The government is forcing these agreements through

The primary duty of an interim government is to guide the country toward a democratic transition by ensuring a truly fair election. Doing so requires putting the right reforms in place. With the polls only months away, its full attention should be on preparing for a credible vote—stabilising law and order and restoring public confidence. Yet in these critical areas, the government shows little focus or initiative.

Instead of concentrating on election-related responsibilities, it appears most invested in pushing through long-term agreements—issues that fall outside its mandate. It is rushing ahead with these deals forcefully, disregarding citizens, experts, and national interests, and advancing them by fostering fear.

A temporary, unelected government simply does not have the authority to enter into such far-reaching agreements. These decisions belong to an elected government. Even then, such agreements must be placed before parliament, debated transparently, and made public. With elections approaching, why the urgency? If a long-term port management deal truly serves the national interest, why the secrecy, lack of transparency, and undue haste?

The government’s disproportionate interest in these agreements raises serious concerns. It suggests that certain lobbyists representing foreign companies may be driving the process—promoting opaque, one-sided deals that favour external corporate interests. These long-term commitments are being structured in ways that will be difficult for future governments to undo, while the cost will be borne by the Bangladeshi people for years to come.

The expectations born out of the popular uprising—of transparency and rule-based governance—are being betrayed. Political parties engaged in dialogue with the government must also bear responsibility for staying silent as actions contrary to national interests unfold.

We repeatedly hear the same justification for such deals: that the foreign company involved is among the best in the world. People are made to believe that Bangladesh is incapable, that only foreigners can deliver, and that corruption will occur if we handle matters ourselves but not if they do.

This manufactured inferiority complex is used to argue for granting foreign companies special privileges. Their local beneficiaries aggressively promote these narratives. Yet what guarantees that foreigners will not engage in corruption? Does corruption not happen internationally? Increasing tariffs even before an agreement is finalised is itself a form of corruption.

Internationally renowned companies did not become successful by accident; they grew by building on national capacity. Bangladesh, too, must rely on its own strengths. That requires investing in institutional capability. A nation stands secure when it builds its own competencies. This government, however, is taking the country in the opposite direction—and putting it at risk.