OPED By: Salah Uddin Shoaib Choudhury
What unfolded in Dhaka—and more recently in Kathmandu—may not be isolated political developments, but chapters in a broader geopolitical playbook.
Emerging evidence, drawn from funding disclosures, institutional linkages, and public statements, suggests that regime change in Bangladesh was not merely the byproduct of domestic discontent but part of a calibrated external strategy.
Nepal’s political shifts, too, are raising similar questions about the growing role of unconventional actors in shaping national outcomes. As attention now turns toward India, the critical question is no longer whether such interventions occur, but where they may surface next.
Was the political transition in Bangladesh a spontaneous democratic upheaval—or the outcome of a carefully structured international intervention? A growing body of funding data, policy records, and public statements is prompting uncomfortable questions.
While external assistance has long played a role in governance and development across South Asia, the scale, timing, and targeting of recent financial flows into Bangladesh suggest something far more strategic than routine aid.
At the center of the debate lies a fundamental question: where does democracy promotion end, and political engineering begin?
In 2024, just one month after assuming office as the “chief adviser” of an unelected interim regime—which is not permitted under constitutional provisions—Muhammad Yunus, during an event organized by the Clinton Global Initiative, proudly introduced the “brains” behind the “meticulously designed” protests that led to ex-PM Hasina’s ouster.
In the presence of Bill Clinton, a visibly elated Yunus declared, “These are known to be the brains behind the whole revolution. They look like any other young person; you will not recognize them. But when you see them in action, when you hear them speak, you will be shaking. They shook the whole country”.
Yunus, in effect, may have revealed more than intended. The ouster of the 17-year-old Hasina government, according to multiple sources, was not the result of an organic people’s movement but rather a carefully orchestrated campaign involving powerful actors within the US establishment, with active collaboration from the United Kingdom.
According to grant databases, congressional testimonies, and declassified program reviews, the United States allocated US$572 million in foreign assistance to Bangladesh in fiscal year 2024 alone—the highest single-year figure in the history of American aid to the country.
While this figure spans multiple sectors, a significant portion—traceable through USAID, the Department of State, and the Department of Defense—appears to fall within governance-related intervention activities.
Over the past decade, at least US$325,589,622 in grants and US$2,779,903 in contracts from the United States were directed toward such activities. The United Kingdom contributed an additional £16.9 million through DFID’s Strengthening Political Participation Program (SPP2), which ran from April 2017 to March 2021.
Additional funds were allegedly channeled into Bangladesh via Middle Eastern routes, including transfers through madrassas using informal hawala networks. Significant sums were also directed toward selected NGOs, rights groups, and social media influencers through entities such as the Open Society Foundation and UN-affiliated organizations, often under the pretext of Rohingya assistance, as well as through funding linked to the Yunus Sports Hub.
The largest single grant within this governance cluster was awarded to Democracy International, which received US$29.9 million from USAID for the “Strengthening Political Landscape (SPL) in Bangladesh” program (March 2017–October 2025).
This initiative formed the core of an extensive sub-grant network involving organizations such as The Global Hunger Project (US$951,747 twice), Beatnik (US$102,199), and several Dhaka-based media outlets.
The Consortium for Elections and Political Process Strengthening (CEPPS)—a joint initiative of the International Republican Institute (IRI), National Democratic Institute (NDI), and International Foundation for Electoral Systems (IFES)—received US$21 million for the “Amar Vote Amar” (AVA) program (August 2022–July 2025). Sub-awards under this program totaled tens of millions of dollars, including over US$18 million to IRI, US$16 million to IFES, and US$4.8 million to NDI.
A Global Youth Leadership Center grant from the US Embassy in Bangladesh, dated September 30, 2024—just weeks after Hasina’s removal—explicitly aimed at amplifying youth voices to “ultimately influence the interim government’s reform agenda and future political priorities.” This suggests that previously established youth networks were being mobilized to shape the post-Hasina political landscape.
Other major programs include the US$38.5 million “Esho Shikhi” education initiative by Winrock International and a US$55.2 million secondary education project by Chemonics International. While developmental in nature, their geographic concentration and timing raise questions regarding political overlap.
The BRAC-USAID Bangladesh America Maitree Activity (BAMA), valued at US$14.7 million, similarly lists governance-related objectives, including strengthening democracy and institutional resilience.
A less discussed dimension involves contracts issued by the US Department of the Navy through NAVSUP. Over roughly a decade, contracts totaling US$2.7 million funded programs related to student leadership, counter-radicalization, social media analytics, and youth mobilization. These were executed by local organizations such as BCCP, Bangladesh Youth Leadership Center, and Beatnik.
One such contract—“Social Media Analytics for Bangladesh” (US$99,400)—points to intelligence-adjacent monitoring activities.
In February 2025, National Endowment for Democracy (NED) President Damon Wilson told a US congressional subcommittee that NED’s work in Bangladesh was helping the country transition from “more than 10 years of authoritarian rule.” He described post-Hasina Bangladesh as an opportunity to advance democratic governance.
Meanwhile, investigative reports by journalists, including Kit Klarenberg and Wyatt Reed, indicated that the US State Department had been informed of efforts by the International Republican Institute to “destabilize Bangladesh’s politics”. Although IRI denied the authenticity of this characterization, it declined to release the original document for verification.
Further controversy arose when former State Department official Mike Benz claimed that USAID-funded cultural initiatives—including music groups—were used to influence political dynamics. He also alleged that Washington had strategic military interests in Bangladesh that Sheikh Hasina resisted.
According to some analysts, similar patterns have been observed in Nepal, where political mobilization was influenced by unconventional actors.
There are also claims—yet to be independently verified—that similar strategies may now be directed toward India, with alleged contacts involving opposition political figures. None of these strands, in isolation, constitutes definitive proof of a coordinated regime change operation. However, taken together, they form a pattern that demands closer scrutiny—not only in Bangladesh but across the region.
Individually, each piece of evidence may appear circumstantial. Collectively, however, they point toward an evolving model of influence—one that operates through layered funding networks, civil society engagement, digital ecosystems, and narrative shaping.
For India, this is not just an external concern but a strategic challenge. The methods allegedly deployed in Bangladesh and Nepal—subtle, deniable, and network-driven—could test the resilience of even well-established democratic systems.
If recent developments are any indication, the next arena of geopolitical contestation may not be defined by conventional conflict, but by silent battles over perception, influence, and internal political direction.
- Salah Uddin Shoaib Choudhury is an award-winning journalist, writer, and editor of the newspaper Blitz. He specializes in counterterrorism and regional geopolitics. Follow him on X: @Salah_Shoaib
- This is an Opinion Article. Views personal of the Author
