Is the Western view of Sheikh Hasina overly critical?

Dr. Anjuman A. Islam and S. M. Fayyaz Hossain

Sheikh Hasina’s collection of awards is not just full—it is a monument to decades of determination, stability, and unwavering leadership. From the UNESCO Peace Prize to the United Nations Champions of the Earth Award to the prestigious Indira Gandhi Peace Prize—she has amassed global honors as milestones in a journey of sacrifice and determination. These are not just medals; they are recognition of a leader who has stood tall while others have stumbled—giving shelter to the stateless, defending democracy, and placing women’s rights at the center of emerging nations.

But there is a contradiction in this applause: while the world’s institutions applaud her, a section of the Western mainstream media has painted her in a different light—choosing sensationalism over substance, drama over development. Yet, through every headline and storm, Hasina perseveres—not for the praise, but for the future of a nation she has spent her life rebuilding.

Dictator or builder of stability?

Sheikh Hasina is often called a dictator—but that label only scratches the surface. The fires she has walked through, the storms she has calmed, and the impossible decisions she has made to hold a divided nation together—are beyond the scope of this label. She did not come to power in peace. She stepped into a Bangladesh scarred by decades of political unrest, violence, extremism, and military coups. Where many have stumbled or fled, she has stood firm.

And he didn’t just tolerate it—he transformed it. Under his watch, Bangladesh didn’t just survive; it began to dream. The country’s per capita income tripled, poverty rates fell, and the military—once a shadow power—was kept out of civilian administration. During the rise of global terrorism, he didn’t just build resistance to extremism—he broke it. Even at the height of ISIS’s influence, when fear gripped the world, he led with unwavering resolve, ensuring that Bangladesh did not fall victim to the fire.

But such progress does not come from polite debate or endless diplomacy. It comes from conviction, clarity and courage. The Padma Bridge, a symbol of national pride and self-reliance, was not built in a boardroom—it was built in the face of rejection, when the world looked at us with suspicion. It was built because one woman refused to bow her head. Food security, once a distant dream, is now a living reality. Such transformation does not come with gentle hands—it takes someone who can control the chaos and weave it into a garland of melody.

Sheikh Hasina has done something that few leaders in the world have dared to do—she has led with both tenderness and firmness. She has established women’s empowerment not just in words but in changed lives, in open doors, in voices finally heard. She has responded to the Rohingya refugee crisis not as a politician but as a human being—with a compassion that transcends borders and politics. Where there was once only pain, she has brought peace.

Call him what you will—tough, uncompromising, even dictatorial. But the truth is, this is the rarest kind of transformational leadership. Real change in a complex and volatile country like Bangladesh requires not just vision, but the courage to act, the heart to feel, and the mindset to make sacrifices. He has done all three.

This is not a story of dictatorship. This is the story of a woman who became the steel backbone of a rising nation. Sheikh Hasina didn’t just lead Bangladesh – she carried it.

Strategic Statesmanship: Hasina’s Foreign Policy

In an era when the world is struggling with division, mistrust and chaos, Sheikh Hasina has emerged as a stateswoman of rare courage, clarity and determination. Her approach to foreign policy is not just strategic – it is visionary, rooted in a deep understanding of history, geography and humanity.

Where many saw Bangladesh’s position as a limitation, he saw a gift. Where many feared pressure from global powers from all sides, he dreamed of building a bridge. And he did just that—a strong, resilient, and purposeful bridge that connects not just nations, but hearts and futures.

“Friendship with all, hatred for none”—this everyday principle has been elevated by Sheikh Hasina from a mere diplomatic courtesy to a living creed—one that resonates in every handshake, every agreement, every step Bangladesh takes on the global stage. It is not a slogan. It is her guiding star.

He has walked the geopolitical tightrope with unparalleled skill, balancing relations with regional giants like India and China while simultaneously nurturing ties with the United States, Russia, and others. His foreign policy is not about loyalty—it is about Bangladesh. It is about sovereignty. It is about dignity. It is about opportunity.

