U.S. Tariffs: A Landmark Judgment on the American Presidential Trade Powers

YouTube

The US Supreme Court’s combined decision in Learning Resources, Inc. v. Trump and Trump v. V.O.S. Selections, Inc. on February 20, 2026, is a landmark ruling regarding presidential trade powers. Chief Justice John Roberts wrote a 6–3 decision that struck down President Donald Trump’s tariffs on imports from numerous countries, like India, which were imposed using the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA). The ruling nullified specific tariffs, but more importantly, it reinforced a core constitutional idea: Congress, not the executive, holds the primary taxing power.

The ruling’s effects reach further than just trade figures or one-on-one talks. It redefines how U.S. trade is managed, specifies the boundaries of emergency authority, and impacts international economic allies, especially rapidly developing nations focused on exports, such as India. The ruling’s fundamental message is a restatement of the constitutional separation of powers, coming as executive authority in economic policy had been growing.

The Origins of the Dispute

In mid-2025, President Trump declared national emergencies due to trade imbalances, supply chain vulnerabilities, and reliance on foreign manufacturers, sparking controversy. Broad tariffs were placed on imports from many countries by the administration, invoking IEEPA. India felt a significant impact. Around $48 billion of goods exported from India to the United States, such as textiles, pharmaceuticals, engineering goods, chemicals, and petroleum products, were taxed at rates up to 50%.

The tariffs dropped to 18 percent w.e.f. March 2026 as part of a bilateral agreement linked to India’s reduced purchasing of Russian oil. Still, the monetary effects were not trivial. Exporters in India experienced problems in their supply chains, price competitiveness, and contract stability. The administration defended its actions, arguing that IEEPA’s authority to “regulate… importation” during declared emergencies extended to imposing tariffs.

The Supreme Court firmly dismissed that reading. Most believed that while IEEPA allows for the regulation of financial transactions and property interests in true emergencies, it doesn’t specifically grant the president the authority to impose import taxes. The Court stressed that tariffs are more than simple regulatory tweaks.

Constitutional Allocation of Trade and Tax Powers

The majority based their decision largely on Article I, Section 8 of the US Constitution, which empowers Congress to levy taxes and regulate foreign commerce. Congress has historically granted presidents limited tariff powers via precisely worded laws. But, these delegations have always been limited and defined.

Chief Justice Roberts emphasised that if Congress had meant to grant extensive tariff authority through IEEPA, they would have used clear and unambiguous terms. The primary purpose of IEEPA, enacted in 1977 to address executive overreach, was to enable asset freezes, sanctions, and financial controls in genuine emergencies. Its purpose was not to serve as a broad trade regulation.

The Court’s decision upholds a key constitutional protection: while the executive can enact policies within legal limits, it cannot gain new spending authority without explicit approval from the legislature.

The Major Questions Doctrine and Its Expansion

The ruling heavily relied on the “major questions doctrine,” a legal concept demanding explicit congressional approval for significant executive actions affecting the economy or politics. The Court has recently employed this doctrine in cases like West Virginia v. EPA, restricting broad regulatory interpretations without clear statutory support.

A “major question” was defined by the majority in the 2026 tariff case as economy-wide tariffs that influence over $100 billion in trade annually. IEEPA’s wide-ranging provisions on import regulation failed to reach the required level.

When the Court applied the major questions doctrine to trade policy, it signalled increased judicial oversight for extensive executive readings of economic statutes. With this new development, the president has less room to make unilateral choices on economically significant matters.

Historical Precedents Limiting Executive Authority

Historical examples that defined the outermost boundaries of a president’s powers were a major factor in the Court’s decision. The Supreme Court, in Youngstown Sheet & Tube Co. v. Sawyer, struck down President Harry S. Truman’s action of taking control of steel mills amidst the Korean War. In his concurring opinion, Justice Robert Jackson introduced a three-part structure for assessing presidential power. When Congress approves, presidential power is at its zenith; when Congress is quiet, it’s ambiguous; and when it opposes, it’s at its nadir.

President Trump operated in his weakest constitutional capacity by using IEEPA for broad tariffs, bypassing more specific trade laws with clear boundaries. The Trade Act of 1974, passed by Congress, already included provisions for temporary tariffs. Resorting to emergency powers instead of established mechanisms indicated a clash with the legislative intent.

