In the turbulent lead-up to the August 2024 regime change in Bangladesh—culminating in the ouster of Prime Minister Sheikh Hasina and the installation of an interim administration under Muhammad Yunus—another, less visible battle was unfolding: a coordinated war of narratives.

Years before the political transition, a series of provocative and often unverifiable claims began surfacing through an India-based outlet, Northeast News, primarily authored by Chandan Nandy. These reports, amplified within selective circles, sought to construct a parallel version of events—one built less on verifiable facts and more on insinuation, conjecture, and strategic disinformation.

That pattern has intensified. Since August 2026, Northeast News has been publishing a serialized set of articles by a little-known figure, Enayet Kabir—introduced as a “political and economic analyst”, yet with no identifiable professional footprint beyond this single platform. A closer examination raises an unavoidable question: are these writings genuine analysis, or part of a broader effort to rewrite the narrative surrounding one of Bangladesh’s most consequential political turning points?

Three years before the August 2024 regime change in Bangladesh—which culminated in the ouster of Prime Minister Sheikh Hasina and the installation of an interim administration under Muhammad Yunus—two names began drawing attention within media and intelligence circles: Chandan Nandy and the India-based outlet Northeast News.

Through a series of articles carrying explosive and often unverifiable claims, the platform steadily positioned itself as a source of “insider narratives”. On August 12, 2026, Nandy published yet another report alleging that a Dhaka-based textile firm had entered into a “suspicious defense partnership” with Pakistani agents—an assertion that immediately raised eyebrows due to its lack of substantiation.

Since that date, Northeast News has also begun publishing a serialized set of articles by an individual identified as Enayet Kabir, described as a “political and economic analyst”. However, a basic verification check reveals a striking anomaly: Kabir’s entire professional footprint appears confined exclusively to this platform. There is no record of his work in any credible journalistic, academic, or policy forum, raising serious questions about authorship, credibility, and intent.

A review of Kabir’s publicly accessible activity further suggests that his writings echo a pattern of narratives long circulated within segments of the pro–Awami League ecosystem—repackaged as insider analysis without verifiable sourcing.

Given Blitz’s longstanding reputation for investigative journalism over the past 23 years, this newspaper undertook a systematic review of Kabir’s claims—particularly those relating to one of the most critical unresolved questions from the July–August 2024 period: the use of sniper rifles during anti-Hasina protests.

This report constitutes the first installment of an ongoing investigative series. While our team has already uncovered several significant leads regarding the deployment of sniper weapons during that period, it is essential first to examine the credibility of the narratives currently in circulation.

On August 14, 2026, Enayet Kabir claimed that from December 2023, Lt Gen Iqbal Karim Bhuiyan and Lt Gen Chowdhury Hasan Sarwardy maintained communication with “like-minded retired and serving military officers” as part of a plan to overthrow Sheikh Hasina’s government.

This assertion collapses under basic scrutiny. Lt Gen Chowdhury Hasan Sarwardy was arrested on October 31, 2023, and remained in custody until the events of August 5, 2024. The claim that he was actively coordinating with military networks during this period is therefore factually untenable.

In another article dated August 15, 2026, Kabir alleged that senior DGFI officials attempted to extract multiple layers of NTMC passwords from Major General Ziaul Ahsan.

This claim is equally flawed. The operational structure of the National Telecommunication Monitoring Center (NTMC) places its data access strictly under the control of the Directorate General of Forces Intelligence (DGFI). The Director General of NTMC does not hold such access credentials. As such, the premise of coercing Ahsan for “passwords” reflects a fundamental misunderstanding—or misrepresentation—of institutional protocols.

Kabir’s internal inconsistencies become even more evident when comparing his own writings.

In an April 14, 2026 article, he alleges that Major General (retd) Hamidul Haque, Director General of the Directorate General of Forces Intelligence (DGFI) and Major General T M Jobayer, Director General of the National Security Intelligence (NSI) deliberately failed to provide accurate intelligence, contributing to the deterioration of the situation.

