In the long, turbulent saga of Bangladeshi politics, the mass uprising of July–August 2024 has already cemented its place as a generational rupture.

It was the moment a student-led outcry against structural injustice snowballed into a sweeping national revolt that toppled one of South Asia’s most entrenched authoritarian regimes.

But behind the chants and barricades, behind the storm of public rage, stood a figure both pivotal and polarizing: Tarique Rahman.

From abroad, the acting chairman of the Bangladesh Nationalist Party (BNP) did not hold a megaphone. He didn’t march with the crowds or post a manifesto. Yet make no mistake–he was orchestrating, nudging, aligning.

A movement that began as an uncoordinated outburst of frustration was soon bearing the unmistakable imprint of political choreography. Tarique didn’t claim the movement, and publicly, the BNP resisted branding it as partisan.

But his digital fingerprints were everywhere.

In a country where overt opposition is met with surveillance, shutdowns, and brute force, Tarique’s leadership was necessarily spectral. Through a tangle of encrypted chats, intermediaries, and late-night strategy calls, he provided what every mass movement needs but rarely finds: direction.

Whether one sees this as cunning manipulation or rare political vision depends, of course, on ideological lens. But what cannot be disputed is this: without him, the revolt may never have reached critical mass.

History has a habit of remembering revolutionaries who never stood on the front lines. Lenin wrote the October Revolution from the safety of exile. Ayatollah Khomeini dialed in his orders from Paris.

Tarique, a man hounded by legal charges and decades of character assassination, styled himself in a similar mold: the remote architect of a domestic storm.

His allies speak of him in messianic tones–awake through the night, tracking arrests, calming chaos, giving quiet orders when the internet was cut, when fear should have crushed morale. He didn’t just back the protest–he infused it with strategy.

And herein lies the uncomfortable paradox. Can a man long caricatured as a symbol of dynastic rot and political opportunism credibly lay claim to the soul of a youth-led, grassroots uprising?

The clarity behind the leadership

The dissonance is striking. Yet politics is not about purity. It is about timing, instinct, and power. As Machiavelli wrote, fortune favors those who know how to seize her by the forelock.

Tarique seized his moment. As the edifice of Sheikh Hasina’s 15-year rule crumbled—undone by years of repression, discrimination, and elite impunity–he slipped into the breach. He didn’t manufacture the rage, but he gave it shape.

He didn’t start the fire, but he fanned it with the cool precision of someone who’s waited too long for history to turn.

Whether this makes him a visionary or a tactician, a liberator or an opportunist, remains a matter of national debate. But no honest account of the 2024 uprising can afford to leave him in the shadows. He was not just behind the curtain–he helped draw it back.

Yet this is where the revolution’s moral terrain turns murky. Was this national awakening–paid for with the blood, tears, and courage of student protesters–ultimately commandeered for partisan ends?

Tarique’s strategy, particularly his alleged decision to let Sheikh Hasina proceed with a tainted election, suggests not so much revolutionary fervor as cold political arithmetic.

His wager seemed clear: allow the regime to discredit itself further, let the world watch, and let the anger mount. It was not an untested playbook. Gandhi understood the utility of imperial overreach.

Martin Luther King Jr. knew that public brutality could awaken the conscience of a nation. But these leaders married strategy to principle. With Tarique, the idealism feels thinner–like scaffolding for a more calculated climb.

After July 16, the protest’s tone changed. The BNP formally embraced it under a singular demand: Hasina must go. Zones were assigned, command structures drawn, urban terrain mapped like a military campaign.

This transformation gave the movement spine. It could absorb arrests, survive internet blackouts, outlast panic. Even the Jamaat reportedly fell in line, seeking strategic direction from the man in exile.

Through surrogates and digital warfare–including the timely release of damning files on state actors–Tarique ensured the uprising would not wither.

But with every layer of coordination came a layer of control. And with control, the risk of distortion. A protest led from afar by a solitary figure–no matter how embattled or charismatic–begs the question: can it still claim the mantle of people power?

When dissent is directed rather than discovered, when spontaneity is curated, are we witnessing a revolution–or a rebrand?

Tarique’s leadership in historical context

History is littered with insurgencies that devoured their young. Iran in 1979. Egypt in 2011. The Soviet collapse in 1991. In each case, street-level idealism was eventually consumed by palace intrigue.

Bangladesh, with its brittle institutions and deep distrust of power, is exquisitely vulnerable to the same fate. That is the challenge now confronting the post-Hasina moment: can the energy of the uprising transcend the tired binaries of BNP vs. Awami League?

Or is the nation doomed to swap one dynasty for another, one strongman for the next?

Even the revolution’s climax–August 5, when Hasina reportedly stepped down and student leaders spoke with Tarique via Skype–epitomized the paradox.

It was democratic theater with backstage direction. The protests felt organic, yet they unfolded like a political screenplay. Coordination and co-optation blurred into a single narrative.

The danger here is not simply rhetorical. If Bangladesh’s moment of rupture becomes a coronation-in-waiting, the promise of systemic renewal may die in the cradle.

For those who braved tear gas and bullets, the fear now is betrayal–not by the regime they toppled, but by the very hands guiding their triumph. If this was indeed a revolution, then let it be one that builds anew–not just recycles the past with different faces at the helm.

Otherwise, history will record this not as a turning point, but as a loop.

There is, at the heart of this moment, a literary irony too pointed to ignore. Revolutions rarely end where they begin. They erupt with clarity–idealism, rage, conviction–but they settle in fog.

Orwell captured it best when the pigs of Animal Farm began walking upright, indistinguishable from the tyrants they replaced. Bangladesh now stands at such a threshold.

The regime it overthrew was authoritarian in form and suppressive in substance. If what replaces it replicates the same instincts–only with different symbols and slogans–the country risks circling the drain of its own history.

Enter Tarique Rahman. He did not lead the marches, chant in the streets, or face the tear gas. But the movement’s backbone, its infrastructure, bore his imprint. He became the nerve center–a leader without presence, a general without uniform.

That makes his role both indispensable and deeply problematic.

The challenge ahead is not merely about who governs next, but how. Will the new dispensation dismantle the apparatus of repression or simply inherit its tools? Will it invite dissent or fear it?

Will it rebuild public institutions or merely reassign loyalty? Tarique’s ascent–if it comes–will test not just his leadership but the sincerity of the revolution itself.

For now, what’s clear is this: the match was lit by students, but the fire was kept alive by a seasoned political hand.

Whether that fire brings warmth or ruin depends entirely on what the movement chooses to become in power. The page has turned. But unless it is written differently, this new chapter risks becoming just another verse in a long and bitter refrain.

—

H. M. Nazmul Alam is an Academic, Journalist, and Political Analyst. He can be reached at [email protected]