women’s sports and cultural events. Their goal is to impose strict religious views or a political caliphate on a society that values diversity. This rise in extremist actions is worrying because it threatens freedoms, especially those of women and minorities, and poses a danger to the country’s democratic setup. 

A particularly troubling aspect is the attack on women’s rights to participate in public life. For example, some women’s football matches had to be cancelled because of threats from extremist groups. This shows how these groups are trying to take over spaces that were once empowering for women. Sports provide young women with opportunities to move up socially and gain international recognition, but these are now under threat. 

Such actions not only limit their dreams but also send a negative message about the shrinking space for women in public and professional life. It reflects a broader aim to suppress women’s rights under the guise of religious morality, harming the progress made in gender equality over the years.

Lifting bans on Islamist political parties like Jamat-e-Islami and freeing extremists like Mufti Jashimuddin Rahmani known as the Anwar Al Awlaki of Bangladesh, give these groups more confidence. While the interim government might claim these actions are part of a broader peace strategy, they risk legitimizing extremist ideas and giving them a platform to grow. 

Inadequate systems to monitor released extremists make the situation worse, providing spaces for radical elements to regroup and plan for something like the meticulously planned October 7^th Attack orchestrated by Hamas. 

Meanwhile, a banned organization like Notorious Hizbut Tahrir openly propagated their influence and participation in Anti-Quota protest which for them was a tactical Jihad to oust the exiled Government and get a step ahead for their future plan of implementing a Caliphate. 

This political leniency by Interim Government weakens public trust in governance and helps extremist narratives spread, they have made few arrests while the extremist leaders are free and that questions if arresting the activists while ignoring the leadership is a soft ploy to leverage a tactical narrative. 

Cultural and religious minorities in Bangladesh are also suffering due to rising extremism. Attacks on Sufi shrines and other minority religious sites highlight an increase in intolerance. These aren’t isolated events but part of a plan to make all of Bangladeshi society conform to strict ideological rules. 

Targeting cultural figures, authors, and artists underlines this trend, aiming to silence voices of dissent and alternative perspectives. Such actions threaten Bangladesh’s rich culture, traditionally a mix of diverse influences. We must also consider socio-economic factors driving this phenomenon.

Poverty, unemployment, and lack of access to education create conditions where extremist views can take root. Young people, especially those from marginalized backgrounds, often join these movements seeking a sense of identity, purpose, or community. 

Extremist groups exploit these vulnerabilities using targeted propaganda and recruitment strategies, often through social media. Addressing these foundational issues requires comprehensive policies that promote inclusive development and foster social unity. 

Political Researcher and former Pentagon Official Michael Rubin, in a US Congressional briefing highlighted the growing concern of Radicalization in Bangladesh and opinionated an article ‘Is Bangladesh the Next Afghanistan’. 

Rubin is worried about how Noble Laurate Yunus is leading because it seems less tolerant than people expected. This is particularly true about how the government handles freedom of the press and different political views. 

Yunus is famous around the world for his work in microfinance, which helps poor people with small loans. He took charge of the interim government after Sheikh Hasina was removed from power. 

At first, many welcomed Yunus because they thought he would be different from Hasina, who was seen as too controlling. But Rubin thinks Yunus’s government is letting strict Islamist groups have too much power and is stopping people from speaking freely, which could hurt democracy. 

Rubin is especially concerned about the freedom of the press under Yunus’s rule. Some journalists, like Farzana Rupa and Shakil Ahmed, have reportedly been brutally jailed on vague and ambiguous murder charges, raising fears about free speech in Bangladesh.

Over 1,000 journalists seen as “too secular” have reportedly been fired, showing a lack of tolerance for different opinions. Rubin also mentions problems faced by Julfikar Ali Manik, who reports on Islamist groups, and former Member of Parliament Fazle Karim Chowdhury, who works to protect minority rights. 

These issues suggest that Yunus’s temporary government might not be supporting the diversity and human rights that are important for democracy.

Increasingly, people are showing public support for Hamas, which is a growing concern. This support is visible in rallies and in the way some individuals dress to symbolize the group. 

Bangladesh, for many years, has had a clear stance against Israel. It has consistently supported Palestine through diplomatic efforts and has officially recognized only the Fatah-led government based in the West Bank. However, there is a noticeable rise in grassroots support for Hamas, especially in the wake of the ongoing Israel-Gaza conflict. 

In this situation, extremists have spoken out against American interests in Bangladesh. Recently, some Islamists verbally called for aggressive protests in the U.S. Embassy in Dhaka. Along with Anti-India rhetoric, hatred for Trump’s America and Israel are seen. 

These tensions are fuelled by foreign policy support for Israel. The Interim Government was supposed to carry forward a Peaceful transition towards Democratic Election, while the reality looks, they have political interests to gain in the name of ‘reform’. 

Serving the interests, they are currently capitalizing on Islamists for majority support while being harsh and harsher on Secularists, Awami league activists, minorities and anyone associated with the 1971 Liberation war as tweeted by Lemkin Institute of Genocidal Prevention with multiple red flags. 

Disclaimer: Views expressed by writers in this section are their own and do not reflect Milli Chronicle’s point-of-view.

S M Faiyaz Hossain

Donald Trump’s ‘America First’ policy acts like a globalized version of the old Monroe Doctrine, called ‘Monroe Doctrine 2.0.

