By Dr Aunjuman A. Islam and S.M. Faiyaz Hossain
Sheikh Hasina’s trophy cabinet? It’s not just full — it’s a monument to decades of grit, resilience, and unshakable leadership. From the UNESCO Peace Prize to the UN’s Champions of the Earth Award, to the prestigious Indira Gandhi Peace Prize — she’s collected global honours like milestones on a road paved with sacrifice and resolve.
These aren’t just medals; they are recognition of a leader who stood tall when others faltered — sheltering the stateless, defending democracy, and putting women’s rights at the heart of a rising nation. But for all the standing ovations, here’s the paradox: while the world’s institutions applaud her, sections of the Western mainstream media have painted her with a different brush — choosing to sensationalise over substance, and drama over development. Yet, through every headline and storm, Hasina stands firm — not for applause, but for the future of a nation she’s spent a lifetime rebuilding.
Autocrat or Architect of Stability?
Sheikh Hasina is often branded as autocratic—but such a label barely scratches the surface. It misses the fire she walked through, the storms she calmed, and the impossible choices she made to hold a fractured nation together. She didn’t rise to power in peace. She stepped into a Bangladesh bleeding from decades of political unrest, violence, extremism, and the scars of military coups. Where many faltered or fled, she stood her ground.
And she didn’t just endure—she transformed. Under her stewardship, Bangladesh did more than survive; it began to dream. The country’s per capita income tripled, poverty rates plummeted, and the military—once a shadow power—was kept firmly out of civil governance. She didn’t just hold the line against extremism during the rise of global terror—she broke it. Even at the peak of ISIS influence, when fear gripped the world, she led with unshakable resolve, ensuring Bangladesh didn’t fall to the flames.
But progress like this doesn’t come from polite debates or endless diplomacy. It comes from conviction, clarity, and courage. The Padma Bridge, a symbol of national pride and self-reliance, wasn’t built in boardrooms—it was built in defiance, when the world doubted us. It was built because one woman refused to bow. Food security, once a distant dream, became a living reality. That kind of transformation doesn’t come with gentle hands—it takes someone who can command the chaos and turn it into a symphony.
Sheikh Hasina has done what few leaders in the world have dared—she led with both tenderness and tenacity. She championed women’s empowerment not just in words but in lives changed, doors opened, and voices finally heard. She responded to the Rohingya refugee crisis not as a politician, but as a human being—with compassion that crossed borders and politics. She made peace where there was once only pain.
Call it what you want—strong-handed, uncompromising, even autocratic. But in truth, it is transformational leadership of the rarest kind. In a nation as complex and volatile as Bangladesh, real change demands not just vision but the nerve to act, the heart to feel, and the will to sacrifice. She has done all three.
This isn’t the story of authoritarianism. This is the story of a woman who became the steel spine of a rising nation. Sheikh Hasina didn’t just lead Bangladesh—she carried it.
Strategic Statesmanship: Hasina’s Foreign Policy
In an era where the world grapples with division, distrust, and disarray, Sheikh Hasina has emerged as a stateswoman of rare courage, clarity, and conviction. Her approach to foreign policy is not merely strategic—it is visionary, anchored in a profound understanding of history, geography, and humanity.
Where others may have seen Bangladesh’s location as a limitation, she saw a gift. Where others feared the weight of global powers pressing in from all sides, she dared to dream of building bridges. And she did—firm, resilient, and purpose-driven bridges that connect not only nations, but hearts and futures.
Guided by the timeless principle, “Friendship to all, malice toward none,” Sheikh Hasina has elevated this ideal from mere diplomatic nicety to a living doctrine—one that pulses through every handshake, every agreement, every moment Bangladesh steps onto the global stage. It is not a slogan. It is her north star.
Balancing relationships with regional giants like India and China, while simultaneously nurturing ties with the United States, Russia, and others, she has walked a geopolitical tightrope with unmatched grace. Her foreign policy is not about allegiance—it is about Bangladesh. It is about sovereignty. It is about dignity. And it is about opportunity.
From championing Bangladesh’s economic interests to opening doors in regional alliances such as BIMSTEC and SAARC, she has made diplomacy a driver of prosperity. Her leadership has turned Bangladesh into a credible, respected partner—one that can no longer be overlooked or underestimated.
In the face of one of the greatest humanitarian crises of our time, the Rohingya exodus, it was her voice—and Bangladesh’s compassion—that echoed across the world. In those darkest hours, when many looked away, Sheikh Hasina looked into the eyes of the displaced and said, “You are not alone.” That moral courage etched Bangladesh’s name into the conscience of the world.
