Friends of Bangladesh has relied extensively on the prolific writings of Shayan Khan, the editor of the Dhaka Courier, most of it on his Facebook page. During a visit to Dhaka in January 2026, we were able to sit down and have a wide-ranging conversation with him about the current situation in the country and how it is likely to evolve. A lightly edited transcript appears below.
Friends of Bangladesh: Help our readers understand what is going on in Bangladesh now.
Shayan Khan: It’s a very interesting time. The last eighteen months—actually, not just since August 5, but from July 14, 2024—this country has been concerned about where it’s going and what it’s doing. Everybody cared at that moment. It felt like every day we were building toward something. But there were disappointments along the way, and it took time for us to realize that not everyone shared the same dream. Expectations played a huge role. When Professor Yunus joined, some people deliberately set the bar extremely high. When he couldn’t meet those expectations, they quickly turned on him. A lot of people were very dreamy-eyed.
Friends of Bangladesh: Like when Obama was elected in 2008?
Shayan Khan: Yes, very much like that. And now, when I see people passing judgment, I tell them you can’t fairly judge anything before at least two or three years. There were sixteen years of a certain political reality before this. When people say it’s the same as before, or even worse, I think that’s completely outlandish.
Right now, people are judging the interim government without taking into account that it has only been in power for eighteen months. They say Yunus hasn’t done anything for the economy—but he wasn’t supposed to. His job during this period wasn’t economic transformation; it was to hold the country together.
Friends of Bangladesh: Especially since they never stated how long they were going to stay in power.
Shayan Khan: At the time, I actually thought that was a mistake. I was used to a more bookish understanding—you swear yourself in for three months, for example. When they didn’t specify a duration, I assumed there must be some rule being broken. But there was no such rule. Looking back now, we always have to make judgments based on the fact that they only had eighteen months. Since then, foreign policy has largely taken over the agenda.
Friends of Bangladesh: Remind our readers what things were like right before and after the government fell in early August 2024.
Shayan Khan: In July and in early August, the curfew was on, everything was shut down. And most of these places weren’t even open at the time. Coming out of that period was extremely hard. The economy had effectively shut down, almost like during COVID. Restarting everything while not having a full five-year government term meant that what he could realistically achieve was always going to be very limited.
Now it’s become a free-for-all. Everyone goes on television taking shots at [Professor Yunus], using Sheikh Hasina’s language—calling him things like a “bloodsucker.” I completely detest that. All of that is very disappointing. But despite this, ordinary people still believe in him.
Friends of Bangladesh: The cab driver who took me from the airport told me he was going to vote for Jamaat and also felt that the interim government had actually done a good job.
Shayan Khan: Exactly. It feels like a decision was made—almost collectively—not to give the Interim Government any credit at all. Many people were maneuvered into that position. Some even believed that if you praised him, he would stay [in power] forever. But he has never expressed that intention. He has always said he would leave.
Now it’s been eighteen months—just under two years. And for the last four months, he’s essentially been sitting idle because you simply can’t take major policy decisions so quickly or so late in the process.
Friends of Bangladesh: How do you, as a journalist and citizen of Bangladesh, assess the claims that the Interim Government has somehow failed?
Shayan Khan: Those who say the government has failed are often the same people pushing the view that we need an elected government immediately and that the Interim Government should step aside. But many others have consciously avoided taking such a hard position. Instead, they’ve said that Professor Yunus had good intentions, but that his hands were tied by the people around him. That became a kind of “safe” opinion.
What almost no one acknowledges is the sheer enormity of the task—what he actually inherited and what he was expected to deliver. Who has ever changed a country’s Foreign Director Investment (FDI) scenario in a single year? That’s a long-term process. And when the figures finally came in, FDI had actually increased [during his time in power].
Friends of Bangladesh: Looking ahead six months, what do you see as a positive scenario for the country?
Shayan Khan: I think what Bangladesh has proven at the very least is that it has a demographic dividend, not just in terms of age, but in terms of people who are actively in the workforce right now. There will be enough output, enough GDP, and enough commercial activity to keep the country on its feet. Remittances will also continue to come in.
So, as long as we’re growing at around four percent or more, I think we’ll be fine. That’s why I don’t fully agree with some of the more alarmist criticisms of the economy. People often point to the banking sector and say it’s struggling and yes, it is struggling—but it’s important to understand why.
The banking sector had effectively become a mafia [under Hasina]. What happened there is genuinely frightening. Banks were being taken over at gunpoint. That’s unheard of. You have to keep that context in mind when evaluating the current situation. This broader economic sentiment has also been reflected in Pew Research findings.
