Global Inflation Stalls as War and Oil Prices Collide With a Tech-Driven Boom

The global economy finds itself pulled in two directions at once. On one side, an ongoing conflict in the Middle East is pushing oil prices higher and unsettling energy-dependent economies. On the other, a surge in artificial intelligence investment is powering unexpected growth in countries plugged into the technology supply chain. The result, according to the International Monetary Fund’s latest World Economic Outlook Update released this month, is a lopsided global recovery that defies easy forecasting. The IMF projects global growth of 3.0 percent for 2026, holding roughly steady from earlier estimates, before climbing to 3.4 percent in 2027. But that headline number masks sharp divergences beneath the surface. Economies reliant on imported energy, particularly those with limited exposure to the AI-driven technology boom, are bearing the brunt of the war’s economic fallout. Meanwhile, nations integrated into global tech supply chains are seeing demand-driven momentum that is cushioning, or even offsetting, the drag from higher energy costs. Perhaps the more troubling signal for policymakers is on inflation. The steady disinflation that took hold globally since early 2024 has effectively stalled. Global headline inflation has been revised upward, driven largely by volatile oil prices tied to tensions around the Strait of Hormuz, a critical corridor for global crude shipments. Brent crude has traded near $85 a barrel in recent sessions, a level that ripples through transportation costs, manufacturing input prices, and ultimately household budgets worldwide. Emerging markets are feeling this unevenness most acutely. In Latin America, the effects are a case study in contrast. Mexico’s inflation has actually eased to its lowest level since 2020, opening room for its central bank to consider rate cuts. Yet the peso has been whipsawed by renewed geopolitical anxiety, a reminder that domestic progress on inflation can be undone quickly by external shocks. Brazil faces a tighter bind: retail sales are softening even as policymakers hold interest rates at a restrictive level, wary that another oil-driven price shock could force them to pause any easing plans. In South Asia, Bangladesh exemplifies the severe strain on developing nations caught on the wrong side of this global divide. The IMF recently projected the country’s economic growth to slow to just 3.5 percent for the 2026-27 fiscal year, warning it could slip below 3.0 percent over the medium term in the absence of decisive fiscal and banking sector reforms. Already grappling with domestic financial stress and limited fiscal space, Bangladesh has seen its challenges compounded directly by the Middle East conflict. Higher global commodity prices have inflated import and subsidy costs, renewing domestic inflationary pressures and prompting the government to negotiate a new, expanded reform program with the IMF to stabilize its economy. For major economies, the divergence is just as stark. China’s growth is expected to slow this year, weighed down by higher oil costs and structural headwinds, while India continues to post some of the strongest growth among major economies, buoyed by resilient consumer spending and a robust services sector. What emerges from this outlook is not a single global story but several running in parallel: a war economy for energy importers, a boom economy for technology exporters, and a policy dilemma for everyone caught between the two. Central banks that spent years fighting inflation now face a harder question whether to hold firm against a shock they cannot control or risk letting price pressures become entrenched again just as they appeared to be tamed. The International Monetary Fund’s latest World Economic Outlook Update released this month is a lopsided global recovery that defies easy forecasting.   The IMF projects global growth of 3.0 percent for 2026, holding roughly steady from earlier estimates, before climbing to 3.4 percent in 2027. But that headline number masks sharp divergences beneath the surface. Economies reliant on imported energy, particularly those with limited exposure to the AI-driven technology boom, are bearing the brunt of the war’s economic fallout. Meanwhile, nations integrated into global tech supply chains are seeing demand-driven momentum that is cushioning, or even offsetting, the drag from higher energy costs. Perhaps the more troubling signal for policymakers is on inflation. The steady disinflation that took hold globally since early 2024 has effectively stalled.    Global headline inflation has been revised upward, driven largely by volatile oil prices tied to tensions around the Strait of Hormuz, a critical corridor for global crude shipments. Brent crude has traded near $85 a barrel in recent sessions, a level that ripples through transportation costs, manufacturing input prices, and ultimately household budgets worldwide.   Emerging markets are feeling this unevenness most acutely. In Latin America, the effects are a case study in contrast. Mexico’s inflation has actually eased to its lowest level since 2020, opening room for its central bank to consider rate cuts. Yet the peso has been whipsawed by renewed geopolitical anxiety, a reminder that domestic progress on inflation can be undone quickly by external shocks. Brazil faces a tighter bind: retail sales are softening even as policymakers hold interest rates at a restrictive level, wary that another oil-driven price shock could force them to pause any easing plans.   For major economies, the divergence is just as stark. China’s growth is expected to slow this year, weighed down by higher oil costs and structural headwinds, while India continues to post some of the strongest growth among major economies, buoyed by resilient consumer spending and a robust services sector.   What emerges from this outlook is not a single global story but several running in parallel: a war economy for energy importers, a boom economy for technology exporters, and a policy dilemma for everyone caught between the two. Central banks that spent years fighting inflation now face a harder question whether to hold firm against a shock they cannot control or risk letting price pressures become entrenched again just as they appeared to be tamed.