Her advocacy in climate diplomacy, too, is not only admired but impactful. She has transformed Bangladesh from a frontline victim of climate change into a frontline leader for climate justice—bringing home both global recognition and vital resources for a more resilient future.
The invitation to the G20 Summit in New Delhi in September 2023 was more than symbolic. It was historic. It was a moment when the world acknowledged the emergence of a new voice—a voice of reason, balance, and unshakable principle. Sheikh Hasina did not just attend the summit; she elevated it with her presence, representing not only Bangladesh but the dreams of a rising Global South.
With quiet resolve and unwavering pragmatism, she has shielded Bangladesh from the tempests of global uncertainty while steering it towards sustainable growth. She has rewritten the story of what a small nation can achieve when led by a leader of immense will and boundless love for her people. Under her stewardship, Bangladesh did not merely participate in global affairs—it helped shape them.
One-Sided Allegation in The Name of Fact-Finding: Sensationalism Vs. Context
The student protests that erupted in Bangladesh in July 2024 were a flashpoint moment in the country’s evolving democratic journey. What began as peaceful demonstrations against the reintroduction of a controversial job quota system quickly escalated into a national crisis—one that revealed not only the deep tensions within the country but also the troubling tendency of international media to flatten complex realities into sensational narratives.
The protests were triggered by the High Court’s decision to reinstate a longstanding quota in government jobs favouring descendants of freedom fighters. In response, thousands of students took to the streets, organising road blockades across Dhaka and other major cities. Unlike many leaders in comparable situations, Prime Minister Sheikh Hasina did not rush to criminalise the dissent. Instead, she took the unusual step of publicly supporting the students’ right to protest and even instructed her legal team to represent their case in court.
However, a wave of misinformation soon clouded the atmosphere. A particularly damaging rumour claimed that Hasina had labelled the students “rajakaar”—a term historically associated with collaborators during the 1971 Liberation War. Though there was no credible evidence to support this allegation, the accusation spread like wildfire, inflaming public anger and fueling further unrest.
As protests intensified, so did acts of violence—vandalism, arson, and attacks on key infrastructure projects, including the Dhaka metro rail and the Data Station. Faced with mounting disorder, the government authorised security forces to act under limited magistracy authority to restore calm. It was a difficult, controversial decision—but one not unfamiliar to any government navigating civil unrest.
Following the casualties that occurred during the crackdown, Prime Minister Hasina established a judicial inquiry committee to investigate the incidents. Yet this important step received scant attention in Western media coverage. Instead, major outlets zeroed in on unverified claims, particularly the so-called “leaked audio recordings” in which Hasina was allegedly heard ordering force against students. These recordings lacked authentication, chain of custody, or any credible forensic analysis. Nonetheless, prominent international networks such as CNN and Al Jazeera broadcast the claims without due diligence—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 confront such concerns with transparency and accountability. But criticism must be fair and consistent. It is telling that the interim government, which came into power after Hasina’s term, took over seven months merely to begin investigations into alleged detention centres—an inaction that was met with near silence from those same international watchdogs and newsrooms.
The result is a lopsided narrative that reduces Bangladesh’s political landscape to caricature—authoritarian versus oppressed, without room for complexity or nuance. It’s a dangerous oversimplification, one that not only distorts the reality on the ground but undermines the legitimacy of democratic institutions struggling to evolve in a post-colonial context.
And in that, Sheikh Hasina has given her nation not just a stronger voice, but a legacy of hope, courage, and global belonging.
Sheikh Hasina’s leadership is far from uncontroversial. But leadership, especially in the Global South, should not be judged solely through the lens of Western expectations. It should be understood within its own historical, political, and socio-economic realities. And when those realities are selectively reported or distorted, it is not just a disservice to one leader—but to an entire nation and its people.
In a time when global discourse increasingly relies on hashtags, headlines, and hearsay, Bangladesh deserves a more honest, nuanced, and responsible engagement from the world.
Trial and Banning of Political Party: Due Process or Double Standards?
David Bergman, a journalist long recognised for his scrutiny 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 lies a disturbing procedural flaw: the state has reportedly appointed the same defence attorney to represent both Hasina and her co-accused—a blatant conflict of interest that strikes at the very foundation of due process.
This kind of legal arrangement is not only ethically questionable; it undermines the legitimacy of the entire trial. How can justice be served when the defence is effectively hamstrung from the outset? Yet this glaring contradiction has largely escaped international attention.
Even before a verdict has been reached, much of the global narrative has cast Sheikh Hasina as guilty by assumption. It’s a reckless dismissal of the principle of presumed innocence—a cornerstone of any fair judicial system. The damage to her public image has been swift and calculated, driven not by evidence but by optics and opportunism.
