Bangladesh’s political landscape has drastically changed since the student-led July 2024 rebellion. Thousands of then-ruling Awami League leaders and members have fled the nation since Prime Minister Sheikh Hasina’s removal on August 5, 2024. While Hasina and a number of other high-ranking officials sought political asylum in India, others relocated primarily to the UK and US.

The real challenge for the Awami League (AL) came in May 2025, when Muhammad Yunus-led interim government of Bangladesh banned the party altogether under the Anti-Terrorism Act. Nevertheless, AL has been carrying out its political activities from exile since its ousting, primarily through webinars, while maintaining visibility in Indian media through public remarks and interviews.

One of the most prominent figures among them is former Home Minister Asaduzzaman Khan Kamal, who departed Bangladesh on the same day as Hasina and is currently living in Kolkata, India, at an undisclosed location. On November 17, 2025, the International Crimes Tribunal of Bangladesh (ICT) sentenced Kamal to death for crimes against humanity linked to the July uprising. The tribunal found him liable alongside former Prime Minister Sheikh Hasina, citing a systematic “failure to prevent” atrocities and an active role in abetting the violence that defined those weeks. The three-member panel, headed by Justice Golam Mortuza Mozumder, delivered the verdict after finding them guilty on multiple charges and also ordered the state to confiscate all properties owned by Sheikh Hasina and Asaduzzaman Khan Kamal and compensate the families of those injured and killed during the July uprising.

After spending nearly nineteen months underground, Kamal has finally decided to speak out. In an in-person interview with Abhimanyu Bandyopadhyay at his private residence, Kamal discusses the legitimacy of the recent parliamentary elections, the possibility of a political dialogue with the ruling Bangladesh Nationalist Party (BNP), the legal issues that the Awami League leadership is facing, their current stay in India, allegations of state-led violence, and the administration’s role during the July-August protests.

Here are some excerpts from the interview:

Abhimanyu Bandyopadhyay (AB): The BNP has recently formed a new government after winning the 13th National Parliamentary Elections. Many local and international observers rated this election to be fair. What do you think about the election results?

Asaduzzaman Khan Kamal (AKK): It was a total sham. As per our ground reports, in many places, ballot boxes were being stuffed the night before voting even started. BNP and the Bangladesh Jamaat-e-Islami party had received voting slips in advance to manipulate the outcome. How else do you explain Jamaat-e-Islami, a party that on average gets no more than a dozen seats, leaping to 68? The National Citizens Party (NCP) barely had enough public support to win anything, yet even some of their members got “elected” thanks to this fraud. All of this was to make sure Dr. [Muhammad] Yunus ended up as President, no matter the cost.

The Interim government knew very well that if [The Amani League] got to participate in the elections, we would again secure a landslide victory. Take a look at the Directorate General of Forces Intelligence (DGFI)’s pre-election survey report. It clearly says that 51 percent of the Bangladeshis still favor the Awami League. [ note: This claim lacks credibility, as no public record exists of such a survey by DGFI.]

That’s the only reason they didn’t let us take part. Otherwise, there is not a single instance in which the Awami League has refused to participate in an election. For now, all I can say is that we will keep an eye on every move made by this new administration.

AB: What do you expect from the current administration, particularly since they refuse to lift the ban on the Awami League?

AKK: It is a deeply regressive stance for any administration claiming to be democratic. This very political party once tried to assassinate Sheikh Hasina in the brutal grenade attack of August 21, 2004. Twenty-four of our leaders, including Ivy Rahman, were killed in that blast. Those wounds haven’t healed yet.

Yet, despite enduring such violence, we never banned the BNP’s political activities. We gave them a political space, which they are now denying us. What did the BNP–Jamaat alliance era bring to Bangladesh except open support for extremism? In 2005, right under their noses, militants carried out a series of bomb blasts across 63 districts. Now, the same political mindset talks about governance while continuing to exclude others? This is absurd.

We expect this government to look at its own history, rethink its choices, and reopen the political space for us. At this point, their biggest task is to stabilize the country. Bangladesh’s law and order have totally collapsed under the interim administration. Citizens no longer feel safe, and the economy is shaky. If they truly wish to govern, they should end the persecution and focus on protecting people and their livelihoods.

AB: Is your party willing to engage in direct talks with the BNP leadership about reconciliation?

AKK: We have always believed that dialogue is the only viable path forward for any democracy. We did not come to power through the barrel of a gun, nor do we seek to hold on to it by any undemocratic means. So, yes, we are definitely willing to engage in talks with them.

But such discussions need a genuinely democratic environment. If the BNP leadership insists on keeping us at arm’s length, honestly, there’s not much more we can do.

AB: The BNP leadership recently stated that proceedings against the Awami League members will continue legally. Are you and your party leaders ready to go to Bangladesh and face these charges in court?

