Speaking at the Conservative Political Action Conference (CPAC) in Texas, the 44-year-old lawmaker said a future administration under his leadership would improve upon that of his father, former president Jair Bolsonaro, drawing parallels with Trump’s return to office.

“Bolsonaro 2.0 will also be much better,” he told attendees, adding that electoral integrity would be critical to his campaign. He called for “free and fair elections” and urged international scrutiny to ensure democratic processes are upheld.

Flavio Bolsonaro is widely expected to emerge as the principal challenger to incumbent President Luiz Inacio Lula da Silva, who at 80 is seeking a fourth term. With seven months until the vote, opinion polls indicate a closely contested race between the two figures.

The senator has sought to distinguish himself as more moderate than his father while maintaining a hardline stance on public security, an issue that remains central to conservative voters.During his address, Bolsonaro reiterated claims that the administration of former U.S. president Joe Biden interfered in Brazil’s 2022 election, which brought Lula back to power.

He did not provide evidence for the allegation.Brazil’s Supreme Court last year sentenced Jair Bolsonaro to 27 years in prison after convicting him of leading a scheme aimed at preventing Lula from taking office.

The former president has denied wrongdoing, describing the case as politically motivated.global alignment and messagingFlavio Bolsonaro’s remarks underscore a broader effort to align with international conservative movements, particularly those associated with Trump-era policies.

He also called for global attention to Brazil’s democratic institutions, urging diplomatic pressure to safeguard freedom of expression and institutional functioning.

His appearance at CPAC highlights the increasing role of transnational political alliances as Brazil’s election approaches, with both domestic and international narratives shaping the campaign.

The film, directed by Kaouther Ben Hania, recounts the death of five-year-old Hind Rajab during Israel’s war with Hamas. Manoj Nandwana of Jai Viratra Entertainment, the film’s Indian distributor, said a member of the Central Board of Film Certification told him the release would “hamper India’s relations with Israel,” though he added no formal written rejection had been issued.

Nandwana said that after screening the film for the board, it became clear it would not be cleared for theatrical release. He questioned the decision, noting the film had been screened internationally, including in Israel.

The film had earlier been shown at an international festival in Kolkata in November, according to the distributor.

India’s certification process requires approval from the Central Board of Film Certification for public exhibition, with decisions sometimes reflecting broader sensitivities tied to law and order or diplomatic considerations.

New Delhi has strengthened strategic ties with Israel in recent years across defence, agriculture, technology and cybersecurity, while continuing to support Palestinian statehood in line with its longstanding foreign policy.

Prime Minister Narendra Modi visited Israel last month, his second trip since 2017, shortly before Israel and the United States launched airstrikes on Iran, underscoring the evolving geopolitical context.

Opposition lawmaker Shashi Tharoor criticised the move, calling it “disgraceful” and arguing that restricting films over potential diplomatic sensitivities undermines freedom of expression in a democracy.

“The Voice of Hind Rajab” was nominated for Best International Feature at this year’s Academy Awards but did not win. It received the Silver Lion grand jury prize at the Venice Film Festival, where it drew strong audience reactions at its premiere.

The case has drawn wide international attention, highlighting the complex relationship between global media organizations, political figures, and the legal frameworks that govern public communication.

BBC representatives stated clearly that the organization stands by its editorial processes and will engage fully with the legal system to address the matter responsibly.

By choosing to defend the case, the broadcaster has emphasized its confidence in established journalistic standards and the protections afforded to independent media institutions.

The situation reflects the broader role of public broadcasters in navigating sensitive political content while serving diverse international audiences.

BBC officials have reiterated that their approach is rooted in long-standing editorial guidelines designed to ensure accuracy, balance, and public accountability.

Observers note that such cases, while challenging, often reinforce the importance of transparent legal mechanisms in resolving disputes involving freedom of expression.

The broadcaster’s response underscores a commitment to due process rather than public confrontation, allowing the courts to assess the claims objectively.

Media analysts suggest that the lawsuit places renewed focus on how edited material is interpreted in highly polarized political environments.

At the same time, it highlights the evolving responsibilities of news organizations operating in an era of rapid digital dissemination and global scrutiny.