The situation took a darker turn with the abrupt and controversial departure of Chief Justice Obaidul Hasan, who was reportedly pressured into early retirement following courtroom unrest and direct interference from Law Minister Asif Nazrul. Such developments cannot be brushed aside as routine. They raise serious red flags about the erosion of judicial independence in Bangladesh—an issue that, shockingly, remains underreported by major Western media outlets.
Where is the outrage from the same global press that so quickly cries foul in other parts of the world? Where are the editorial condemnations that would surely flood in if these events unfolded in another country? The selective silence is deafening.
Western media’s gaze has largely fixated on the banning of the Awami League, portraying it as a textbook case of authoritarian suppression. But far less attention has been paid to what is happening behind prison walls: reports of overcrowded detention centres, deaths in custody, and a growing body of credible evidence pointing to torture and extrajudicial killings under the Yunus-backed administration.
What is unfolding in Bangladesh bears uncomfortable echoes of the Gulag era—yet the international response has been tepid at best. The global community cannot claim ignorance; it can only claim indifference.
It’s time to move beyond the reductive comparisons that some Western observers have made—lazily equating Sheikh Hasina with autocrats like Gaddafi or Saddam Hussein. This is not just inaccurate; it’s insulting to the intelligence of Bangladeshis, both at home and abroad.
Despite the current political restrictions on the Awami League within Bangladesh, support for Hasina continues to grow across the diaspora—including among dual citizens and naturalised citizens of Western countries. This surge of solidarity suggests a major disconnect between Western media portrayals of Hasina’s leadership and the lived experiences of many in the Bangladeshi community.
Sheikh Hasina is not a despot. She is a democratically elected leader with a complex legacy—one that includes major strides in economic development, infrastructure, women’s empowerment, and climate diplomacy. That legacy deserves critical scrutiny, yes—but it also demands fair and balanced reporting, not trial by innuendo.
Justice must be universal—or it is not justice at all. The West’s current double standard not only weakens its moral authority but risks enabling a dangerous distortion of reality in Bangladesh.
It’s time to ask harder questions, expose deeper truths, and resist the temptation of easy narratives. Because what’s at stake isn’t just one leader’s fate—it’s the credibility of democracy, due process, and international accountability itself.
Beyond the “Strongman” Stereotype
Sheikh Hasina is not Gaddafi. She is not Saddam Hussein. To lump her into the “strongman” trope is to ignore the democratic scaffolding that still underpins Bangladeshi politics—however imperfectly. Elections continue. Protests continue. The judiciary, though under strain, has not been fully dismantled. And notably, support for Hasina remains robust across the Bangladeshi diaspora, including among citizens with foreign passports who are under no compulsion to show allegiance.
Her administration’s decisions—though often unilateral—are arguably driven not by a thirst for power alone, but by an urgent need to protect national interests in a volatile region. It is this context that Western media outlets often neglect, opting instead for digestible, dramatic headlines that ignore historical nuance and domestic complexity.
The Real Question
Is Sheikh Hasina above criticism? Certainly not. No leader should be. But is the criticism from Western governments and media always grounded in full understanding, proportionality, or consistency? Equally, no.
Sheikh Hasina’s Bangladesh was navigating the rough seas of post-colonial development, religious extremism, climate vulnerability, and great power rivalries. In such waters, perfection was a fantasy—but resilience, results, and relevance were very real achievements.
If the West wishes to critique her leadership, it should do so fairly—with deeper context, a broader lens, and an appreciation for the very different political terrain she had to walk through. Until then, much of the criticism risks being more ideological than insightful.
Contributing Authors: Dr Aunjuman A. Islam, PhD, is an engineer and researcher by training; currently working in a leadership role in the water and environment sector in the USA. She is also a political analyst with a sharp lens on unfolding events, known for connecting the dots and revealing the deeper dynamics behind the headlines.
S M Faiyaz Hossain is a Bengali Political Columnist and Commentator. He is currently living in Australia and tweets at @FaiyazBengali
Disclaimer: The opinions expressed within this article are the author’s personal opinions. The Australia Today is not responsible for the accuracy, completeness, suitability, or validity of any information in this article. The information, facts, or opinions appearing in the article do not reflect the views of The Australia Today, and The Australia Today News does not assume any responsibility or liability for the same.
Support our Journalism
No-nonsense journalism. No paywalls. Whether you’re in Australia, the UK, Canada, the USA, or India, you can support The Australia Today by taking a paid subscription via Patreon or donating via PayPal — and help keep honest, fearless journalism alive.
