Bangladesh is witnessing a dangerous transformation. What once appeared as isolated incidents of anger and protest are now converging into a pattern of normalized mob violence. Attacks on media houses such as The Daily Star and Prothom Alo, assaults on cultural institutions like Chhayanaut, and the alarming rise of mob-driven justice occurring almost daily point to a deeper collapse. This is not merely a disorder. It is rather the gradual replacement of law by collective rage.
When mobs vandalize newsrooms, intimidate journalists, and dictate what may or may not be spoken, the issue is no longer disagreement with editorial lines. It becomes an attack on the constitutional architecture of the state. Freedom of expression and freedom of the press are not privileges granted by public approval; they are legal rights guaranteed under the Constitution of Bangladesh. No crowd, however loud or aggrieved, possesses the authority to suspend those rights. Yet law enforcement often appears reactive, hesitant, or silent while mobs act with confidence. This imbalance sends a devastating message to citizens that intimidation works, that force overrides legality, and that accountability is optional when violence is politically convenient. Over time, such signals may reshape public behavior.
The targeting of cultural spaces, driven by ideological motives, such as Chhayanaut, intensifies the danger. Chhayanaut, which is Bangladesh’s leading cultural institution that was established in 1961, represents more than music or tradition and embodies pluralism, secular expression, and intellectual freedom. An attack on cultural institutions is an attempt to narrow national identity into something rigid and exclusionary. History shows that when culture is attacked alongside the media, democratic decline is rarely far behind.
Credit: https://pixabay.com/.
Equally troubling is the role of sustained online provocation. Many individuals with large digital followings have, in recent instances, circulated highly charged narratives directed at specific media outlets. Following acts of vandalism against a newspaper office, celebratory or suggestive online posts were also observed. While such expressions may be defended as opinion, their timing and tone raise serious questions about responsibility. Repeated exposure to this rhetoric conditions audiences to view intimidation as justified retaliation rather than criminal conduct. Public anger does not emerge in a vacuum; it is shaped and reinforced.
But if this trajectory continues, the consequences for the environment, driven by the culture of mob violence, can extend directly into immediate political processes, along with the long-term political future of Bangladesh. If the upcoming election, which is scheduled to be held on February 12, 2026, is conducted under fear, intimidation, and media suppression, it cannot be meaningfully free and fair. Journalists under threat cannot investigate power, mismanagement and threats to free and fair elections. Citizens surrounded by mob justice may also be unable to make informed choices in the elections.
But the long-term future is predictable and bleak. Journalism will self-censor, culture will retreat into silence, and politics will radicalize further. Citizens will learn that the loudest crowd, not the strongest law, determines outcomes, may stop arguing through institutions and start asserting through force. Political parties may use mob violence as a means of realizing their political agenda. Moreover, Bangladesh’s image as a developing democracy striving for stability may suffer with headlines featuring burning offices and silenced journalists. Investment can hesitate where the law appears negotiable. Diplomatic credibility may weaken.
From a legal standpoint, the state bears an affirmative obligation to protect fundamental rights including freedom of expression. Along with the Constitution of Bangladesh, various specific laws and policies explicitly provide for the protection of media freedom and the protection of cultural institutions. Failure to prevent mob violence against media and cultural institutions is not neutrality. It is a weakness. When perpetrators face no consequences, impunity becomes policy by default. This erodes public trust in courts, police, and governance itself.
In early 2025, the interim government formed an 11-member Media Reform Commission under senior journalist Kamal Ahmed, tasking it with recommending steps to strengthen media independence, protect journalists, and enhance transparency in media ownership and regulation. The commission submitted more than 100 recommendations to the chief adviser, including proposals on law reform, ethical standards, and an independent media commission, yet none of these recommendations have been implemented so far. The government has neither enacted the proposed media legislation nor adopted key safeguards such as the establishment of an autonomous media regulator, despite repeated calls from the commission’s leadership for political commitment to the reforms.
Bangladesh must choose whether it will be governed by institutions or by impulses. The rule of law is not tested in moments of calm. It is tested when emotions are high, and restraint is hardest. Bangladesh needs to protect press freedom and cultural expression. Defending press freedom, cultural expression, and legal process is not about protecting elites or organizations. It is about preserving the republic itself. When mobs replace law, nations do not collapse overnight. They decay slowly, publicly, and with applause from those who believe they will never be the next target. The interim government needs to be stricter against mob violence. The role of political parties is also needed to end mob violence and vandalism.
The shelving of drafted protections like the Journalism Rights Protection Ordinance and the decision to retain the existing Press Council rather than the reform commission’s recommended independent body underscore the gap between reform rhetoric and on-ground action. Bangladesh needs to consider the implementation of media reforms to ensure the independence and protection of the media.
DISCLAIMER: The views expressed are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the official policy or position of the Magazine. Views published are the sole responsibility of the author(s).