In their dissent, the justices cited Federal Energy Administration v. Algonquin SNG, Inc., a case that supported the imposition of restricted import fees based on the president’s authority to “adjust” imports. The key difference for the majority, separating Algonquin, was its use of targeted, statutory measures over broad, unauthorised emergency tariffs.

Legislative History and Congressional Intent

The legislative history of IEEPA was crucial. Congress reformed executive emergency powers after President Richard Nixon imposed a 10 percent global tariff in 1971 using the Trading with the Enemy Act. These acts, the National Emergencies Act and IEEPA, were created to limit, not increase, presidential latitude.

Under Section 122 of the Trade Act of 1974, temporary tariffs of up to 15 percent are explicitly permitted for a maximum of 150 days to counter significant balance-of-payments deficits. Congress intended this tightly focused mechanism to provide a balance between discretion and control. The Court’s reasoning was that a precise congressional provision suggested it was not plausible for IEEPA to silently confer broader, indefinite tariff authority.

The presence of these legal safeguards strengthened the majority’s view that the president’s interpretation went too far.

Executive Response and Policy Adjustments

Trump reacted with speed and defiance. He announced that American trade policy would stay strong, using Section 122 to implement a temporary 10 percent worldwide tariff starting February 23, 2026. Although legal, this measure will naturally end after 150 days if Congress doesn’t intervene.

Investigations were commenced by the administration, utilising Sections 201, 232, and 301 of applicable trade statutes. Tariffs for national security are enabled by Section 232, Section 301 deals with unfair trade, and Section 201 provides safeguards against import surges. The legal bases provided by these statutory routes are more stable, but they involve procedural reviews, evidence collection, and discussions that can last for months.

The executive’s shift highlights the ongoing conflict between protectionist aims and constitutional limits.

Immediate Economic Impact on India

The ruling offered India some relief, but it didn’t resolve all its uncertainties. Invalided tariffs, previously as high as 50 percent, could allow exports to return to most-favoured-nation rates of 0-5 percent. Pharmaceuticals, textiles, and engineering goods saw their prices become more competitive in the US market.

According to economic analysts, a 10 to 15 percent rise in Indian exports to the United States in affected sectors is expected within a year if the high emergency tariffs are removed. But, the benefits are lessened by the temporary 10 percent worldwide tariff from Section 122. Indian exporters face a period of both opportunity and caution.

Refunds and Commercial Adjustments

A major concern involves reimbursements for duties collected from the voided IEEPA tariffs. Importers might be able to get their money back under US Customs rules. Initially, refunds go to U.S. importers, yet contract talks and competitive shifts could pass financial gains to Indian exporters.

The procedure will probably be complicated and involve a lot of paperwork. Claims processing can be lengthy, and eligibility disputes are possible. However, the reimbursement of duties collected improperly is a major financial factor impacting bilateral trade.

Strategic Implications for India

The decision enhances India’s bargaining power, not just for current export benefits. The U.S.-India trade agreement from March 2026, once influenced by tariffs, could now be re-examined more equitably. India’s participation in the Quad, with the US, Japan, and Australia, boosts its global standing.

The diversification of global supply chains from China also makes India a desirable manufacturing destination. With more predictable US trade policy, multinational firms may be motivated to expand their investments in India, with a focus on electronics, pharmaceuticals, and components for renewable energy.

Effects on Other Emerging Economies

The Court’s restriction of emergency tariff powers likewise benefits nations like Brazil, Mexico, Vietnam, and Turkey. Economies reliant on exports find more room to manoeuvre and increased certainty. The procedural paths may have changed, but the potential for protectionist pressures remains, as tariffs under Sections 232 or 301 are still on the table.

The decision lessens but doesn’t remove the instability linked to American trade policy.

Congressional Politics and Future Legislation

The future course in the medium term is highly reliant on how Congress behaves. Congress might try to give itself explicit tariff powers by passing new laws, but this could be difficult due to pushback from businesses and free trade supporters. Lawmakers could also enhance emergency trade powers to avoid future issues.