Why Bangladesh Should Introduce Complementary Military Training in Its Education System

Education is not only about acquiring academic knowledge; it is also about developing responsible, disciplined, and capable citizens. In Bangladesh, the education system has traditionally focused on theoretical learning while giving limited attention to practical skills, leadership, discipline, and emergency preparedness. Introducing Complementary Military Training (CMT) as an educational component for intermediate and university students could help bridge this gap by equipping young people with essential life skills without replacing their academic education. One of the major challenges of Bangladesh’s education system is its limited emphasis on practical learning. Although students spend years completing their education, many graduate without acquiring sufficient leadership experience, teamwork skills, crisis management abilities, or practical communication skills. As a result, many struggle to adapt to professional environments where discipline, collaboration, and decision-making are essential. Complementary Military Training can address these shortcomings by providing structured training that develops physical fitness, mental resilience, leadership, teamwork, communication, and problem-solving abilities. The program would also contribute to character building. Military-based training emphasizes values such as integrity, honesty, responsibility, respect, patriotism, courage, and self-discipline. These values are essential not only for military service but also for building responsible citizens who contribute positively to society. Through practical exercises, ethical discussions, and leadership activities, students can develop a stronger sense of civic responsibility and national commitment. Another important benefit is national preparedness. Bangladesh is one of the world’s most disaster-prone countries, frequently facing floods, cyclones, and other natural disasters. Students who receive basic military-oriented training in first aid, disaster response, emergency communication, evacuation procedures, and crisis management would be better prepared to support their communities during emergencies. Such training would strengthen community resilience while complementing the efforts of law enforcement agencies, disaster management authorities, and emergency responders. International experience demonstrates that structured military or national service programs can contribute to national development. South Korea requires most able-bodied male citizens to complete compulsory military service followed by reserve training. Beyond strengthening national defense, the system has contributed to discipline, teamwork, civic responsibility, and national preparedness among young citizens (Military Manpower Administration, n.d.). Likewise, Switzerland maintains a militia-based defense system in which citizens receive military training and remain part of the reserve force, ensuring a highly prepared population during national emergencies (Swiss Confederation, 2026). Although Bangladesh has a different political, economic, and social context, these examples demonstrate that well-designed military training can complement formal education without preventing students from pursuing higher education or professional careers. Complementary Military Training would also improve students’ communication and interpersonal skills. Modern education increasingly requires students to work with individuals from different backgrounds, solve problems collaboratively, and communicate effectively under pressure. Military training naturally develops these competencies through team-based exercises, leadership tasks, and real-life simulations. Such experiences prepare graduates not only for national service but also for careers in business, public administration, research, journalism, healthcare, and entrepreneurship. Furthermore, Complementary Military Training promotes lifelong learning and adaptability. Today’s rapidly changing world demands continuous skill development, critical thinking, ethical judgement, technological awareness, and resilience. Military training encourages individuals to remain physically active, mentally prepared, and committed to continuous improvement throughout their lives. These qualities are increasingly valuable in both public and private sectors. Importantly, Complementary Military Training should not be viewed as the militarization of education. Instead, it should be designed as a short-term, educational, and skill-oriented program integrated into the national curriculum. The objective is not to produce soldiers but to develop disciplined, responsible, resilient, and socially conscious citizens who are capable of responding effectively during emergencies while contributing positively to national development. In conclusion, Bangladesh should seriously consider introducing Complementary Military Training as part of its education system. Such a program would strengthen practical skills, leadership, discipline, civic responsibility, disaster preparedness, and national resilience among young people. By learning from successful international examples while adapting the program to Bangladesh’s own needs, the country can prepare a generation that is not only academically qualified but also physically capable, mentally resilient, ethically responsible, and ready to serve society whenever needed.