AKK: Our Prime Minister Sheikh Hasina has always said that she wishes to return and fight these battles through legal means. She has always led from inside Bangladesh, sticking to the rule of law no matter how tough things get. Look at the trial for the assassination of Sheikh Mujibur Rahman. If she had chosen to, she could have easily set up a fast-track, special tribunal, but she insisted on proceeding under the country’s existing legal framework. The Awami League doesn’t walk away from the battlefield.

It’s hard not to notice what’s happening to our courts right now. The International Crimes Tribunal (ICT) Bangladesh was originally established by Bangabandhu (Sheikh Mujibur Rahman) to bring the war criminals of the 1971 Bangladesh genocide to justice. Under the Yunus administration, this court has been fundamentally misused. Through a series of arbitrary legal amendments, people who died in entirely different circumstances are being brought under its jurisdiction and described as martyrs. The court itself is illegitimate. There was no war, no genocide here. So how can these cases be framed as war crimes? That said, we remain fully prepared to engage in any legal process. But for that to happen, the judicial system needs reform to restore its independence and neutrality.

AB: You have been sentenced to death by the ICT. Since you said that this court is illegitimate, do you have any plans to send a legal representative to challenge the validity of your conviction and the jurisdiction of this tribunal?

AKK: The structure of this tribunal leaves no room for representation. Unless one appears in person, there is effectively no way to contest proceedings. Once arrested under this system, you will not be able to get out on bail. It is a closed loop designed for a specific outcome. So, we urge the current government to uphold the law and dismantle this kangaroo court. We want the Awami League to be able to return to Bangladesh in a legal way.

AB: You said no genocide happened during the July Revolution. Are you rejecting the allegations of genocide entirely?

AKK: Of course I am. This narrative is entirely a part of that meticulously designed plan orchestrated by Muhammad Yunus and his cronies. Under Bangladeshi law, any incident in which a police officer uses lethal force is subject to a judicial inquiry led by a magistrate. This investigation figures out why the officer took lethal action and what was happening at the time.

When we were in charge, we set up a judicial inquiry commission to investigate all reported killings. This included deaths caused by police, the killing of police personnel, and the deaths of civilians and political activists, irrespective of party affiliation. No individual was granted indemnity. The interim government has done none of this. Instead, they immediately issued an ordinance granting impunity to anyone for the killing of all police officers and all Awami League activists.

AB: The UN Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights has reported that nearly 1,400 people were killed during the 2024 uprising. How can you dismiss a figure documented by an international body of that stature?

AKK: You have to look at where these numbers are coming from. Our own findings indicate that approximately 260 people were killed during the uprising in Bangladesh, including police officers, civilians, protesters, and even Awami League activists. Later on, the Health Department under the interim government had said that nearly 600 people were killed during the uprising. Soon, they changed that number to 800 (approximately).

The figure of 1,400 appears to originate from an individual assessment rather than a formally mandated UN inquiry. Under established procedures, any fact-finding report must be authorized by the Human Rights Council and accompanied by an approved budget. This report had neither. It carries no official UN document number. I think the United Nations should look into this matter much more deeply and make a neutral report that includes a proper list of all the people who died during the protests.

AB: You were the home minister during the July protests. Are you taking responsibility for what your government did?

AKK: We are deeply saddened for the people who died during the protests. It is possible that mistakes were made on our side; it is also possible that mistakes were made on theirs, too. That is something open to discussion. If it is proven that we made mistakes, we will definitely take responsibility. But we must also be given the space to present the facts from our side. By mid-July, when the protest shifted from the quota movement to a one-point demand, the level of violence unleashed was beyond explanation.

On August 3, a police officer informed me that the protesters were using weapons that our police had never seen before. Many of the guns were not licensed. In such a moment, if the police shoot back to protect themselves, should that be viewed as an offensive act or an act of self-defense?

I clearly remember toward the end of July, the prime minister personally met family members of those who had died in the protests, expressed her sorrow, and offered financial support. We had said there would be an investigation through legal channels into the killings, but we were not given the opportunity to carry that process through.

AB: You are making a very serious charge, Mr. Khan. Are you claiming that thousands of ordinary students and the general public who took to the streets during July were all carrying prohibited, high-caliber weapons?

AKK: I did not refer to the ordinary students or the general public. What I meant to say was that among a section of the protesters, there were militants involved.

See, we understand that many of the young people who came out in July genuinely sought reform. They have been tragically exploited for specific political interests. To expand the list in the so-called July martyrs’ gazette, the interim administration even included the names of those miscreants who were killed in police firing while attacking our officers, looting police stations, outposts, and armories, and setting them ablaze. The list also includes those killed in security force firing while attempting to escape from prison or during attacks on prisons. The list also includes those who died in fires they started while looting and burning homes and businesses of Awami League leaders and activists.