This decision prompts a wider institutional discussion on the tension between an executive’s autonomy during economic crises and the constitutional principle of separated powers.

Long-Term Implications for Global Trade Stability

In the long run, this ruling could bolster global trade stability by setting a higher bar for unilateral executive tariffs. Investors and trading partners place a high value on legal frameworks that are predictable. To prevent executive branch decrees from dictating major trade policy shifts, the Court insists on explicit legislative authorisation for sweeping tariffs.

This doesn’t ensure liberal trade policies. Congress could still implement protectionist policies. But, expect debate, hearings, and political accountability, which will help prevent drastic policy shifts.

Conclusion: Constitutional Boundaries and Strategic Opportunity

In 2026, the Supreme Court’s ruling reaffirmed the constitutional limits on trade regulation. The Court’s decision that IEEPA does not permit broad tariffs highlighted that the legislature retains primary authority over taxation and trade rules.

Emerging economies like India can find both solace and a strategic opening in this decision. Export sectors are poised to regain their competitive edge, and negotiations could move forward on a more equitable footing. New statutory paths are being explored, but uncertainty lingers.

The judgment, in essence, redefines the interplay between constitutional law and worldwide commerce. This implies that economic power, similar to political power, should operate within clear constitutional limits. This action brings back balance to US trade policy and alters how global marketplace nations strategise.

US Supreme Court 2026 ruling, Learning Resources v Trump, Trump v VOS Selections, Trump tariffs struck down, IEEPA Supreme Court decision, International Emergency Economic Powers Act case, John Roberts majority opinion, major questions doctrine 2026, presidential tariff powers limited, Article I Section 8 taxation power, separation of powers trade policy, Section 122 Trade Act 1974, Section 232 national security tariffs, Section 301 trade investigation, Section 201 safeguard tariffs, US India trade relations 2026, impact on Indian exports to US, India US trade framework 2026, global tariff policy debate, Supreme Court limits executive power, US constitutional law and trade, emerging markets export impact, Quad strategic trade implications, WTO trade dispute analysis, protectionism vs free trade US, congressional authority over tariffs

THE NATION OF APPLAUSE

YouTube

Let me start with a simple question.

If everything is going so wonderfully in India—if the economy is booming, governance is strong, institutions are independent, security is airtight—then why does the government spend so much time begging us to believe it?

Confident nations don’t need daily reassurance. Functional systems don’t need hashtags. And real progress does not arrive with a drum roll and a disclaimer.

India today is not collapsing. That’s the dangerous part. It is appearing stable while quietly hollowing out—like a beautifully renovated house where the walls are freshly painted, the lights are bright, the guests are impressed… but the foundation is cracking underneath. And anyone who points to the cracks is accused of being “anti-house.”

And if you think I’m exaggerating, allow me to present Exhibit A: the Great Civilisational AI Moment.

THE AI SPECTACLE: PEOPLE, PLANET, PROJECTION

In February 2026, India hosted the grandly titled India-AI Impact Summit 2026 at Bharat Mandapam. It was billed as the first major global AI summit hosted by a Global South nation—a historic milestone, a technological awakening, a digital Kumbh Mela with GPUs.

Over 2.5 lakh visitors. Global leaders. Policymakers. Startups. Exhibitors from 30 countries. Thirty-eight thousand GPUs—because nothing says inclusive technology like aggressively counting your graphics processors.

The summit revolved around three sacred guiding principles: People, Planet, and Progress. And because this is India, we upgraded themes into “Chakras.” Seven of them. Human Capital Chakra. Inclusion Chakra. Safe and Trusted AI Chakra. Resilience Chakra. Innovation Chakra. Democratising AI Chakra. Economic Development Chakra.

There was this moment - more funny than fun - when the global Hi-Tech honchos were ambushed. Suddenly, they were asked to lock their hands with each other and raise their arms skywards. Confusion writ large on the elite faces, while a couple of them revealed their mutual hostility by not joining hands and displaying fists. Was it consensus AI style? Waiting for the official clarification. By the end of the inaugural speech, one half expected a Vishwaroop Darshan of artificial intelligence itself.