Sci-Hub and Alexandra Elbakyan

Science grows through sharing. Every discovery is built on previous research, and researchers depend on academic papers to understand existing knowledge and develop new ideas. However, for many years, access to scientific literature has not been equal. A large number of research articles are published in expensive academic journals, where access often requires costly subscriptions. While universities in developed countries can usually afford these subscriptions, many students and researchers from less-funded institutions struggle to obtain important scientific information. It was in this situation that Alexandra Elbakyan, a young programmer from Kazakhstan, created Sci-Hub in 2011. Her work created a global debate about one fundamental question: Should scientific knowledge be restricted by financial barriers, or should it be freely available to everyone? Alexandra Elbakyan: The Mind Behind Sci-Hub Alexandra Elbakyan was born in Kazakhstan in 1988. From an early age, she showed strong interest in computer science and technology. During her academic studies, she experienced a common problem faced by many researchers around the world—the difficulty of accessing scientific papers because of expensive journal fees. Many important research articles were available only through paid academic databases. For students and researchers without institutional support, obtaining these papers could be difficult or sometimes impossible. This experience influenced Elbakyan’s decision to create a platform that would provide easier access to scientific literature. In 2011, she launched Sci-Hub with the idea that scientific knowledge should be accessible to people regardless of their financial situation. According to her viewpoint, research created for the advancement of humanity should not remain locked behind expensive paywalls. The Growth of Sci-Hub: A New Approach to Research Access After its creation, Sci-Hub quickly gained popularity among researchers, students, and academics worldwide. The platform became known for providing access to millions of scientific articles from different disciplines, including engineering, medicine, biology, physics, and social sciences. For many researchers, especially those from developing countries, Sci-Hub became an important source of academic information. A student working at a university with limited library resources could access research papers that were otherwise unavailable due to subscription costs. The popularity of Sci-Hub revealed a major weakness in the traditional academic publishing system. Scientific research is produced to expand human understanding, but many people who want to learn from that research cannot access it because of financial restrictions. Why Did Researchers Support Sci-Hub? One of the main reasons behind Sci-Hub’s popularity was its role in reducing inequality in scientific access. A researcher at a wealthy university may have access to thousands of journals through institutional subscriptions. However, a researcher from a small university or a developing country may face serious difficulties accessing the same information. This difference creates an unequal research environment. Supporters of Sci-Hub argue that knowledge should not be available only to those who can afford it. They believe that scientific progress becomes stronger when researchers from all parts of the world can participate equally. Another reason for its popularity was convenience. Instead of spending time searching for available versions of papers or requesting articles from other researchers, users could obtain scientific literature more easily. The Controversy: Innovation or Copyright Violation? Although Sci-Hub gained support from many researchers, it also faced strong criticism. The biggest controversy surrounding Sci-Hub is related to copyright law. Academic publishers argue that research articles are protected intellectual property, and distributing them without permission violates legal rights. Publishers also claim that maintaining academic journals requires significant investment in peer review, editing, digital infrastructure, and distribution. From this perspective, Sci-Hub creates challenges for the traditional publishing model. However, supporters present a different argument. They point out that many scientific studies are funded by governments, universities, and public institutions. Therefore, they believe the results of such research should be available to society rather than restricted behind expensive payment systems. The debate is therefore not simply about a website—it is about the relationship between knowledge, ownership, and public access. Sci-Hub and the Future of Scientific Publishing The rise of Sci-Hub contributed to wider discussions about the Open Access movement, which promotes free and legal access to academic research. Open Access supporters believe that scientific findings should be available to everyone, especially when research is supported by public funding. Many universities, researchers, and organizations are now exploring alternative publishing models that allow wider access while still protecting academic quality. Although Sci-Hub itself has faced legal challenges and is different from formal open access initiatives, it highlighted a problem that the academic world could no longer ignore: the need for a more accessible research system. Alexandra Elbakyan: A Symbol of a Larger Debate Alexandra Elbakyan has become a highly debated figure in modern science. To some people, she is a pioneer who challenged an expensive and unequal publishing system. They see her as someone who tried to make knowledge more democratic. To others, she represents a challenge to copyright laws and the economic structure that supports academic publishing. Regardless of personal opinions about her actions, her influence is undeniable. She forced researchers, publishers, and institutions to discuss an important issue: how can society balance the rights of creators with the need for wider access to knowledge? The Unfinished Story of Knowledge Access The story of Sci-Hub and Alexandra Elbakyan reflects a larger transformation in the way the world thinks about scientific information. It is not only a story about a website; it is a story about access, equality, technology, and the future of research. Sci-Hub exposed the limitations of a system where important scientific knowledge can remain inaccessible because of financial barriers. At the same time, it raised serious questions about copyright protection and the sustainability of academic publishing. Whether Alexandra Elbakyan is viewed as a revolutionary or a rule breaker, her contribution to the discussion about scientific accessibility cannot be ignored. Her work has encouraged the global academic community to rethink how knowledge should be shared in the digital age. The future challenge is to create a system where researchers are fairly recognized and supported, while scientific knowledge becomes accessible to those who need it

