In Bangladesh’s political landscape, the concept of the “Deep State”—widely discussed yet loosely defined—has recently returned to the center of debate following remarks by former adviser Asif Mahmud Sajib Bhuiyan. He claimed that a powerful, unseen force had offered an extension of power until 2029.

However, a clarification remains essential. This discussion does not center on any alleged Deep State linked to an interim government; rather, it engages with a narrative promoted by the ousted leadership, including Sheikh Hasina, now based in Delhi, which attributes her government’s removal to a Deep State conspiracy. Such a framing effectively diminishes the meaning of the 2024 student–mass uprising—its sacrifices, its resistance, and the reality of repression faced by protesters.

Bangladesh’s political history marks the 2024 uprising as a decisive turning point. The movement led to the fall of a long-standing administration—an event that transcended domestic politics and drew international attention. Within this context, the Deep State concept has re-emerged. Yet a fundamental question persists: does it indicate a real, hidden structure of power, or does it serve as a strategic political explanation?

Understanding the term remains crucial. The “Deep State” generally refers to an invisible power structure operating beyond elected authority, influencing state policy from behind the scenes. Its historical roots trace back to Turkey’s “Derin Devlet,” a covert network of military and bureaucratic actors maintaining control over the state. In the United States, comparisons often arise with the “military-industrial complex,” where defense institutions, intelligence agencies, and corporate interests collectively shape policy directions.

In the Bangladeshi context, recent narratives emphasize an international dimension—particularly a US-centered Deep State. Allegations suggest that intelligence agencies such as the CIA and the FBI, along with associated networks, exert influence over political developments in South Asia. This influence allegedly operates not through direct intervention but via “soft power,” engaging educational institutions, NGOs, media outlets, and research bodies.

A widely discussed element within this narrative involves the so-called “list of 187,” allegedly identifying individuals and institutions across Bangladesh and the region connected to these activities. Claims link this list to circles close to Donald Trump, particularly in relation to a proposed “Truth Commission.” Despite the absence of independent verification, such assertions continue to generate public curiosity and suspicion.

International philanthropic and research organizations have also entered the debate. Institutions such as Open Society Foundations, the Ford Foundation, and the Omidyar Network face accusations from some quarters of facilitating specific political narratives through funding, NGO networks, and media initiatives.

Similarly, the investigative journalism platform OCCRP has drawn criticism, with allegations claiming collaboration with local media to advance external agendas in South Asia. Yet a critical issue arises here: how much of this rests on verifiable evidence, and how much stems from politically motivated interpretation?

Historical precedents suggest that the concept of hidden state structures does not emerge entirely from imagination. In post–World War II Europe, Operation Gladio functioned as a clandestine network designed to counter Soviet influence. Its existence later received acknowledgment from Italian Prime Minister Giulio Andreotti, sparking global debate. Such examples prevent outright dismissal of similar possibilities.

Yet Bangladesh’s reality demands careful distinction. The 2024 uprising emerged from multiple internal factors—economic strain, political dissatisfaction, repression, and the prolonged concentration of power. Reducing such a complex movement to a mere “foreign conspiracy” risks erasing its domestic roots. At the same time, rejecting all allegations without examination also undermines intellectual integrity.

Another dimension involves the strategic use of political narratives. Ousted regimes often rely on external conspiracy explanations to maintain internal cohesion among supporters and deflect responsibility. Conversely, opposing forces dismiss such claims as baseless theories, reinforcing their own legitimacy.

Within this broader context, the stance of Donald Trump adds further complexity. His rhetoric against the Deep State, combined with ambiguity regarding its existence, contributes to the persistence of the debate. Similar patterns appear across South Asia, where figures such as Imran Khan have raised comparable allegations, indicating a regional trend.

Bangladesh now faces a critical challenge: how to approach this debate responsibly. If a Deep State structure exists, then transparent investigation into its mechanisms and influence becomes necessary. If the concept functions merely as a political narrative, then exposing its construction holds equal importance. Ambiguity and rumor pose direct threats to democratic stability.

Public trust forms the foundation of democracy. Once citizens begin to believe that unseen forces determine political outcomes beyond electoral processes, that trust erodes. In its absence, political systems weaken, and conspiracy narratives gain strength—not only as political tools but also as social realities.

Ultimately, the Deep State debate extends beyond theory; it connects directly to the future direction of Bangladesh’s political order. In the recent national election, the BNP secured a two-thirds majority, with many observers calling it the most free and fair election in years. Yet questions persist, as the outcomes in certain constituencies in Dhaka and beyond raise concerns about possible deep state influence.

Moreover, the 2024 uprising demonstrated the decisive role of popular will. The present moment demands the institutional consolidation of that will through transparency, accountability, and the rule of law.

For Bangladesh, the priority now lies clear: analysis over emotion, evidence over rumor, and institutional strengthening over division. Whether the Deep State exists or not, one principle remains certain—no hidden force, domestic or foreign, holds greater legitimacy than the collective will of the people expressed through democratic processes. 

(The writer serves as the Dhaka bureau chief for the German-based online platform The Mirror Asia)