The term ‘political breakup’ can be understood as the severing of relationships over political differences. In a survey published in May 2026, researchers at the University of California, Irvine, in the United States, explored the prevalence, causes and consequences of political breakups in the country. The study was conducted by Peter Ditto, a professor of psychology at the university, and one of his PhD researchers. In simple terms, they introduced the phrase ‘political breakup’ to describe the breakdown of relationships with friends, family members, romantic partners or colleagues because of political disagreements. Based on data from around 3,800 participants, they found that more than one-third of Americans had lost a personal relationship at some point in their lives because of political differences.
Similarly, the impact of and reactions to contemporary political developments in Bangladesh warrant discussion about how they are affecting and changing our social and personal lives. We can see from our own experiences that social relationships and family ties are increasingly being damaged by political differences. In such circumstances, the space for constructive political discussions based on neutrality and objectivity is gradually shrinking. Overall, this poses a threat to healthy political discourse in the country.
To understand the history of political divisions in Bangladesh, we need to go back to the very beginning. After the Liberation War began with the dream of independence and the establishment of a new state, a group emerged in opposition to the struggle in the name of preserving a united Pakistan. It did not merely oppose the movement; it was actively involved in genocide and crimes against humanity.
The post-Liberation War political ups and downs turned the opposing sides of that conflict into a source of political and social division. As a result, however limited its public support may have been in 1971, the division surrounding this group has gradually grown over the 55 years since independence. At the same time, political and ideological disagreements and divisions existed among the parties and forces that participated in the Liberation War, as well as among different groups within the government-in-exile. These had long-term consequences for Bangladesh's politics.
Various decisions taken by successive post-independence governments, political instability, famine, the formation of BAKSAL, the assassination of Sheikh Mujibur Rahman, the killing of four national leaders, the assassination of Ziaur Rahman and the autocratic rule of General Ershad — all these events reshaped the country's politics and gave rise to multiple divisions.
Political parties have also formed alliances to pursue common agendas during various movements, only to go their separate ways again over time.
For example,Awami League, BNP (Bangladesh Nationalist Party), Jamaat-e-Islami and leftist parties jointly launched a movement in the 1990s that brought an end to Ershad's autocratic rule. Although BNP formed the government with Jamaat-e-Islami's support in 1991, Awami League, Jatiya Party and Jamaat-e-Islami later launched a joint movement to topple the government and demand a caretaker government.
After Awami League won the 1996 election held under a caretaker government and formed the government, Jatiya Party helped it secure a majority and joined the government. Subsequently, BNP and Jamaat-e-Islami launched a movement against the Awami League government. In the 2001 election, the BNP-Jamaat alliance defeated Awami League and came to power. Awami League then intensified its movement to topple the coalition government. Amid intense political violence, a military-backed caretaker government assumed power in 2007–08.
After winning the election at the end of 2008, the Awami League remained in power for nearly 16 consecutive years. The political developments and upheavals during this prolonged period led to widespread political divisions among students, workers, mass organisations and various professional groups. Political divisions were no longer confined to organisations; they increasingly fractured relationships between individuals and within families.
Following the fall of the Sheikh Hasina government through the mass uprising in 2024, the nearly 35-year-old BNP-Jamaat alliance broke apart. The two parties are now positioned on opposing sides, as the government and the opposition. People continue to wonder whether BNP and Jamaat might once again come together for political expediency. Although such a possibility does not appear likely at present, leaders of both parties are now accusing each other of having links with the Awami League.
What is particularly important for our discussion is that while political parties do not hesitate to change their political alignments when governing the country or organising opposition movements, ordinary people, who are neither party leaders nor activists but merely supporters, repeatedly damage their personal relationships over political differences. But why does this happen?
Is it simply unconditional love for a political party, or has political allegiance become a trump card for securing various opportunities and benefits? After all, supporters of the ruling party and professionals aligned with it are likely to enjoy almost every advantage, while supporters of the previous government remain imprisoned — as if this has become an unwritten rule. Through the "us versus them" equation, people seek only to strengthen their own political camp.
In other words, unconditional loyalty and the ability to express intense hatred towards the opposing camp have become credentials for securing the trust of those in power. They also help guarantee various financial and social privileges. Even many intellectuals and cultural personalities conduct their intellectual activities with a particular political party in mind. Many university teachers lose their sense of identity amid excessive displays of political allegiance, represented by different colours — red, blue and pink. Party loyalty has reached such a level that friendships, professional relationships and even family ties are breaking down.
Interestingly, following or supporting a particular political ideology is perfectly normal. However, when impartial judgement and analysis become clouded by partisan likes and dislikes, or when political ideology prevents objective thinking, it becomes necessary to question ourselves. In his book Bangladesh: An Unfinished Revolution (1979), renowned American investigative journalist Lawrence Lifschultz wrote:
"I have always made a distinction between objectivity and neutrality, a distinction that may not be clear to many. There can be no compromise or conditions in the case of objectivity, just as there can be no compromise in the case of accurate investigation. But I also acknowledge that there are certain issues on which there is no room for neutrality ... For example, when secret trials and secret executions are carried out, I cannot remain 'neutral'. I condemn such crimes, whoever commits them."
If we consider Lifschultz's observation in the socio-political context of Bangladesh, we must ask whether intellectuals and professionals, including journalists, teachers and cultural activists, criticise the wrongdoings of the political parties they support.
Supporters of Jamaat-e-Islami are rarely seen criticising the party's involvement in the 1971 genocide and crimes against humanity. On the contrary, even in 2026, some of them can be heard declaring, "We are Ghulam Azam!" Similarly, BNP-aligned intellectuals and supporters are rarely vocal about human rights violations committed during Operation Clean Heart. The same is true of Awami League supporters and associates, who are rarely seen discussing the government's responsibility for the deaths of thousands of people in 2024.
Again, when demands for justice are raised over specific human rights violations, the issue itself becomes politicised. Someone who demanded justice for crimes against humanity committed in 1971 in 2010 or 2012 is apparently not allowed to demand justice for the children, teenagers and young people killed during the mass uprising of 2024. The two issues are treated as mutually exclusive, as though demanding justice for one crime means one cannot seek justice for another. And if you 'make the mistake' of demanding justice for crimes committed under every regime, you are certain to become everyone's enemy.
If criticising the actions of a particular party while it is in power means becoming a permanent target of that party, there is little prospect of creating an environment for healthy debate and criticism. Bangladesh is going through precisely such a reality today. It would be difficult to find a more fitting example of political breakups than this.
I have mentioned universities above, but the situation is not confined to universities. Whether we look at the civil administration, the judiciary or the mass media, the same picture emerges.
In these institutions, individuals are categorised according to their political affiliations rather than their professional performance, and are consequently either given preferential treatment or neglected. In the hope of securing benefits, ordinary people either openly display their political identities or, fearing discrimination, adopt false political identities or consider remaining silent the safest option.
At the beginning of this article, I mentioned the survey on political breakups in the United States. Bangladesh needs a similar survey. In particular, it is important to find out what percentage of people have experienced the painful breakdown of relationships with friends, relatives or colleagues because of political differences since the 2024 mass uprising, and what impact this has had on society.
Such research is essential to understanding the true picture of contemporary Bangladesh and finding ways to reduce the divisions that exist in our social lives. It could also help us explore how to continue intellectual pursuits with the courage to rise above partisan affiliations.
Let political debates stir up storms in teacups, invigorate democratic discourse, but not knock on the doors of one another's hearts — that is all we can hope for.
* Umme Wara, Associate Professor, Department of Criminology, University of Dhaka.