An Important Website for Researcher Awareness

n the world of research, publication is extremely important. A researcher’s work gains wider recognition when it is published in a credible journal. However, some low-quality or fake journals take advantage of this system by charging researchers publication fees without maintaining proper academic standards. These journals often do not conduct proper peer review, lack editorial transparency, and sometimes use fake impact factors or misleading indexing claims to attract authors. In response to this problem, Beall’s List became an important warning tool for researchers. Beall’s List is mainly a list of potentially predatory journals and publishers. It was originally created by Jeffrey Beall, a librarian at the University of Colorado Denver. He identified open-access publishers and journals that appeared to charge publication fees without ensuring proper editorial quality or genuine peer review. The current version of the website presents itself as an archived version of Beall’s original list and continues to preserve the list while updating links and notes. The most important purpose of this website is to help researchers stay alert. Before submitting a paper to a journal, researchers can search the name of the journal or publisher on Beall’s List. If a publisher appears on the list, it may be considered potentially predatory. The website also includes separate sections for publishers, standalone journals, hijacked journals, and misleading metrics, which can be especially useful for early-career researchers. However, Beall’s List should be used carefully. It is not a final judgment; rather, it should be treated as a warning point or starting point for further checking. If a journal appears on the list, it does not always mean that it is completely fake. Similarly, if a journal is not on the list, that does not automatically mean it is safe. Researchers should also check Scopus, Web of Science, DOAJ, the journal’s official website, editorial board, peer-review policy, publication fees, and publisher reputation before making a decision. Beall’s List has also been a subject of debate. In 2017, Jeffrey Beall shut down his original website. This created discussion in the academic community because many researchers used the list as a tool to identify predatory publishing practices. Although the original site was closed, archived versions and related resources are still used by many researchers as a reference point. Today, this website has become even more relevant because online publishing has grown rapidly. Many young researchers, especially from developing countries, face pressure to publish quickly. Predatory journals often take advantage of this pressure by sending attractive emails, promising quick acceptance, and offering fast publication. Researchers who do not know how to verify a journal may easily fall into this trap. Therefore, Beall’s List is not just a website; it is a warning signal about research ethics. It reminds researchers that publication is not only about numbers. Quality, credibility, transparency, and academic honesty matter more. Choosing the right journal is essential for protecting a researcher’s academic reputation. In conclusion, Beall’s List is a useful awareness platform for researchers. However, it should not be used as the only source for deciding whether a journal is trustworthy. A careful researcher should verify a journal’s indexing, publisher reputation, editorial board, peer-review process, and publication policy before submitting a paper. Good research deserves not just publication, but publication in a credible and trustworthy journal.