Eight foundational AI models were launched under the IndiaAI program—multilingual systems from IIT Bombay, domain-specific models for agriculture, healthcare, science. AI avatars for Indian languages. Data labs. Fellowships for 13,500 scholars. A target of 10,000 GPUs surpassed like a schoolchild proudly exceeding homework requirements. 

On paper, it was impressive. On television, it was mystical. Barring one Chinese robot, which was presented as pure Hindustani. Thanks to the Galgotias genius, the Chinese Unitree Go2 robot dog was converted and naturalised as Indian Orion robot dog. The scandal reveals how low the ethical standards have fallen not just in our educational but just about every Indian enterprise and institution.

Unsurprisingly, at a summit supposedly about India’s AI scientists, startups, and researchers, the spotlight seemed unusually well-trained—not on code, not on labs, not on young innovators—but on a single, omnipresent face.

The Prime Minister inaugurated the event. Which is normal. He spoke about AI being a “civilizational moment.” Which is also normal. What was less normal was how the event coverage slowly transformed from “India’s AI Leap” into “AI Bows to Supreme Vision.”

Panels discussed human-centred innovation. Anchors discussed leadership-centred inspiration. Developers explained multilingual models. Prime-time studios explained how artificial intelligence itself was grateful to the powers that be.

The Godi Media, ever alert, understood the assignment. Instead of showcasing the scientists who built models from 500 proposals, we were treated to multi-angle shots, reverential background music, and graphics that made it appear as if silicon chips had personally endorsed the leadership.

It was less a technology summit and more a devotional festival where GPUs hummed in patriotic frequency. 

To be clear: hosting a global AI summit is good. Investing in AI infrastructure is necessary. Expanding fellowships is commendable. But when projection begins to overshadow participation, something curious happens.

We stop celebrating institutions.

We start celebrating individuals.

And that is the recurring pattern.

GROWTH WITH A CREDIT CARD

India loves big numbers. Trillion-dollar dreams. Five-trillion-dollar promises. Seven-trillion-dollar fantasies. What we don’t love discussing is how those numbers are being achieved.

Because here’s the uncomfortable truth: a growing chunk of India’s growth is being fuelled not by productivity or innovation, but by borrowing. The country is running on debt like a middle-aged executive pretending energy drinks are a long-term health plan. Central and state governments together are carrying a debt load that would make any responsible household panic. But in official speeches, debt has been rebranded as “confidence.”

Borrowing isn’t bad—when it builds capacity. But borrowing to maintain appearances is a classic path to trouble. Interest payments now eat into budgets that should have gone to schools, hospitals, and research. We are borrowing to pay for yesterday’s borrowing. That’s not development. That’s refinancing reality.

And then there is the great free-ration miracle. Eighty crore Indians receive free food grain. This is presented as compassion. And it is compassionate—in an emergency. But here’s the problem: emergencies end. Or at least, they’re supposed to.

In India, the emergency has become a political strategy. There is no exit plan. No timeline. No roadmap for how these families move from dependence to dignity. You can’t build a confident economy by permanently feeding people while refusing to ask why they aren’t earning enough to feed themselves. Welfare without employment is not empowerment. It is managed helplessness.

Exports, meanwhile, are quietly underperforming. Despite all the chest-thumping about manufacturing powerhouses, India struggles to compete on quality, reliability, and innovation. Vietnam exports more electronics. Bangladesh dominates garments. China owns entire value chains. India? We excel at inaugurations.

The problem is not that Indians can’t manufacture. It’s that policy rewards proximity to power over competence. Contracts go to the connected. Quality control is an afterthought. Protectionism replaces competitiveness. When foreign markets reject our products, we ban imports instead of fixing factories.

And unemployment? Officially, it’s under control. Magically so. Because if you redefine unemployment creatively enough, it disappears. A delivery worker becomes an entrepreneur. A gig job becomes a startup. A frustrated graduate becomes “self-employed.”

Tell that to the 27-year-old engineer driving twelve hours a day with no security, no benefits, and no future. He isn’t empowered. He is being pacified.

GOVERNANCE—INSTITUTIONS WITH A MUTE BUTTON

Corruption, we’re told, is a thing of the past. Which is fascinating, because corruption cases haven’t vanished. They’ve just changed direction.