From protecting Bangladesh’s economic interests in regional alliances like BIMSTEC and SAARC to opening doors, he has made diplomacy a driving force for prosperity. His leadership has made Bangladesh a credible, respected partner—one that can no longer be ignored or underestimated.

In the face of the greatest humanitarian crisis of our time, the exodus of the Rohingya, her voice—and Bangladesh’s compassion—resounded around the world. In that darkest hour, when so many turned their backs, Sheikh Hasina looked into the eyes of the refugees and said, “You are not alone.” That moral courage has etched Bangladesh’s name in the global conscience.

His advocacy for climate diplomacy is not only commendable, but influential. He has transformed Bangladesh from a frontline victim of climate change to a frontline leader in climate justice—bringing global recognition and critical resources for a more resilient future.

The invitation to the G20 Summit in New Delhi in September 2023 was not merely symbolic. It was historic. A moment when the world acknowledged the rise of a new voice—a voice of reason, balance, and steadfast policy. Sheikh Hasina did not just attend the summit; she enhanced it with her presence, representing the dreams of not only Bangladesh but also the emerging Global South.

With quiet determination and unwavering pragmatism, he has weathered the storms of global uncertainty and guided Bangladesh towards sustainable growth. He has rewritten what a small nation can achieve when led by a leader with immense willpower and boundless love for his people. Under his watch, Bangladesh has not only participated in global affairs—it has helped shape them.

And it is there that Sheikh Hasina has left her nation not just a strong voice, but a legacy of hope, courage, and global inclusion.

One-sided allegations in the name of revealing the truth: Sensation vs. Context

The student protests that began in Bangladesh in July 2024 were a searing moment in the country’s evolving democratic journey. What began as a peaceful demonstration against the reintroduction of the controversial job quota system quickly escalated into a national crisis—one that not only exposed deep tensions within the country but also revealed the international media’s troubling tendency to flatten complex realities into sensationalized narratives.

The protests were sparked by a High Court decision that reinstated a long-standing quota in government jobs that favored descendants of freedom fighters. In response, thousands of students took to the streets, staging blockades in Dhaka and other major cities. Unlike many leaders in similar situations, Prime Minister Sheikh Hasina was not quick to criminalize the dissent. Instead, she took the unusual step of publicly supporting the students’ right to protest, even instructing her legal team to defend their case in court.

However, a wave of misinformation across the country soon clouded the atmosphere. One particularly damaging rumor claimed that Hasina had called the students “Rajakars”—a term historically associated with her comrades during the 1971 liberation war. Although there was no credible evidence to support this allegation, it spread like wildfire, fueling public anger and further fueling unrest.

As the protests intensified, so did the incidents of violence—vandalism, arson, and attacks on key infrastructure projects, including the Dhaka Metro Rail and data stations. In the face of growing chaos, the government authorized security forces to operate under limited magisterial powers to restore order. It was a difficult, controversial decision—but one not unfamiliar to any government dealing with civil unrest.

Following the loss of life during the crackdown, Prime Minister Hasina formed a judicial inquiry committee to investigate the incidents. Yet this important step has received little attention in Western media coverage. Instead, the mainstream media has focused on unsubstantiated claims, particularly the so-called “leaked audio recordings” in which Hasina is heard ordering the use of force against alleged students. These recordings have had no authentication, custodial discipline, or credible forensic analysis. Yet prominent international networks such as CNN and Al Jazeera have broadcast these claims without proper verification—raising serious questions about journalistic standards in high-stakes international reporting.

To be clear, the issue of enforced disappearances in Bangladesh is serious, and any democratic society must address such concerns with transparency and accountability. But criticism must be fair and consistent. It is worth noting that the interim government that came to power after Hasina’s term took more than seven months to begin investigating the alleged detention centers—a failure that has been met with near silence by the same international watchdogs and news outlets.

The result is a one-sided narrative that caricatures the political situation in Bangladesh—authoritarian versus oppressed, with no room for complexity or nuance. It is a dangerous oversimplification that not only distorts the reality on the ground but also undermines the legitimacy of democratic institutions struggling to develop in a post-colonial context.