Digital Imperialism: Our Data, Their Empire

Searching on Google in the morning, watching a movie on Netflix in the afternoon, and scrolling through Facebook or Instagram at night—these have become our daily routines. But have you ever wondered if these platforms are not just offering us convenience, but silently establishing a new kind of dominance over us? Researchers and sociologists call this “Platform Imperialism.” As many point out, “In the past, empires were expanded through weapons, soldiers, and territorial conquest; today, they are built with algorithms, the internet, and our personal data.” Simply put, a handful of massive tech companies—such as Google, Meta, Amazon, and Netflix—control the entire global digital landscape. These predominantly US-based corporations don’t just provide technological services; they silently dictate what we watch, what we buy, and even how we think from behind the screens. While many of us assume platforms like Google or YouTube are completely neutral, experts argue otherwise. Recommendation algorithms on YouTube or Netflix are designed to repeatedly push Western or highly profitable content right in front of our eyes. While Western countries previously exerted cultural influence through movies or news, today, it happens through digital infrastructure. A major area of concern regarding platform imperialism is data extraction and economic inequality. Billions of people worldwide are generating massive amounts of data every day, but the financial benefits are entirely reaped by these tech giants. Meanwhile, local businesses and media industries in developing countries are forced to bow down to the rules set by these foreign corporations. According to critics, whoever controls our digital infrastructure ultimately controls our attention, our data, and our culture. Due to the overwhelming dominance of these global platforms, local content and indigenous cultures are facing an unfair competition. This is creating a global cultural homogenization, causing us to lose our unique identities. However, platforms like TikTok and certain regional streaming sites have recently begun to challenge this Western dominance, making the power structure even more complex. Even so, the core issue of Western control over digital infrastructure remains largely unchanged. To combat this digital aggression, researchers and governments worldwide are now stepping up. Issues like digital sovereignty, data protection, and algorithmic transparency are taking center stage in global discussions. There is no doubt that digital platforms have made our lives significantly easier. But it is high time we seriously consider whether, in exchange for this convenience, we are handing over the control of our culture, economy, and data to foreign corporations.

Which is Easier, Becoming an Entrepreneur or an Employee?