Cash bribes have evolved into electoral bonds. Suitcases have been replaced by shell companies. Scams don’t disappear—they migrate to safer political ecosystems. If you’re accused and inconvenient, you’re investigated. If you’re accused and useful, you’re inducted.

The real scandal is not corruption itself. India has survived corruption before. The scandal is the destruction of accountability. When agencies act selectively, when investigations depend on loyalty rather than law, the message to the citizen is clear: justice is negotiable.

Public health is another lesson India refused to learn. COVID exposed everything—staff shortages, oxygen scarcity, underfunded hospitals. We applauded healthcare workers, declared victory, and promptly forgot every structural reform required. Health spending remains low. Primary care remains neglected. Another crisis will arrive. And when it does, we will again act surprised.

Crime statistics, meanwhile, have become political documents. Hate crimes are renamed. Lynchings become “incidents.” Riots are rebranded as “spontaneous reactions.” Victims are investigated more aggressively than perpetrators.

When law enforcement starts asking what the victim was wearing—or believing—the rule of law has already been compromised.

The judiciary and police, once pillars of trust, are increasingly perceived as pressured, delayed, or selectively efficient. Cases that matter to the powerful move fast. Cases that matter to ordinary citizens move… eventually. Or never.

Justice delayed is bad. Justice selectively delayed is corrosive.

POLITICS—DEMOCRACY AS PERFORMANCE ART

Parliament is supposed to be the place where national problems are debated. Instead, it has become a theatre of disruption, suspensions, and rushed legislation. Laws affecting millions are passed with minimal discussion, while MPs shout slogans and television anchors call it “robust democracy.”

Debate is treated as obstruction. Questions are treated as sabotage. And dissent is framed as disloyalty.

This is how democracy hollows out—not through coups, but through contempt for process.

What is missing from Indian politics today is painfully obvious: serious discussion about education quality. Not enrolment numbers. Not photo-ops. Actual learning. Teacher training. Research funding. Skill relevance.

India loves to boast about its demographic dividend. But a dividend only pays when you invest wisely. An under-skilled, under-employed youth population is not a dividend. It is deferred instability.

SECURITY—LOUD CLAIMS, QUIET FAILURES

Officially, terrorism is under control. Unofficially, incidents continue. Intelligence warnings are occasionally ignored. Accountability is rare. After every attack, the response is predictable: patriotic visuals, emotional speeches, and warnings against asking uncomfortable questions.

Internal security has increasingly shifted from targeting threats to targeting identities. Surveillance, profiling, and detention are justified as “precautionary.” Citizens are told to prove loyalty repeatedly. Silence becomes suspicious.

This does not create security. It creates resentment.

Borders, despite all the rhetoric, remain porous in multiple regions. Strategic challenges are complex and long-term. But long-term thinking doesn’t trend. So we substitute speeches for strategy.

THE FOURTH ESTATE FOR SALE: FROM WATCHDOG TO LAPDOG

India’s mainstream media today no longer asks questions—it negotiates terms. Once imagined as a watchdog, it now behaves more like a pampered pet, trained to bark only at approved targets and roll over for power on cue. Prime-time studios have become auction houses where ethics are quietly traded for advertising revenue, government access, and political patronage. News is no longer reported; it is curated, choreographed, and conveniently aligned with the mood of those in authority. Investigative journalism has been replaced by shouting matches, nationalism has become a substitute for verification, and loyalty is rewarded more generously than accuracy. Editors who once feared getting facts wrong now fear getting phone calls right. The result is a pliable press that amplifies power, silences dissent, demonises inconvenient citizens, and calls it “nation-building.” When the media stops holding power accountable and instead sells accountability to the highest bidder, democracy doesn’t collapse overnight—it is slowly suffocated under a pile of breaking news graphics, patriotic background music, and paid silence.

CONCLUSION: THE REPUBLIC OF PERMANENT APPLAUSE

Let me be very clear. India is not doomed. But it is drifting. And drift is dangerous precisely because it feels calm.

We are becoming a country where numbers look impressive but systems are weak. Where institutions exist but hesitate. Where elections happen but debate shrinks. Where citizens are fed but not empowered. Where criticism is tolerated only until it becomes inconvenient.

