11 January 2007 was a turning point in the erosion of democracy in Bangladesh. On that day, an Army-backed administration assumed power by forcing out the constitutionally established caretaker government at gunpoint.
Although the government formed under the leadership of Dr Fakhruddin Ahmed was labelled a “caretaker government”, in reality it operated outside the bounds of the Constitution.
At the time, the Constitution clearly stipulated that such a government could remain in office for a maximum of 90 days, with the possibility of a further 90-day extension only under exceptional emergency circumstances. This effectively meant that elections were constitutionally required within 180 days.
However, the One-Eleven government, led by Moeen U Ahmed and Fakhruddin Ahmed, remained in power for two years, during which citizens’ rights were systematically curtailed.
Furthermore, the government violated explicit constitutional limitations on its role. A caretaker administration was only permitted to carry out routine functions and oversee election-related matters; it had no authority to undertake policy decisions.
Yet the Fakhruddin administration repeatedly overstepped these limits, making a series of policy-driven decisions in direct contradiction of the law. In this context, questioning the constitutional legitimacy of the 2007 government has become essential.
The five objectives of the blueprint
The so-called “One-Eleven” plan for “depoliticisation” was not merely a military intervention; rather, it appears to have been the calculated execution of a long-term strategy, reportedly conceived as early as 2001. This plan seemed to pursue five principal objectives.
First, it sought to depoliticise the nation by undermining political leadership and fostering a negative perception of politics among the public. The so-called “Minus Formula” was intended to sideline the country’s two dominant political parties, effectively leaving a leadership vacuum.
Second, there were indications of economic disruption designed to weaken domestic enterprise. By placing pressure on private sector entrepreneurs and limiting opportunities for local industrialists, the strategy appeared to encourage dependence on foreign aid rather than self-sustained growth.
Third, the plan seemingly aimed to invite foreign involvement by promoting narratives of increasing militancy and radicalism. Such portrayals risked presenting Bangladesh as unstable, thereby justifying external interference.
Fourth, there was an apparent effort to strengthen the influence of international financial institutions such as the World Bank and the IMF within the country’s economic framework.
Finally, the suppression of student activism formed another key objective, with attempts made to restrict or eliminate student politics, historically a significant force in Bangladesh’s political landscape.
Three phases of implementation
The implementation of this plan can be understood as unfolding in three distinct phases.
The first phase, spanning from 2001 to 2006, involved shaping public perception. During this period, sections of the media reportedly highlighted exaggerated accounts of violence and, at times, circulated unverified claims of minority persecution, which contributed to a negative portrayal of the country.
The second phase focused on securing both domestic and international support. Members of civil society are said to have engaged with influential foreign diplomats, often through informal gatherings, to convey the message that democratic governance in Bangladesh had failed.
The final phase was the execution itself, marked by the direct seizure of power, followed by widespread arrests and the consolidation of control.
Political and economic persecution
In pursuit of depoliticisation, numerous political figures were detained, often under contested or controversial charges. Among those affected were prominent leaders from across the political spectrum, including Tarique Rahman, Sheikh Hasina, and former Prime Minister Begum Khaleda Zia, along with her late son Arafat Rahman Koko. Several other political figures and public officials were also arrested during this period.
The private sector was similarly targeted. A number of leading industrialists and business figures were detained for extended periods, and reports emerged alleging mistreatment and coercion. In some cases, individuals claimed to have been subjected to severe physical and psychological abuse while in custody. These accounts, alongside reports of deteriorating health following release, raised serious concerns about due process and human rights.
Extortion and human rights violations
Between April 2007 and November 2008, a substantial sum – reported to be Tk1,232 crore – was allegedly extracted from businesses through unlawful means. Although the Supreme Court later ruled such actions illegal and ordered restitution, the funds were never returned.
In August 2007, incidents at Dhaka University involving students and faculty drew widespread criticism, with allegations that force was used to suppress student political activity. More broadly, the period was marked by accusations of serious human rights violations, including arbitrary detention, torture, enforced disappearances, and other forms of repression.
The path to justice
The ongoing discussion and investigation into these events offer a measure of hope. However, meaningful accountability requires more than acknowledging what occurred; it demands identifying those who planned and directed these actions.
Institutions such as the International Crimes Tribunal provide a potential avenue for addressing such allegations. For justice to be realised, it is essential that any individuals found responsible—particularly those alleged to have orchestrated events from behind the scenes—are brought under due legal scrutiny.
Only through a transparent and credible process can the country hope to achieve genuine justice in relation to the events of One-Eleven.
Audite Karim is a writer and playwright. Email: [email protected]