The BBC’s decision to avoid extensive public commentary reflects a cautious and professional stance, consistent with best practices during ongoing legal proceedings.

This measured approach has been viewed positively by many in the journalism community, who see it as a sign of institutional maturity.

The case also serves as a reminder of the legal safeguards that exist to balance reputation, public interest, and press freedom.

In democratic societies, courts often play a vital role in clarifying these boundaries, strengthening trust in both media and legal institutions.

For audiences, the development offers an opportunity to reflect on how news content is produced, edited, and contextualized.

It also underscores the importance of media literacy, encouraging viewers and readers to engage critically with information from multiple sources.

The BBC’s global reputation as a public service broadcaster adds further significance to the proceedings, given its reach and influence worldwide.

International media organizations often face heightened scrutiny, making adherence to transparent editorial standards especially important.

Legal experts point out that disputes of this nature are not uncommon and can ultimately help clarify standards for future reporting.

Rather than weakening institutions, such challenges can strengthen frameworks that protect responsible journalism and free expression.

The unfolding case is being closely watched across media, legal, and political circles as an example of how established institutions respond under pressure.

While the outcome remains to be determined, the process itself reflects the rule of law and respect for independent judicial review.

For now, the BBC has reaffirmed its intention to focus on its public service mission while allowing the legal process to take its course.

The episode stands as a reminder that open societies rely on strong, independent media and clear legal channels to resolve disagreements.

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.

Perhaps the most dangerous tactic employed by the Yunus government is the use of fabricated charges against lawyers in an attempt to discredit and neutralize them.

In an unprecedented and deeply alarming move, the interim government of Bangladesh, led by former Nobel Peace Laureate Professor Muhammad Yunus, has launched a systemic campaign aimed directly at the country’s legal community.

According to documentation from JusticeMakers Bangladesh in France (JMBF), since assuming power in August 2024, the Yunus administration has orchestrated an alarming series of politically motivated arrests, fabricated charges, killings, forcible possession of the Bangladesh Bar Council and other district bar associations, and physical attacks targeting lawyers.

Over 391 legal professionals are now facing false accusations such as murder and explosive explosions. More than 131 have already been arrested, some detained without charges solely for their professional activities and political beliefs, while many more have been subjected to abuse, threats, and harassment. What we are witnessing is not a series of isolated incidents, but a deliberate, orchestrated attack on the rule of law and the very independence of Bangladesh’s judiciary.

This unprecedented crackdown on lawyers, many of whom are simply fulfilling their professional duties, reflects the government’s growing authoritarian tendencies and its determination to quash any form of political opposition. In doing so, it poses an existential threat to the fundamental principles of justice, constitutional rights, and democratic governance in Bangladesh.

Arrests and Arbitrary Detentions: The Systematic Repression of Lawyers

The Yunus government has weaponized the arrest and detention of lawyers as a tool of political repression. The arbitrary arrests, often conducted under the cover of night, are carried out without regard for due process and with complete disregard for human rights and the legal protections that should be afforded to all citizens. These actions are meant to send a clear message to the legal community: dissent will not be tolerated.

On April 7, 2025, Barrister Turin Afroz, a former ICT prosecutor, was arrested from her home, only months after surviving a brutal physical assault by unknown assailants. The attack on her was never investigated, and now she is facing arrest in what appears to be retaliation for her legal work. Other prominent figures, such as Advocate Khan Md. Alauddin and Advocate Rezaul Karim Khokon, have similarly been targeted in politically motivated arrests aimed at silencing those who dare to speak out or represent clients from opposition groups.

The arbitrary nature of these arrests was further highlighted on April 6, 2025, when 84 pro-Awami League lawyers were thrown into jail after a Dhaka Metropolitan Sessions Judge overruled anticipatory bail granted by the High Court. This flagrant violation of established legal procedures not only undermines the judiciary’s independence but also exposes the government’s determination to bend the legal system to its will, regardless of constitutional guarantees.