Yet, in an April 16 article, Kabir claims that DGFI and NSI leadership had already briefed the government about a conspiracy to incite violence and destabilize the country.

These two claims are mutually contradictory. Intelligence cannot simultaneously be “withheld” and “proactively delivered” in the manner described. This inconsistency raises serious doubts about the coherence and reliability of the narrative being constructed.

Further claims regarding tensions between Major General T M Jobayer and Sheikh Hasina’s security advisor Major General (retd) Tarique Ahmed Siddique are also contradicted by observable facts.

Available information indicates that Gen Jobayer maintained close and regular contact with Gen Siddique, frequently visiting his official residence at Dhaka Cantonment. The portrayal of adversarial relations appears inconsistent with this documented proximity.

Kabir also advances the claim that “evidence reportedly exists” linking foreign separatists and underground groups to the August 5, 2024 political transition, allegedly under the supervision of DGFI leadership.

Such assertions rely entirely on vague references to unspecified “evidence” and unnamed sources. There is no verifiable indication that any such evidence exists within Bangladesh’s intelligence framework. Moreover, the claim is logically inconsistent: if the individuals allegedly responsible had indeed played a decisive role in regime change, it is unlikely they would have faced forced retirement rather than institutional reward.

According to Kabir, Maj Gen Ziaul Ahsan was pressured to become a state witness and threatened with consequences involving his children. However, this account contains a critical factual flaw: Major General Ahsan does not have children. It is highly implausible that officials from institutions such as the International Crimes Tribunal or the Commission on Enforced Disappearances would be unaware of such a basic personal detail. This discrepancy significantly undermines the credibility of the entire account.

Kabir’s attempt to link earlier allegations involving Lt Col Hasinur Rahman to broader institutional corruption similarly lacks grounding. Documented allegations regarding corruption involving former Army Chief General Aziz Ahmed were exposed through investigative reporting by Al Jazeera, supported by whistleblower evidence. The insertion of unrelated individuals into this narrative appears either speculative or deliberately misleading.

In another instance, Kabir claimed that Brigadier General Abdullahil Amaan Azmi returned to Bangladesh from Turkey on August 5, 2024. This assertion is demonstrably false and aligns closely with previously circulated conspiracy narratives aimed at deflecting attention from allegations of enforced disappearances.

Taken together, these examples reveal a consistent pattern: reliance on unverifiable claims, internal contradictions, factual inaccuracies, and narrative construction unsupported by evidence.

Rather than offering credible analysis, the articles by Enayet Kabir appear to function as vehicles for amplifying speculative and, in several cases, demonstrably false assertions.

What emerges from this examination is not merely a series of flawed articles—but a coordinated attempt to shape perception through contradiction, fabrication, and strategic ambiguity.

The repeated use of unverifiable sources, internally inconsistent claims, and demonstrably false assertions raises serious concerns about the intent behind these narratives. Whether driven by political motives, external influence, or an effort to obscure deeper truths, such disinformation campaigns risk distorting public understanding of critical national events.

Yet, beyond the noise of competing narratives, one question remains both urgent and unresolved: what was the origin of the sniper rifles used during the July–August 2024 protests—and under whose direction, if any, were they deployed?

This is not merely a matter of speculation, but of accountability—one that carries significant implications for national security and regional stability. Blitz has initiated a full-scale investigation into this issue. Preliminary findings from an ongoing investigation suggest that the issue may extend beyond domestic actors, pointing toward external linkages that warrant careful and evidence-based examination. While these leads require further verification before full disclosure, they mark a critical shift in understanding the broader context of the events.

Subsequent installments of this investigation will present detailed findings based on verifiable evidence and cross-checked sources, shedding further light on the origins, networks, and possible motivations behind the deployment of such weapons. Until then, separating verifiable facts from constructed narratives remains essential in navigating an increasingly complex information landscape.

Please follow Blitz on Google News Channel