People often ask a deceptively simple question: Which is easier, becoming an entrepreneur or an employee? At first glance, the answer appears obvious. Employees enjoy structured career paths, defined responsibilities, and a relatively predictable income. Entrepreneurs, on the other hand, face uncertainty, financial risk, and the constant challenge of building something from nothing. Yet the more closely we examine both paths, the more complicated the question becomes.Behind every successful entrepreneur lies a story of risk, sacrifice, and resilience. Behind every accomplished employee lies years of discipline, expertise, and consistent performance. Both journeys demand hard work. Both require persistence. And neither offers a guaranteed route to success. The answer, therefore, is neither. The real difference lies in the type of risk each path asks you to accept. As an employee, your greatest asset is competence. If you perform well, opportunities generally follow. The organization provides structure, resources, training, and a relatively clear definition of success. Your income may rise or fall, but the rules of the game are visible. Entrepreneurship is different. The entrepreneur begins with uncertainty and spends much of their journey trying to reduce it. There is no guaranteed salary, no established roadmap, and often no one to absorb the consequences of failure. Every major decision hiring, pricing, fundraising, or expansion carries financial and emotional weight. In economic terms, employees are paid for managing tasks. Entrepreneurs are rewarded for absorbing uncertainty. That distinction is critical. Research on entrepreneurship consistently shows that starting a business is not the hardest part; keeping it alive is. Many people launch businesses, but far fewer succeed in building organizations that survive long enough to become stable, job-creating enterprises. This reality exposes one of the biggest myths surrounding entrepreneurship. We celebrate founders because we see the winners. We rarely see the thousands of entrepreneurs who spend years navigating cash-flow shortages, failed products, changing markets, and personal financial risk. Yet entrepreneurship offers something uniquely powerful: leverage. An employee can create value through effort. An entrepreneur can create systems that continue generating value even when they are not present. That possibility explains why entrepreneurship continues to attract ambitious people despite its risks. But there is another misconception worth challenging. Modern culture often portrays entrepreneurship as superior to employment. Social media celebrates founders, investors, and startup success stories while treating employment as a less ambitious choice. This is a false comparison. Every successful company depends on exceptional employees. Apple needed engineers. Goldman Sachs needs analysts. Tesla needs designers. Microsoft needs managers. Even the most visionary entrepreneur ultimately succeeds by building a team of talented people. Without great employees, entrepreneurship remains an idea. Without entrepreneurs, employees have fewer opportunities. The two are not rivals. They are interdependent. Perhaps the better question is not whether entrepreneurship or employment is easier. Instead, ask yourself: Which type of difficulty suits you best? Do you prefer the challenge of mastering an existing system? Or do you prefer the challenge of creating one from scratch? One path rewards specialization and execution. The other rewards risk tolerance and resilience. One offers stability in exchange for limited control. The other offers control in exchange for constant uncertainty. Neither is inherently better. Neither is inherently easier. Both require sacrifice. Both require courage. Both demand years of learning and adaptation. Success is rarely determined by whether you become an entrepreneur or an employee. It is determined by whether you understand the trade-offs of your chosen path and are willing to pay the price that comes with it. Because every meaningful career is difficult. The only question is whether the difficulty you choose is one you can live with.