In several polls conducted in Bangladesh, people were asked questions that touched—indirectly—on whether they preferred democracy or development. That framing has become very common here. On at least two occasions, the majority response was clear: people said they would prefer democracy over development.
So some of the economic slowdown, the hesitation in investment—people have accepted that. Right now, the country is engaged in what feels like a political project. Under Sheikh Hasina, we had high growth rates, but democratic rights were steadily eroded. People understand that this phase may be the opposite. We may not grow as robustly, but this is an opportunity to reset our politics, restore rights, and put things in the right place. That has to be secured first—so that nothing like the past [under Hasina] can happen again.
The only thing I can really foresee that would have been bad is if there had been external intervention. This is the first major political process we’re undertaking post–Sheikh Hasina, and there were people who wanted to prove that Bangladesh couldn’t conduct an election properly. But it’s very clear now—there will be an election [next month], and it’s going to be a credible one.
What Sheikh Hasina would have hoped for was that this election would resemble the last three [held when she was in power]. But it won’t be anything like those. It’s going to be better than all three of them, even without her [as a candidate].
So in that sense, this election will mark the culmination of what began on August 5, 2024. Once the election happens smoothly, we’ll be able to say—yes, we did the right thing. Until now, there’s been this constant question hanging over people’s heads: Was that the right decision? Were we fooled? Did we make a mistake?
The only way we’ll truly believe we did the right thing is if we get through the election peacefully. After that, how things unfold will be a matter of political process. But whatever happens next will not be the fault of the July revolution.
Friends of Bangladesh: I remember when you commented positively on Tarique Rahman’s body language when he met Professor Yunus in London. From the 1990s, many of us didn’t have a very high opinion of him—but he was much younger then, and people do change.
Until recently, it didn’t seem like BNP was running a very strong campaign, but maybe the dynamics have shifted. What’s your sense of Tarique Rahman and the BNP right now? And after that, I’d like to ask about Jamaat, which seems to be performing unexpectedly well.
Shayan Khan: What we’ve realized over the last fifteen years is that many of the things said about Tarique Rahman back then were exaggerated.
People talk about liberal bias in U.S. media; something similar exists here. Replace “liberal” with “Awami League.” Newsrooms were dominated by ideologically aligned writers, artists, and idealists, and they created a frenzy of allegations. We’ve seen the same thing happen more recently with the students and their party [that National Citizen’s Party or NCP]; outlandish claims [have been made] that simply don’t hold up.
This also happened with Tarique Rahman. During the fifteen years Sheikh Hasina was in power, they managed to secure a conviction in only one case, and even that came after a lower-court judge who ruled in his favor was dismissed and forced to leave the country.
If he had truly been as corrupt as portrayed between 2001 and 2006—when it felt like he was accused of being involved in everything, how is it that none of those cases stood up in fifteen years of absolute state power?
We also saw that he lived a very modest life in the U.K. There was no visible opulence. His daughter went to a state school and then to Imperial College. So if he had stolen vast sums of money, where was it? That reality has to count in his favor now.
And so far, he’s been sending reasonably good signals.
Friends of Bangladesh: Given how negatively he was portrayed in the 1990s, his statements since August 2024 have been strikingly well-crafted. Either he’s changed, or the people around him are thinking very carefully.
But critics always say, “This is just a performance, wait until he comes to power.” The same thing is now said about Jamaat: that they appear liberal out of power but will change once they’re in control. If you take that logic seriously, then you can’t trust anyone. So how do you make any judgment at all?
Shayan Khan: Exactly. This narrative has largely been pushed by Awami League loyalists. Over the last eighteen months, their strategy has been to muddy the waters. If someone performs well, the claim becomes that their intentions are secretly sinister.
With Tarique Rahman, what I see so far isn’t extraordinary but it is consistent with a generational shift in leadership. This is the first time a younger generation is positioned to take control at the top of the party. If they form a government, I would expect it to reflect that shift: more pragmatic, more energetic, and with less ideological baggage.
The older generation was more centrist and cautious. This new leadership could be more efficient and forward-moving. That’s what I would expect.
Friends of Bangladesh: A U.S. diplomat once told me that if Tarique Rahman comes to power, the real test will be who he appoints. Does he bring back the old guard, or does he align himself with younger technocrats and pragmatists who’ve been sidelined for years? That will be very telling.
When I think about Professor Yunus’s legacy, I wonder what it will ultimately be. We’ll probably know in a year.