Many of these lawyers are held without charges, often denied access to legal counsel and forced to endure harsh conditions in jail. They are also treated inhumanely, with their hands cuffed behind their backs. This behavior is in direct violation of Bangladesh’s constitutional protections and international human rights standards. The clear intent behind these arrests is not to administer justice but to intimidate and silence a professional community that has historically been one of the strongest defenders of democratic rights.

Fabrication of Charges: A Political Witch Hunt

Perhaps the most dangerous tactic employed by the Yunus government is the use of fabricated charges against lawyers in an attempt to discredit and neutralize them. By leveling baseless accusations such as murder, explosives, or assault, the government not only attacks individual lawyers but attempts to delegitimize the entire legal profession as a whole.

On February 12, 2025, 32 lawyers were falsely accused of attacking student protesters in Comilla—a charge entirely fabricated to undermine opposition voices. Similarly, in February 2025, 144 pro-Awami League lawyers were falsely implicated in an assault and attempted murder case linked to protests from the July movement. These false charges are not isolated incidents but part of a pattern of politically motivated persecution designed to punish those who dare to challenge the status quo.

In November 2024, 70 lawyers from Chattogram were falsely charged under the Explosives Act, a draconian law that permits severe penalties. Eleven other lawyers were implicated in the death of a street vendor, despite a complete lack of evidence to link them to the crime. These fabricated charges not only violate the fundamental rights of lawyers but also serve as a calculated strategy to suppress opposition and silence political dissent.

The Yunus government has clearly weaponized the justice system for political purposes. It sends a chilling message to the legal community: challenge the government, defend political dissidents, or even represent those the government dislikes—and you will face fabricated charges that could ruin your career, imprison you, and destroy your reputation.

Physical Attacks and Intimidation: Cultivating Fear Among Lawyers

The Yunus government’s attack on the legal profession is not limited to arrests and fabricated charges. There has been a disturbing rise in physical violence aimed at intimidating lawyers into silence. Such acts of brutality serve to create a climate of fear and compel legal professionals to think twice before representing clients that may be seen as politically sensitive or opposition-affiliated.

In March 2025, three prominent lawyers from Jamalpur were brutally attacked while performing their professional duties. Similar violent incidents have occurred at various courts, with lawyers like Morshed Hossain Shaheen and Sheikh Farid subjected to mob violence in Dhaka. In August 2024, Barrister Ashraful Islam was stabbed in the Supreme Court Bar Association building—a brazen act of violence meant to send a clear message to all lawyers: if you challenge the government’s actions or defend political dissenters, you risk your safety.

These incidents of physical violence are not random acts; they are part of a deliberate strategy to suppress opposition and instill fear. Lawyers are increasingly reluctant to take on cases that challenge the government’s position or represent opposition figures. The result is a paralyzed legal community unable to perform its crucial role in upholding the rule of law.

Killings: The Ultimate Form of State Terror

The attack on Bangladesh’s legal community has escalated to the point where the lives of lawyers are at risk. In April 2025, Advocate Sujon Mia, a former student leader and a member of the Moulvibazar District Bar Association, was brutally stabbed to death by a group of youth miscreants. It is alleged that he was killed because he represented politically motivated accused individuals affiliated with the Bangladesh Awami League and its associated wings in court.

Earlier, on August 5, 2024, young lawyer Nayan Sheikh, affiliated with the Bangladesh Awami League, was fatally hacked to death at his home in Bagerhat, following the fall of the previous Awami League regime.

On November 26, 2024, lawyer Saiful Islam, an Assistant Public Prosecutor, was killed during a clash in Chattogram involving supporters of Hindu leader Chinmoy Krishna Das Brahmachari, police, and BGB forces. These killings represent the ultimate form of repression, aiming not only to eliminate outspoken legal professionals but also to instill a pervasive fear that further discourages any form of resistance.

Electoral Obstruction and Democratic Sabotage

The Yunus government has also taken steps to obstruct the democratic process, particularly within the legal community. These efforts have included direct interference in bar elections to ensure that only those loyal to the regime are allowed to hold key positions. As soon as the Yunus government took power, the Bangladesh Bar Council office was forcibly taken over by unelected pro-BNP-Jamaat lawyers, along with the Dhaka Bar Association and Khulna Bar Association offices.