AB: During the protests, several unarmed civilians were killed by sniper fire, with shots reportedly aimed at the forehead. Did your administration allow the use of snipers?

AKK: Our police have around fifty sniper rifles, all of which came from the United States for counterterrorism operations. They were locked up during the protests and stayed locked even on the day we departed. The army has a few sniper rifles as well, but those were not in use at that time either. Brigadier Sakhawat Hossain has confirmed that theirs too remained locked. We simply do not know where the sniper rifles came from and who these marksmen were, but their presence indicates outsider involvement with an intent to foment violence and create instability across Bangladesh.

AB: So no shots were fired at protesters from helicopters?

AKK: Our helicopters are too small to carry out targeted firing; at most, random fire would be possible. During the protests, sound grenades were dropped from helicopters to create loud blasts and clear the ground below.

AB: But according to leaked audio verified by the BBC, Sheikh Hasina had ordered the use of lethal force against the protesters.

AKK: That is an incomplete reading of the situation. The prime minister’s instruction was directed at armed militants, not at unarmed civilians or peaceful demonstrators. In Bangladesh, the police follow a set of rules when dealing with protests. First, they give warnings. Then move to physical restraint if necessary. If that fails, they may use tear gas and rubber bullets. Live ammunition is considered only in extreme circumstances, when there is serious destruction of public property, loss of life, or direct attacks on law enforcement. In such an extreme situation, even a regular constable has the legal standing to defend his life if no one is in charge. During our time in government, the police were granted operational authority, but they were also kept under strict supervision. Our police would not have dared to fire on anybody without a good reason.

The International Crimes Tribunal-2 on Monday began hearing charges of crimes against humanity against former…

Read more- https://t.co/Yp8jirbQUQ pic.twitter.com/Yvo2shE59t

— New Age (@NewAgeBDcom) July 29, 2025

AB: What would you say about the death of Abu Sayeed? Footage shows that he was an unarmed protester holding a stick; however, the police shot him several times. Were they ordered to forget those “rules” at that time?

AKK: [Hesitates] Thank you, next question, please.

AB: How long do you plan to stay in India? Have you thought about leaving for another country?

AKK: We are deeply grateful to the Indian government for the way it has welcomed us and offered us shelter. No other country could have offered us a safer refuge than India.

AB: BNP’s General Secretary Mirza Fakhrul said that Sheikh Hasina won’t be a problem for India-Bangladesh relations. If ties deepen in the future between the BNP-led government and New Delhi, could that create difficulties for members of the Awami League currently taking refuge in India?

AKK: I think this is something we can only wait and see about. We cannot say for sure what will happen. But one thing is certain: India is our friend, and they have always helped the Awami League. I think they will keep supporting us no matter what happens.

AB: You have alleged many times that your removal from power was a conspiracy orchestrated by the American deep state. But the Indian government maintains very close relations with the United States and is often seen as aligned with it. Does that put you in a potentially difficult position?

AKK: I do not want to comment on what the Indian government does. What I can say is that India has been a friend to us. In moments of crisis, they have stood by us and have assured us of their continued support. That is all that matters to us.

AB: As Bangladesh’s largest political party, how do you believe the Awami League can re-enter the country’s political landscape?

AKK: At this moment in Bangladesh, even mentioning the Awami League can lead to imprisonment. We have seen a Deputy Inspector General (DIG) in Rajshahi publicly issue a letter stating that any of our members who manage to get bail would be arrested again under new charges. It is hard to imagine such a statement being made without instructions from higher authorities.

We were fortunate to escape with our lives, but for those who have been detained, the conditions are unthinkable. Around 120 of our MPs are currently in prison. Information reaching me suggests that, across the country, a large proportion of detainees are Awami League activists and supporters. We are getting reports of physical assaults in custody and of prisoners being denied proper medical treatment. So, without changes to the judiciary, it will be difficult for us to return. Even in the Liberation War [1971], we didn’t see this much inhuman treatment of us. If this continues, the people of Bangladesh will not remain silent. I believe it is ultimately our grassroots workers and supporters who will bring the party back to the country.

AB: If you were to return to Bangladesh and eventually assume power again, what approach would you take toward the leaders of the July uprising?

AKK: First, we want to express our sincere regret for those killed or injured during the July protests. Any future government led by us would initiate a thorough and independent investigation into why these events unfolded the way they did, who orchestrated them, what their intentions were, and what forces were at play.

At the same time, we are prepared to examine our own errors. We need to understand whether any misjudgments on our part contributed to the unrest, and who may have been responsible for misleading the public during that period. All of this will be done transparently, through democratic and accountable processes. People deserve to know the truth.