There is a temptation, after every major political attack in Bangladesh, to look outward. To assume there must be an external hand, a foreign plot, or a hidden geopolitical trigger. The shooting of Sharif Osman Hadi has followed the same script. But stripping away the noise leads to a far less dramatic, and far more troubling, conclusion.
This was not an event imposed on Bangladesh from outside. It grew out of conditions that already exist inside the country.
Hadi’s shooting did not interrupt an otherwise stable political environment. It occurred within one that has been visibly fraying for some time. That distinction matters.
Bangladesh’s politics has become increasingly unforgiving. Rivalry is no longer managed through institutions with any consistency. Disputes that once played out through party structures or legal channels now spill quickly into public confrontation. Campaigns blur into intimidation. Protests harden into threats. Violence, once shocking, has become familiar.
In that setting, the threshold for using force drops. Acts that would once have carried heavy political costs begin to look, to some actors at least, like manageable risks. The attack on Hadi fits this trajectory. It was not extraordinary; it was enabled.
Another uncomfortable reality sits just beneath the surface: the persistence of armed actors operating alongside politics. These are not ideologically driven insurgents, nor are they detached criminal gangs. They exist in between. They move through local power structures, electoral competition, and business interests with relative ease.
Such networks survive because they are useful. They enforce influence, settle disputes, and send messages when formal mechanisms fail or are deliberately bypassed. Weak oversight and selective enforcement make their role easier, not harder. Over time, violence becomes part of the political toolkit, even if no one admits it openly.
The Hadi shooting carries the marks of this environment. It doesn’t read like an impulsive act. Nor does it resemble a symbolic ideological strike. It looks like the product of a political ecosystem that has learned to accommodate coercion.
Security institutions sit uneasily within this picture. Bangladesh has spoken often about reform, but many of the underlying problems remain. Law enforcement is still widely seen as politically influenced. Intelligence coordination is uneven. Oversight is limited. Public confidence rises and falls with each incident.
When an attack like this happens, the questions come quickly. Who failed to see it coming? Why was protection inadequate? Will the investigation go far enough? These doubts are corrosive. They weaken deterrence and invite speculation, much of it detached from evidence.
External blame offers an easier answer. It always does. Foreign interference is a powerful charge because it redirects anger and simplifies responsibility. But convenience is not the same as truth.
If outside forces were the primary driver, patterns would shift with geopolitics. They haven’t. Violence persists regardless of regional cycles. That consistency points inward. Repeatedly reaching for external explanations avoids confronting the deeper problem: a political system struggling to contain its own conflicts.
For ordinary Bangladeshis, this is not a theoretical debate. It shapes daily perceptions of safety, trust, and legitimacy. High-profile attacks resonate because they expose vulnerabilities that many already sense in quieter ways.
The Hadi shooting is one such exposure. This is a warning, not an aberration.
Until political competition regains limits, until armed networks are genuinely dismantled rather than managed, and until security institutions are seen as credible and even-handed, similar incidents will recur. Not because of conspiracies imposed from outside, but because the internal conditions allow them to.
That is the reality the shooting points to and the one that cannot be avoided much longer.
Comments are closed.