An archival image of Tarique Rahman at a political event. Used for illustrative purposes. Photo: Wikimedia Commons (edited).
The question matters because Tarique Rahman was widely regarded as one of the most influential political figures during the 2001–2006 period. Although he held no formal state office, his role in shaping decisions during those years is central to understanding why this period is repeatedly revisited today.
The years from 2001 to 2006 were not just another government term in Bangladesh. The period reshaped how many people viewed power, law, and the state itself. For a large part of today’s younger generation, it is not fully clear why this period is often described as a dark chapter, why public trust collapsed, or why later political intervention was accepted by many as unavoidable.
The most important feature of this time was the rise of power outside the official system. A place in Dhaka known as “Hawa Bhaban” became widely known as an informal centre of control. It had no constitutional authority, yet politicians, officials, and journalists believed that many key decisions were influenced by it. Government jobs, transfers, contracts, and large projects were often linked to access and influence rather than clear rules. In simple terms, rules mattered less than connections.
Even though there was an elected government, this shadow system weakened lawful governance. Institutions that were meant to work independently appeared dependent on informal approval. Over time, people began to feel that the state no longer operated in a predictable or fair way.
This weakness became most visible on August 21, 2004. Grenades were thrown at a peaceful political rally, killing and injuring many people. The target was opposition leader Sheikh Hasina. Later investigations and court proceedings showed that such an organised attack could not have occurred without the support or protection of powerful figures within the system. This moment changed how safe politics felt in Bangladesh.
During the same period, authorities discovered ten truckloads of illegal weapons in Chittagong. It was the largest arms smuggling case in the country’s history. Investigations found that the weapons were meant for an armed group outside Bangladesh. There were also allegations of involvement by individuals connected to different levels of government. For the first time, Bangladesh came under international discussion as a country facing serious internal security risks.
Corruption during these years was not rare. It became part of how the system worked. The Niko gas deal and coal mining scandals led to allegations of major financial losses, environmental damage, and illegal benefits. When the names of senior government figures appeared in these cases, public belief grew that corruption was no longer shocking; it was expected.
Development projects were also affected. Over time, many people believed that large projects could not move forward without unofficial payments. Public money was used to protect political power rather than serve long-term national goals. As a result, national development slowed, and important plans were delayed.
Education and administration suffered lasting damage. Government jobs, civil service recruitment, and university appointments increasingly depended on political identity. Merit and professionalism lost importance. This created deep mistrust inside public institutions and reduced the quality of public services for years to come.
All these problems were reflected internationally. Transparency International ranked Bangladesh as the world’s most corrupt country for five consecutive years from 2001 to 2005. This was not based on a single incident, but on repeated failures in governance and accountability.
At the same time, the link between politics, money, and crime grew stronger. Groups connected to past war crimes expanded their economic influence under political protection. Politics and business became closely tied, weakening ethical standards within the state.
A key question remains, “Why did society not resist more strongly?
Fear played a major role.
People did not trust the police or administration to protect them. Many in the media, business community, and bureaucracy understood what was happening, but few were willing to speak out. Over time, silence became normal.
The effects of that period have not disappeared. Doubts about fairness in institutions, harsh political language, and fear of hidden power still shape public life today. For younger readers, this period explains why trust in institutions remains fragile.
The years from 2001 to 2006 are therefore not just the story of one government. The period stands as documented evidence of what happens when a state ignores its own rules. The damage does not end with a single political term; it can last for generations. Recalling this period is not about revenge. It is about learning. Understanding what went wrong is the only way to prevent it from happening again.