Sheikh Hasina’s leadership is not without controversy. But leadership, especially in the Global South, should not be judged solely from the perspective of Western expectations. It must be understood within its own historical, political, and socio-economic realities. And when those realities are selectively reported or distorted, it is not just an injustice to a leader—but to an entire nation and its people.

At a time when global discourse increasingly relies on hashtags, headlines, and hearsay, Bangladesh deserves a more honest, nuanced, and responsible engagement with the world.

Trial and banning of political parties: due process or two-pronged policy?

David Bergman, a journalist recognized for his long-standing examination of war crimes trials in Bangladesh, has raised serious questions about the fairness of the ongoing proceedings against Sheikh Hasina. At the heart of his concerns is a disturbing procedural flaw: the state has allegedly appointed the same defense lawyer to represent both Hasina and her co-accused—a clear conflict of interest that strikes at the very foundation of due process.

Such a legal system is not only morally questionable; it undermines the legitimacy of the entire trial. How can justice be served if the defense is effectively disabled from the start? Yet this glaring contradiction has largely escaped international attention.

Even before the verdict was announced, much of the global narrative had presumed Sheikh Hasina guilty. This was a reckless disregard for the principle of the presumption of innocence—a cornerstone of any fair trial. Her public image was damaged quickly and systematically, driven not by evidence but by appearances and opportunism.

The situation has taken a darker turn with the sudden and controversial departure of Chief Justice Obaidul Hasan, who was reportedly pressured into early retirement after courtroom unrest and direct intervention by Law Minister Asif Nazrul. Such incidents cannot be dismissed as routine. They raise serious red flags about the erosion of judicial independence in Bangladesh—a subject that has remained shockingly under-reported in the mainstream Western media.

Where is the outrage of the same global media that is so quick to pick up on mistakes elsewhere in the world? Where is the flood of editorial condemnation that would surely have come if these events had occurred in other countries? The electoral silence is deafening.

Western media attention has largely focused on the Awami League ban, portraying it as a textbook case of authoritarian repression. But much less attention has been paid to what is happening behind prison walls: reports of overcrowded detention centers, deaths in custody, and increasingly credible evidence pointing to torture and extrajudicial killings under the Yunus-backed administration.

What is happening in Bangladesh has uneasy echoes of the Gulag era—yet the international response has been good but lukewarm. The world community cannot claim ignorance; it can only claim indifference.

It is time to rise above the simplistic comparisons made by some Western observers—idlely equating Sheikh Hasina with dictators like Gaddafi or Saddam Hussein. This is not only wrong; it is an insult to the intelligence of Bangladeshis at home and abroad.

Despite the current political ban on the Awami League within Bangladesh, support for Hasina continues to grow across the diaspora—including dual citizens and naturalized citizens of Western countries. This surge of solidarity is indicative of a large gap between the Western media portrayal of Hasina’s leadership and the lived experiences of many in the Bangladeshi community.

Sheikh Hasina is a democratically elected leader—one who has made major strides in economic development, infrastructure, women’s empowerment, and climate diplomacy. That legacy deserves critical examination, yes—but not at the expense of innuendo, but rather fair and balanced reporting.

Justice must be universal—or it is not justice at all. The West’s current double standards not only weaken its moral authority but also risk enabling a dangerous distortion of reality in Bangladesh. It is time to ask the hard questions, uncover the deeper truths, and resist the temptation of easy narratives. Because what is at stake is not just the fate of a leader—it is the credibility of democracy, due process, and international accountability.

“Strongman” is beyond brutality

Sheikh Hasina is not Gaddafi. She is not Saddam Hussein. To cast her as a “strongman” is to ignore the democratic framework that still underpins Bangladeshi politics—however imperfect. Elections continue. Protests continue. The judiciary, despite pressure, has not been completely dismantled. And remarkably, support for Hasina remains strong across the Bangladeshi diaspora, including citizens with foreign passports who are under no obligation to show loyalty.

His administration’s decisions—though often unilateral—are logically driven not by a thirst for power, but by the urgent need to protect national interests in a volatile region. This is a context that Western media often ignores, opting instead for straightforward, dramatic headlines that avoid historical nuance and domestic complexities.