Shayan Khan: His biggest contribution may be redefining what people expect from their leaders.
Even something simple like not beginning every speech with five or six minutes of ritualistic tributes to the past—that alone is refreshing to me. That already feels like progress.
The way he travels internationally, the sheer number of meetings he holds, the tireless work ethic–hopefully that sets a new standard for whoever comes next.
Honestly, I don’t know how he does it. I read that at one UN visit alone, he held something like forty-four meetings. Even we journalists were getting tired just releasing the updates.
Friends of Bangladesh: There may be legitimate criticisms of him and his government, but corruption isn’t one of them.
Shayan Khan: Exactly. I genuinely don’t believe this government is corrupt. Claims that thousands of crores have been laundered, or that advisers are planning to flee abroad these are absurd allegations. When people say things like that, the only reasonable response is: wait and watch.
Friends of Bangladesh: An academic once told me that one of the real legacies of microcredit in Bangladesh wasn’t just economic—it was about expectations. For decades, rural people assumed that any institution they dealt with would be inefficient, corrupt, and disrespectful.
Then institutions like Grameen and BRAC came along. They weren’t perfect, but they were comparatively much more honest and efficient. People, especially poor women, began to say, “If I can be treated with dignity here, why not everywhere?”
That shift in expectations mattered. People began to believe they deserved better.
Shayan Khan: That kind of change in expectations [of political leaders] could become Professor Yunus’s legacy as well.
Right now, everyone is caught in a fever of criticism. Nothing good the interim government has done is acknowledged [by Dhaka-based elites]. But over time, once the fear that praising them might prolong their stay disappears, I think people will look back more rationally.
Once they’re gone, people may actually miss them. That’s when a more balanced assessment will emerge.
I remember that around Eid al-Adha last year was probably his peak moment. After Eid prayers, while greeting people at the mosque, some voices in the crowd were saying, “Five years, five years.” That image circulated widely and frightened many.
Shortly after that, BNP intensified its pressure. A month or two later came the London meeting. Those intervening months were chaotic demands for election dates far in advance, which was absurd. No election is announced a year ahead.
That panic, I think, came from misreading public sentiment and it shaped everything that followed.
Friends of Bangladesh: Help people in Europe or the U.S. who may only have a passing familiarity with Bangladesh—often through Professor Yunus—understand Jamaat. When people hear Jamaat, they often think it’s an Islamic fundamentalist party that wants to turn Bangladesh into Afghanistan. But that caricature doesn’t feel quite right. Help us understand it.
Shayan Khan: Jamaat has never been shown to be involved in terrorism or extremist violence. They may hold conservative or fundamentalist views, but they’ve never been associated with groups like Al-Qaeda or ISIS. They are not inclined toward that kind of politics.
India, however, has long demonized Jamaat—especially around 2008, which was a key moment. During that caretaker government period, negotiations were happening involving India, the U.S., and Bangladesh. This is documented in WikiLeaks cables and also in the memoirs of Pranab Mukherjee, who was India’s foreign minister at the time and later president.
Those documents show how discussions about Bangladesh were essentially taken over by India. There are cables between Delhi and Washington discussing Jamaat, where the U.S. position was that Jamaat was Islamist but fundamentally electoral, while India insisted they were extremists. Eventually, India’s position prevailed, and Jamaat was effectively denied any political space.
That moment in 2008 was critical. Over the next 15 years, we saw what happened to them.
Now, war crimes absolutely should have been prosecuted properly, but the fact is that Sheikh Hasina never raised the issue during her first term from 1996 to 2001. This shows how politicized the issue later became.
Jamaat’s ideological roots have always emphasized participation in electoral politics. Ghulam Azam even wrote about proportional representation, clearly a democratic concept. Jamaat has consistently stated that it seeks power through democratic means.
Friends of Bangladesh: And as someone who knows Bangladesh well, you more or less believe them?
Shayan Khan: I do—within a democratic framework. If we’re truly moving toward democracy, people will hold them accountable. Because Jamaat has chosen electoral politics, they’ve been forced to dilute or soften their more extreme positions. Their recent surge in popularity has only happened because of compromises they’ve made.
If you look at their campaign material, it’s almost secular in tone. They’ve brought in people from other religions. They even nominated a woman candidate who doesn’t wear hijab and came from a different political background. They clearly understand that to succeed democratically, they have to broaden their appeal and become a “big tent” party.
Friends of Bangladesh: Many people—including my taxi driver from the airport—believe that whatever their ideology, Jamaat is fundamentally more honest and less corrupt than other parties.
