The primary function of any state is the monopoly on violence, yet looking across the border from New Delhi, it is terrifyingly clear that the Bangladeshi state has temporarily lost this grip, as can be seen with over 1,000 deaths, and continuous religious extremism and violence since the 2024 uprising and continued unrest make free voting impossible. The conversation in Dhaka has been dominated by the breathless mechanics of an election schedule with dates being debated, and political parties manoeuvring for position, but this chatter ignores the deafening sound of gunfire that has characterized the last eighteen months. Since the uprising of 2024 began, more than a thousand citizens have lost their lives, and perhaps more than 10 times that number has been injured and lost personal property, in a spasm of violence that has yet to fully subside. To suggest that a free, fair, and inclusive election can be held in this climate of pervasive fear is not just optimistic; it is a dangerous fallacy.
An election requires more than just ballot boxes and ink; it requires a secure environment where a voter can walk to a polling station without the fear of being beaten, and where a candidate can speak without the threat of assassination. Right now, Bangladesh does not have that environment. The reality on the ground is that the security apparatus has been shattered. The police force, which was used for years as a blunt instrument of political repression, is now deeply demoralised, and in many districts, police capacity has been disrupted and morale damaged, with documented gaps in patrols. There is a palpable security vacuum that has been filled by local vigilantism, political thugs, and opportunist criminal syndicates. If an election were declared tomorrow, these are the forces that would control the voting centres. They would determine who gets to cast a ballot and who gets turned away at the gate. The intimidation is no longer subtle; it is brazen and violent. We have already seen instances where political rallies have descended into bloody brawls and where potential candidates have been threatened in their own homes. Asking the Election Commission to manage a national vote in this atmosphere is like asking a captain to navigate a ship through a hurricane without a rudder.
Furthermore, the civil administration, the very backbone of any electoral process, is currently paralysed. District Commissioners and local magistrates are overwhelmed by the task of simply maintaining basic order, let alone managing the logistical behemoth of a general election. The administrative machinery needs time to reset, to flush out the partisan operatives who were installed by the previous regime, and to rebuild a neutral police force that enjoys the trust of the community. This cannot happen in a few weeks. Rebuilding a police force takes months of training, vetting, and engagement with civil society. It requires a concerted effort to restore the chain of command and to ensure that officers are loyal to the constitution rather than a political party. Rushing this process for the sake of an electoral timeline will only produce a security force that is as compromised as the one it replaced.
The risk of holding an election under the shadow of the gun is that the result will be inherently disputed. If a significant portion of the electorate stays home because they are afraid for their safety, the turnout numbers will be artificially low. A government elected on a twenty or thirty percent turnout has no moral authority to govern. It will be seen as illegitimate from day one, and this lack of legitimacy will fuel further instability. The opposition forces, whoever they may be, will inevitably claim that their supporters were prevented from voting by violence, and they will likely be right. This will lead to a new cycle of protests, blockades, and street fighting, dragging the country back into the abyss it is trying to escape. We have seen this pattern play out in the region before, where premature elections held in volatile security environments have served only to crystallize divisions rather than resolve them. I mean, all they need to do, is to look at Pakistan.
From the telescopic sights of New Delhi, a chaotic election in Bangladesh is a security nightmare. A disputed outcome that leads to prolonged civil unrest creates the perfect conditions for cross-border militancy and illegal migration, not that it ever stopped. India needs a stable eastern flank, and stability can only come from a government that is elected through a process that is widely accepted as free and safe. It is in the interest of the entire region that the interim administration in Dhaka takes the time to stabilize the streets first. The priority must be to recover the thousands of looted firearms that were reported and a substantial number remained unrecovered, to dismantle the armed cadres of the political parties, and to restore a sense of normalcy to daily life.
The argument for a delay is rooted in the necessity of survival. Legitimacy is the currency of democracy, and you cannot buy legitimacy in a market defined by fear. The people of Bangladesh have fought and bled for their right to choose their leaders, and they deserve to exercise that right in peace. They deserve to vote with their heads held high, not looking over their shoulders. To force them to the polls now, while the wounds of the uprising are still fresh and the streets are still dangerous, is a betrayal of the democratic promise. The state must first prove that it can protect its citizens; only then can it ask them for their mandate. Restore the law, secure the order, and then, and only then, hold the vote.
Disclaimer : This story is auto aggregated by a computer programme and has not been created or edited by DOWNTHENEWS. Publisher: ZEE News