This is not dictatorship. It is something quieter. A democracy where applause is mandatory and silence is strategic.

Red flags are not anti-national. They are alarms. And nations that smash their fire alarms to enjoy the music burn down beautifully.

Patriotism is not obedience. It is responsibility. And the most patriotic thing you can do today is to stop clapping long enough to ask where we are headed—and whether the foundation can still carry the weight of all those promises.

Because slogans don’t hold buildings together.

Systems do.

GalgotiasUniversity, AISummit, BharatMandapam, IndianEconomy, IndianPolitics, GovernanceCrisis, Unemployment, IndianDebt, FreeRations, MakeInIndia, EconomicReality, RuleOfLaw, JudicialIndependence, JobCrisis, CorruptionInIndia, InstitutionalDecline, ParliamentDebate, IndianParliament, PoliticalAccountability, DemocracyInDanger, InternalSecurity, HateCrimes, CivilLiberties, HumanRightsIndia, NationalSecurity, PoliticalCommentary, CurrentAffairs, NewsAnalysis, RealityCheck,  CriticalThinking,

The BNP Landslide in Bangladesh: A Geopolitical Reckoning for South Asia

 YouTube

In Bangladesh, voters made a decisive statement in the nation’s first genuinely competitive parliamentary election in almost twenty years, which took place on February 12, 2026. The Bangladesh Nationalist Party (BNP) and its allies achieved a significant victory. Following the 2024 student-led uprising that brought down Sheikh Hasina’s Awami League government, this landslide signifies a major change. The outcome marks the conclusion of 15 years of Awami League leadership, the reinstatement of the BNP following a 20-year break, and the initiation of a novel era of democratic ventures via constitutional reforms sanctioned in a concurrent referendum.

The outcome of this election is significant. This signals shifts in Bangladesh’s foreign policy, impacting the entire subcontinent. It indicates that India’s “special relationship” with Hasina may be cooling. A long-awaited thaw in ties with a formerly wary Bangladesh is occurring for Pakistan. China can use this to strengthen its strategic position, unburdened by Hasina’s perceived pro-India orientation. As a key player, the United States, skilled in balancing interests, uses its influence on events in a region where major powers are vying for control. At the same time, the Awami League and its exiled leader, Sheikh Hasina, confront an uncertain future, excluded from voting, pursued by legal actions, and dependent on Indian hospitality, which is now diplomatically tense.

To understand these consequences, we need to examine the elections, the participants, and the historical factors that have shaped Bangladesh’s volatile political landscape.

The 2024 Uprising and the Road to 2026 Elections: A Democratic Reckoning

Since its independence in 1971, Bangladesh’s politics have swung between rival dynasties, military interventions, and stretches of authoritarianism interrupted by brief democratic openings. Power has largely alternated between the Awami League and the Bangladesh Nationalist Party (BNP), their bitter rivalry rooted in the legacies of Sheikh Mujibur Rahman and Ziaur Rahman.

The upheaval of 2024 marked a dramatic rupture. What began as student protests against a 30 percent job quota for descendants of 1971 war veterans snowballed into a nationwide movement against Prime Minister Sheikh Hasina. Demonstrators denounced corruption, post-COVID economic distress, soaring inflation, and growing authoritarianism. According to UN estimates, more than 1,400 protesters were killed in the government’s crackdown, widely condemned as a massacre. Amid impeachment threats and wavering military support, Hasina left for India on August 5, 2024, ending her 15-year rule.

An interim government led by Nobel laureate Muhammad Yunus promised systemic reform. The student-drafted “July Charter” proposed a caretaker administration to supervise elections, a two-term cap for prime ministers, a bicameral legislature, and greater female representation. Put to voters alongside the general election, the reforms won overwhelming approval.

The February 12, 2026 polls were historic. After allegations of rigging in 2014, 2018, and 2024, the Awami League was barred from contesting. The BNP faced a Jamaat-e-Islami-led coalition that included the youth-driven National Citizen Party. With turnout near 60 percent, observers—over 500 international monitors among them—largely deemed the vote peaceful and credible.