In 1823, President James Monroe introduced the Monroe Doctrine, a crucial U.S. policy to stop European nations from taking over or interfering with countries in the Americas. Monroe stated that new European colonies were not allowed in the Western Hemisphere and that any attempt by European powers to control or harm independent nations in this area would be a threat to the U.S. The United States promised not to get involved in European issues or their existing colonies but wanted to protect newly independent Latin American countries. At that time, Spain wanted to reclaim its old colonies, and Russia aimed to expand along North America’s Pacific coast. The U.S. couldn’t enforce the policy alone due to a weak military, but Britain supported the doctrine because it aligned with their trade interests in Latin America. Over time, the Monroe Doctrine evolved, with President Theodore Roosevelt adding the Roosevelt Corollary, which allowed U.S. intervention in Latin America to keep Europeans out. By the mid-20th century, under President Franklin D. Roosevelt, the focus shifted to cooperation and non-interference with the Good Neighbour Policy. The Monroe Doctrine remains a vital part of U.S. foreign policy and symbolizes America’s role in the Western Hemisphere.

President Donald Trump didn’t talk about the Monroe Doctrine during his 2016 campaign, but it became key to his “America First” foreign policy as president. In 2018, he brought up the doctrine in a United Nations speech, saying it was important to keep outside interference out of the Western Hemisphere. By his 2024 campaign, the Monroe Doctrine had become very important, especially to push back against China’s influence in Latin America. Many historians and experts believed that if Trump were elected again, he would focus more on the Monroe Doctrine. This would mean trying to have more control in the Western Hemisphere while reducing involvement in Europe and Asia. Hal Brands, a historian, thought Trump would give the doctrine more energy during a second term, matching his “America First” approach. James Jay Carafano from the Heritage Foundation also suggested reinvigorating the doctrine to counter foreign influence, particularly from China. Experts at Foreign Affairs and Carnegie Endowment pointed out that Trump’s policies reflected a modern take on the doctrine, trying to expand U.S. influence beyond the Western Hemisphere.

Trump’s trade policies aimed to reduce the influence of other countries and strengthen U.S. control in nearby regions. One key move was imposing 25% tariffs on goods from Mexico. He argued these tariffs would help decrease migration and stop fentanyl trafficking, but they also served to pressure Mexico to follow U.S. interests, reflecting an idea similar to the Monroe Doctrine, which emphasizes U.S. influence in the Americas. In his trade conflict with China, Trump focused on reducing China’s growing economic power in Latin America. His goal was to curb China’s influence and shift supply chains back to the Americas. To achieve this, he implemented reciprocal tariffs, including a basic 10% tariff on most Latin American countries, with higher rates for Guyana and Nicaragua. This approach was about claiming economic control in the region and showed Trump’s willingness to prioritize U.S. interests over existing free trade agreements like CAFTA-DR. Trump also used tariffs to push countries toward aligning with U.S. priorities in areas like security cooperation and trade agreements. For instance, Paraguay’s purchase of U.S. radars and Ecuador’s consideration of hosting a U.S. military base highlight how his economic measures were tied to broader geopolitical goals.

The Monroe Doctrine originally aimed to keep European powers out of the Americas, but Trump wanted it to apply worldwide. He believed some large organizations and allies were trying to weaken the U.S. or take advantage of its resources without giving enough return. Trump was sceptical of NATO and the EU because he thought Europe relied too much on American security and didn’t spend enough on their own defence. His administration wanted European countries to handle their security more, so the U.S. could reduce its role and investment in NATO. This was a significant change from the usual U.S.-Europe partnership. Trump’s interest in Greenland shows his use of the Monroe Doctrine approach. He wanted to buy Greenland to increase U.S. influence in the Arctic, where there are lots of valuable resources. This move was also meant to challenge China and Russia’s presence in the region. Although Denmark rejected the idea, Trump’s focus on Greenland aligns with the Monroe Doctrine by trying to control key areas and preventing other countries from gaining power there. In addition, his tariff actions against Europe and his efforts to strengthen the U.S. dollar show his desire to change the global economy to favour the United States.

Trump’s actions against the United States Agency for International Development (USAID) demonstrate how he applies his “America First” ideas. He targeted USAID because some argued it supported projects that hurt U.S. interests or advanced foreign agendas conflicting with his policy. By freezing foreign aid and stopping USAID activities in countries such as Pakistan, Bangladesh, and Ukraine, Trump aimed to align U.S. foreign assistance with domestic priorities. This decision also fits with Trump’s reinterpretation of the Monroe Doctrine, which he used to address perceived threats from non-state actors or certain ideologies. Critics claimed USAID funding supported initiatives associated with regime changes or left-wing agendas abroad, which Trump viewed as harmful to U.S. sovereignty and regional stability.

Donald Trump’s “America First” policy acts like a globalized version of the old Monroe Doctrine, called “Monroe Doctrine 2.0.” He used this idea to show U.S. power around the world. Trump challenged Global institutions like NATO, the EU. He decided to bypass these institutions and put tariffs on both allies and competitors of the U.S. His interest in buying Greenland showed a Monroe-like plan to control important areas to compete with China and Russia. Trump’s aim to shift supply chains more toward the Americas followed the doctrine’s focus on this region. Years, decades later another U.S President may emulate President Donald Trump’s Policies and commentators may name it America First 2.0, or Monroe Doctrine 3.0. 

Disclaimer: Views expressed by writers in this section are their own and do not reflect Milli Chronicle’s point-of-view.