On April 10, 2025, in Chattogram, pro-Awami lawyers were barred from collecting nomination papers for the Bar election, a blatant attempt to prevent any opposition from gaining power within the legal profession. This incident is part of a broader pattern of electoral obstruction across the country, as seen between January and March 2025, when lawyers affiliated with the ruling coalition were forcibly prevented from contesting bar elections in Rajbari, Naogaon, and Sirajganj. In Dinajpur, 13 candidates were disqualified on purely political grounds.

Such actions are a direct assault on democratic processes, as the ruling regime seeks to eliminate any independent voices within the legal community. By controlling the electoral process within the Bar, the Yunus government is ensuring that no opposition remains within the structures that could hold it accountable.

A Descent into Authoritarianism

The systematic targeting of Bangladesh’s legal community is not just an attack on individual lawyers—it is an attack on the very pillars of justice, democracy, and the rule of law. Under the Yunus administration, the government has steadily shifted towards authoritarianism, systematically dismantling the democratic structures that have historically held the state accountable.

The legal profession, with its long-standing ties to the opposition and its role in defending human rights and political freedoms, has become a primary target. The Yunus government understands that by silencing lawyers, it can eliminate the last remaining check on its growing authoritarian tendencies. This attack on the legal profession is part of a broader strategy to eliminate all sources of opposition and dissent. With the legal community neutralized, the Yunus government would be free to govern without scrutiny, accountability, or restraint.

The International Community Must Act

The international community must not stand by idly while the legal profession in Bangladesh is systematically dismantled. It is imperative that foreign governments, international legal bodies, and human rights organizations come together to hold the Yunus government accountable for its actions. Sanctions, travel bans, and other diplomatic measures should be considered to signal that the international community will not tolerate such blatant violations of human rights and the erosion of judicial independence.

Bangladesh’s legal community plays a critical role in defending the rights of citizens, ensuring justice, and holding the government accountable. If left unchecked, this attack on lawyers will not only destroy the independence of the judiciary but also undermine the foundations of democracy in Bangladesh. The world must take action to prevent this authoritarian descent from further dismantling the very fabric of the country’s democracy.

A Call for Resistance

The assault on Bangladesh’s lawyers is an assault on democracy itself. It is a calculated attempt by the Yunus government to consolidate power and eliminate any form of dissent. The targeting of lawyers—through arrests, fabricated charges, physical violence, and killings—is a deliberate strategy to weaken the legal profession and undermine the democratic principles upon which Bangladesh was built.

The people of Bangladesh, along with the international community, must stand in solidarity with the legal profession and demand an immediate end to this repressive campaign. The future of Bangladesh’s democracy hangs in the balance. If the legal profession is silenced, if the rule of law is further eroded, the very foundations of the nation’s democracy will crumble.

The time to act is now. The legal community, civil society, and the international community must rise together to defend justice, human rights, and democracy in Bangladesh before it is too late.

Advocate Shahanur Islam is a Bangladeshi Human Rights Lawyer and Laureate 2023 of the French Marianne Initiative for Human Rights Defenders. Currently, he is working as the Founder President of JusticeMakers Bangladesh in France (JMBF).

Featured Image is AI-Generated.

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

69-year-old President said during his annual news conference that, “Insults to the prophet are a violation of religious freedom and the violation of the sacred feelings of people who profess Islam”.

He emphasized the fact that such acts help extremists with justifications. He cited the example of attack on the editorial office of Charlie Hebdo magazine in Paris after its publication of cartoons of the prophet.

Putin praised artistic freedom in general, but he said that it has limits and it should not violate other freedoms.

He highlighted that Russia has evolved as a multi-ethnic and multi-confessional state, which is used to respecting each other’s traditions.

On November 24, Saudi Arabia hosted Russia-Islamic World in Jeddah, which was held under the theme “Dialogue and Prospects for Cooperation”.

It included a broad participation of officials and scholars, and intellectuals from the Russian Federation and Islamic countries to discuss common issues and enhance cooperation in addressing the existing challenges.

Muslim leaders and religious figures welcomed Putin’s recent comments on mutual respect and coexistence.