Army Was Stuck Between Constitution & Chaos, Intervention Meant Bloodshed, Says Sheikh Hasina | Exclusive

In her first extensive conversation since leaving Dhaka, former Bangladeshi Prime Minister Sheikh Hasina has described the military’s position during last year’s August upheaval as an “impossible situation”, caught between defending the constitutional government and preventing mass casualties on the streets. Speaking exclusively to CNN-News18’s Manoj Gupta, Hasina said that by early August, the protests that began over civil service quotas had morphed into violent unrest driven by “radical agitators”, turning the capital into a battlefield where the chain of command, public order, and the state’s authority were under threat simultaneously. Hasina said the scale of street violence left the Army in a bind: upholding the Constitution meant pushing back an inflamed mob, but intervention risked bloodshed on a scale Bangladesh had not seen in years. “The military was faced with an impossible situation: defending a constitutional government against overwhelming mob violence while avoiding any further loss of life,” she said. According to her, discussions with the military leadership revolved entirely around preventing a “complete breakdown in law and order”, safeguarding civilians, and ensuring her family’s safety. She did not directly attribute her exit to the Army Chief, General Waker-uz-Zaman, emphasising instead that the military was attempting to walk a tightrope in a collapsing environment. “Whether or what kind of external pressure influenced decisions, I cannot say,” she added, stressing that her criticism was not aimed at the army but at those who exploited the chaos. Hasina maintains that her departure was a matter of survival once violence surged and state structures came under strain. She said remaining in Dhaka would have endangered not just her but “those around me”. Only later, she claimed, did the “premeditated nature” of the power shift become apparent, pointing to Muhammad Yunus’s rapid assumption of authority, the immunity granted to perpetrators of last summer’s violence, and the dissolution of the inquiry her government had set up. But the military’s dilemma, she insisted, lay at the heart of the crisis. The constitutional government could not be defended without confronting the mobs; confronting them risked escalating casualties at a moment when international scrutiny was high and foreign actors were watching Bangladesh closely. Despite her criticism of the current regime, Hasina was careful not to accuse the Army of betrayal, instead portraying them as officers trapped in a historic moment where every option carried grave consequences. Her appeal, she said, was only that Bangladesh must return to “constitutional rule through free, fair, and inclusive elections” so that the military is never again placed in a situation where defending the elected government risks mass violence. She warned that without elections, Bangladesh risks slipping towards a hybrid or extremist-influenced system, and urged India and regional partners to press Dhaka for an electoral roadmap.