Shayan Khan: They do have a track record. When Jamaat was part of the BNP government from 2001 to 2006, they held three ministries. Those ministries were widely acknowledged as corruption-free. That’s not speculation—it’s a documented reality.
Beyond that, Jamaat’s party structure is different. Most political parties rely on coercive fundraising that amounts to extortion. Jamaat simply doesn’t have that structure. They don’t operate that way.
Friends of Bangladesh: Do you think they could win a majority?
Shayan Khan: No, not a majority. But I think they’ll have their best results ever—enough to be a strong opposition.
What’s important is that this election is clearly competitive. Jamaat and BNP are genuinely competing with each other. There’s no perception that they’re colluding behind the scenes. That alone makes this election better than anything we saw under the Awami League.
Most people, however, have probably already made up their minds. Many see the BNP as the safer option. Jamaat still feels like too big a leap for most voters.
Friends of Bangladesh: What’s the path back for the Awami League? The country probably needs a party like that.
Shayan Khan: From the day of the uprising on August 5, I’ve been against banning parties, including the Awami League. Initially, I thought banning them was a mistake. But then I reconsidered because there was no willingness from them to reflect, to take responsibility, or to acknowledge what happened under their rule.
They continue to deny everything. Their shooters are still killing people. That hasn’t even been properly attributed yet, but it will be. The motivation was simple: with elections approaching, eliminate key figures from the July uprising.
One of the young leaders who emerged had the sharpest critique of Awami League politics. He was deeply grounded in politics; his father was politically active, and he’d been going to the local BNP office since he was nine years old. He understood grassroots politics extremely well.
He’s portrayed as anti-India, but that’s not accurate. His critique is about Indian hegemony, not anti-Indian sentiment. That distinction is often lost in the discourse.
Friends of Bangladesh: So in ten years, is it just a matter of new leadership for the Awami League, or is the party finished?
Shayan Khan: Right now, they’re doing everything wrong. They’re obsessed with attacking Yunus, even though Yunus will be gone soon. Their real political opponent will be whoever comes next, but they refuse to adjust their strategy.
They’re trying to build conspiracy theories that don’t exist. The U.S. wasn’t pulling the strings here. Hasina simply lost legitimacy. Until the Awami League accepts that reality and reforms fundamentally, they won’t be able to come back in a meaningful way.
Friends of Bangladesh: Is there a path forward for better relations with India under a new government? I mean, maybe at least it can’t get worse.
Shayan Khan:I think India realizes that something has gone wrong. With Bangladesh, it’s very clear that India has to adjust its position—it’s not that we have to change. To whatever extent there has been injustice in the relationship, it’s largely been in India’s favor. So they need to rethink their approach, even from a purely self-interested, realist foreign policy perspective.
[Indian Foreign Minister] S. Jaishankar is a career diplomat—he spent about 35 years in the Indian Foreign Service before becoming foreign minister. He thinks like a diplomat, and I’m sure he realizes that things went wrong because of India’s policies over decades.
Friends of Bangladesh: You really think he realizes that?
Shayan Khan: Absolutely. That’s why he was the first to come here and signal a shift. It was a funeral, but within an hour or two, India had confirmed that they would attend. That mattered.
What India has to show now is that it’s ready to stop putting all its eggs in one basket—which is exactly what it did before, and to its own detriment.
Of course, Jaishankar isn’t the only one shaping Indian foreign policy. There are others who are more hardline. But Jaishankar is clearly pushing the line that if India wants to recalibrate this relationship, this is how it has to proceed.
Friends of Bangladesh: So there could be a kind of reset under a new government—without India having to admit that it misplayed its hand. Just a subtle positive shift.
Shayan Khan: Exactly. All India really has to do is show that it’s willing to work with non–Awami League governments in Bangladesh. That alone would be enough.
There’s also the Ganges Water Treaty, which expires this year. It has to be renegotiated by the end of the year. That process doesn’t have to be complicated—they can simply renew it as is, because there’s a clause that allows renewal without changes.
That said, the BNP has historically been critical of the treaty because it was signed by the Awami League and involved what BNP considers excessive concessions to India. So it’ll be interesting to see whether BNP pushes for revisions. They might ask for one or two concessions—things Delhi may realize it now needs to give, because this isn’t the Awami League anymore. You have to give something. That could be a way to start on the right foot.
Friends of Bangladesh: Thank you for sharing so many insights with us today, and for your always informative Facebook page.