The BNP’s sweeping 212-seat supermajority reflected a public demand—especially from youth—for jobs, accountability, and an end to dynastic politics. Yet challenges loom: Jamaat’s 77 seats signal a potential rightward shift, the economy remains fragile, and the unresolved question of reintegrating the Awami League threatens future stability.

The Main Players: Dynasties, Exile, and Exile’s End

Tarique Rahman and the BNP: From “Dark Prince” to Prime Minister

Tarique Rahman, 60, is the heir to Bangladesh’s second major political dynasty. Born in Dhaka in 1965, when the country was still East Pakistan, he is the son of Ziaur Rahman, the freedom fighter who declared Bangladesh’s independence in 1971, seized power after the 1975 upheaval, founded the Bangladesh Nationalist Party (BNP) in 1978, and was assassinated in 1981. His mother, Khaleda Zia, later became Bangladesh’s first woman prime minister, serving from 1991 to 1996 and again from 2001 to 2006.

The BNP espouses a centre-right platform rooted in Bangladeshi nationalism, market-oriented economics, and a pragmatic engagement with Islam, in contrast to the Awami League’s secular and more India-aligned posture. Ziaur Rahman reshaped the political order by rehabilitating certain 1971-era collaborators and strengthening ties with Pakistan and Western nations. Khaleda Zia’s tenure saw economic progress but was marred by corruption allegations, political violence, and reliance on a coalition with Jamaat-e-Islami.

Tarique’s own ascent was contentious. As an influential adviser during his mother’s premiership, he was labeled the “Dark Prince,” accused of wielding behind-the-scenes power and benefiting from graft. Convicted in 2008—though some verdicts were later overturned—he spent 17 years in London amid multiple cases filed under Sheikh Hasina’s government.

Returning in late 2025 after his mother’s death, Tarique revived the BNP with promises of reconciliation, anti-corruption reforms, and a trillion-dollar economy by 2034. Now prime minister, he faces a defining test: can he reform both his party’s image and Bangladesh’s executive culture?

Sheikh Hasina and the Awami League: From Liberation Icon to Exiled Pariah

Sheikh Hasina, 78, is the daughter of Sheikh Mujibur Rahman, Bangladesh’s founding leader who was assassinated in 1975. She returned from exile in 1981 to lead the Awami League, guiding it to victory in 1996. After losing power in 2001, she staged a decisive comeback in 2008 amid a military-backed interim administration.

From 2009 to 2024, Bangladesh experienced striking economic growth under her rule. GDP expanded from roughly $100 billion to over $450 billion, poverty rates fell sharply, and the garment industry rose to become the world’s second-largest exporter. Major infrastructure projects advanced with strong backing from China and India. Yet this economic progress was accompanied by increasing authoritarianism. Media restrictions tightened, rights groups reported hundreds of enforced disappearances, and digital security laws were widely criticized for curbing dissent. Elections in 2014, 2018, and 2024 were dismissed by opponents as boycotted or manipulated. The International Crimes Tribunal prosecuted alleged 1971 war criminals, though critics argued it disproportionately targeted BNP-linked figures.

The violent crackdown on protests in 2024 proved decisive. Sentenced to death in absentia in 2025 on charges of crimes against humanity, Hasina fled to India, where she now lives in Delhi. From exile, she denounces the 2026 election as illegitimate. With many Awami League leaders jailed or in exile, the party faces an uncertain future and mounting public anger.

Supporting Cast

This time, Jamaat-e-Islami, which previously partnered with the BNP, ran alone and became the second leading power. Originating in 1970s Islamism, it attracts conservative voters while unsettling minorities due to its social platform. With his legacy of reforms, Yunus, the interim chief, steps down with grace.

Portents for India: From “Big Brother” to Transactional Neighbour?

Under Sheikh Hasina, India–Bangladesh ties reached an unprecedented level of cooperation. Landmark achievements included the 2015 land boundary settlement, expanded counterterrorism coordination, progress on water-sharing, and bilateral trade surpassing $15 billion annually. Dhaka acted firmly against anti-India insurgent groups operating from its soil, while carefully balancing its growing economic engagement with China. In turn, New Delhi extended infrastructure investments, credit lines, and consistent political backing to Hasina’s government.

The BNP’s return to power unsettles this equation. Previous BNP governments (1991–96 and 2001–06) adopted a more guarded approach toward India, emphasising sovereignty and occasionally signalling warmth toward Pakistan. Since the 2024 unrest, anti-India sentiment in Bangladesh has intensified, fuelled by perceptions of Indian interference, unresolved Teesta River disputes, and border shootings. Hasina’s flight to India deepened suspicions among many Bangladeshis.

India now faces a delicate test, especially if Dhaka formally seeks Hasina’s extradition. While New Delhi promptly congratulated Tarique Rahman, suggesting pragmatic engagement, analysts expect ties to become more transactional. Trade and security cooperation could experience strain, yet mutual economic interdependence—Bangladesh’s need for Indian markets and India’s transit ambitions—argues for stability. A more assertive Dhaka may also influence political debates in India’s border states, particularly West Bengal.

Pakistan: A Brotherly Re-embrace?

The Prime Minister of Pakistan, Shehbaz Sharif, enthusiastically called Rahman, emphasising their “brotherly” ties. Post-1971, Ziaur Rahman, the originator of BNP, shifted Bangladesh’s alignment from India. Relations improved when Khaleda was in power.

A BNP government might re-establish defense, trade, and cultural ties, thereby challenging India’s dominance in the region. Textile or energy joint ventures are possible. This is a diplomatic triumph for Pakistan, as it regains influence in Muslim-majority Bangladesh after being isolated following events in Afghanistan.

China: Pragmatic Continuity with Strategic Gains

Hasina’s leading investor via Belt and Road was China, contributing over $30 billion to ports and power plants. Beijing maintained neutrality in 2024, even with its focus on India.

BNP is not expected to change direction. Rahman could strengthen infrastructure connections, despite seeking Western favour. Defense analysts predict a “Pakistan-China-Bangladesh” alliance could emerge, threatening India’s control in the Bay of Bengal. BNP’s diversification from Indian influence might strengthen Beijing’s market-driven approach to ensuring continuity.

The USA Factor: Democracy’s Champion and Great Power Arbiter

The United States has consistently criticized Hasina’s rule, imposing sanctions on officials and calling for transparent elections. Washington approved of Yunus’s interim rule.

A BNP win creates possibilities for US aims to checkmate China’s “debt-trap” tactics. It may lessen Beijing’s hold without alienating it. Moreover, US involvement may moderate Pakistan’s closeness with China. The US will increase the election’s impact through aid, diplomacy, and soft power.

Western nations could be a focus for Tarique’s government seeking investment, technology, and security support, mirroring Quad initiatives like maritime security.

The Fate of Awami League and Sheikh Hasina: Exile, Trials, and Uncertain Resurrection

This marks the lowest point for the Awami League. Unable to appear on ballots and banned, the party exists as a ghost, with leaders in hiding and demoralised supporters. Hasina’s claims of “engineered” results lack credibility due to her own history of rigged elections. It’s unlikely she’ll return due to her death sentence and the BNP’s pledge to seek her extradition.

Future rebranding for Awami League could involve new leadership, using its heritage of freedom and votes from minority communities. Still, the public’s shared trauma from 2024, labelled “Gen Z Martyrs,” calls for accountability.

Hasina, formerly lauded as the “Mother of Democracy,” is now a fugitive. Her banishment represents Awami League’s decline.

Broader Horizons: Bangladesh’s New Dawn and South Asia’s Realignment

The election in Bangladesh signifies a new phase, not a conclusion, challenging the nation to balance international pressures with domestic reconciliation. A more variable and less settled order is emerging for the subcontinent. There is a strong possibility of Islamist overreach, economic populism, and renewed dynasticism.

Tarique Rahman’s BNP is handed a country eager for reform yet damaged by internal strife. Achieving success requires economic recovery, reform implementation, and inclusive governance, such as releasing Awami League prisoners and protecting Hindus from post-2024 violence.

BNP, Bangladesh Polls, Awami League, Sheikh Hasina, USA, Democracy, Modi, India, China, Pakistan, Tarique Rahman, Ziaur Rahman, Khalida Zia, Muhammad Yunus, Jamaat-e-Islami, July Charter, Mujibur Rahman, Bangladesh Liberation War,