AI and the Alienation of Work: Echoes of Marx in the Age of Automation

The Industrial Revolution transformed labor through machines and factories, prompting Karl Marx to develop his theory of alienation. Today, artificial intelligence is driving a parallel transformation. As AI automates tasks, reshapes workflows, and redefines human roles, Marx’s warnings about workers becoming estranged from their labor feel strikingly relevant. Marx’s Four Dimensions of Alienation In his ‘Economic and Philosophic Manuscripts of 1844’, Marx outlined alienation as a profound disconnection under capitalism. Workers experience: Alienation from the product of labor: The things workers create belong to the capitalist, not the producer, turning the output into an alien, opposing force. Alienation from the process of production: Labor feels external and coerced rather than a fulfilling expression of human creativity. Work becomes drudgery rather than self-realization. Alienation from species-being (human potential): Repetitive, fragmented tasks stifle creativity, social connection, and personal development, reducing people to animal-like survival mode. Alienation from fellow humans: Competitive structures and division of labor foster isolation instead of cooperative relationships. These were not mere complaints about bad jobs. Marx saw alienation as a systemic feature of capitalist production that dehumanizes workers. AI’s New Forms of Alienation Modern workplaces already show parallels. AI-powered tools in call centers, content moderation, logistics, coding, and creative fields often position humans as supervisors or data labelers rather than autonomous creators. Workers monitor algorithms, provide inputs, or handle edge cases, but they lose control over the core creative or decision-making process. This creates fresh risks: Deskilling and loss of agency: Routine cognitive work—once a source of skill and pride—gets automated. Remaining tasks can feel like “feeding the machine,” leaving employees reactive rather than proactive. Surveillance and data-driven control: Platforms track every keystroke, metric, and interaction. This intensifies the sense that labor serves external powers (algorithms and distant owners) rather than personal or collective goals. Gig and platform economies: Delivery drivers, ride-share workers, and content creators often face algorithm-mediated relationships with customers and pay. Autonomy erodes as ratings, route optimization, and recommendation systems dictate the pace and nature of work. Emotional and creative hollowing: Even in knowledge work, over-reliance on generative AI for writing, design, or analysis can make outputs feel less personal. Workers may question the value of their own contributions when AI produces similar results faster. Studies and analyses of digital labor highlight “epistemic alienation” (loss of knowledge and understanding of one’s own work processes) and “affective alienation” (emotional disconnection from tasks). Not All Doom: Opportunities for Re-humanization AI need not deepen alienation. By automating drudgery data entry, repetitive analysis, dangerous physical tasks it could free humans for higher-order work involving creativity, empathy, strategy, and interpersonal connection. Promising paths forward include: Human-in-the-loop design: Involve workers in developing and governing AI systems so they retain meaningful control and ownership. Reskilling with purpose: Invest in education that emphasizes uniquely human strengths—critical thinking, ethical judgment, emotional intelligence—rather than narrow technical compliance. Policy safeguards: Universal basic services, shorter workweeks, profit-sharing from AI productivity gains, and regulations on algorithmic transparency can mitigate displacement and insecurity. Organizational culture: Prioritize well-being metrics alongside efficiency. Companies that treat employees as partners in AI adoption report higher engagement. Examples from informal sectors in developing economies show that preserving autonomy (flexible hours, direct customer relationships) can buffer against alienation, even amid economic precarity. AI should enhance rather than erode this. A Human-Centered Future Marx critiqued technology not because he opposed progress, but because he saw it deployed in ways that concentrated power and estranged people from their labor. In 2026, we face a choice: Allow AI to amplify 19th-century dynamics of control and fragmentation, or harness it to create more meaningful work. The technology itself is neutral. The outcomes depend on values embedded in its design, ownership structures, and supporting policies. If we center human flourishing, creativity, connection, and autonomy, we can move beyond alienation toward work that affirms rather than diminishes our humanity. The Industrial Revolution ultimately raised living standards despite its costs. The AI revolution can do the same, but only if we learn from history and refuse to repeat its psychological and social failures.

No woman has been executed in the history of Bangladesh

Throughout Bangladesh’s history, more than a hundred women have been sentenced to death for serious crimes. Many have spent years, sometimes decades, inside condemned cells, awaiting the outcome of appeals or a presidential clemency decision. Yet one remarkable fact remains unchanged: since the country’s independence in 1971, not a single woman has been executed in Bangladesh. This stands in stark contrast to the numerous male death-row inmates whose sentences have been carried out over the same period. The question, therefore, is unavoidable: Is there a legal barrier preventing the execution of women, or does the answer lie elsewhere within the country’s justice system? Legal Myth vs. Reality A common misconception persists among the public that Bangladeshi law does not permit the execution of women. Legal experts, however, say this belief is entirely unfounded. Under Bangladesh’s Penal Code and criminal justice system, men and women are subject to the same punishments. Courts may impose the death penalty on female defendants convicted of murder, terrorism, war crimes, or other capital offenses. In fact, numerous women have received death sentences over the years. The distinction lies not in the law itself, but in what happens after a death sentence is handed down. From Death Row to Life Imprisonment In Bangladesh, every death sentence issued by a lower court is automatically reviewed by the High Court Division. Convicted individuals also retain the right to appeal to the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court. It is during this lengthy judicial review process that many death sentences imposed on women are ultimately commuted to life imprisonment or imprisonment for the remainder of their natural lives. One of the most prominent examples is Oishee Rahman, who was sentenced to death in 2015 for the murder of her parents. The High Court later reduced her sentence to life imprisonment after considering factors such as her age, mental condition, personal circumstances, and subsequent surrender to authorities. Similarly, Sharifa Begum spent nearly 24 years under a death sentence before the Appellate Division commuted her punishment to life imprisonment in 2024. Legal practitioners note that courts often take into account social, familial, and humanitarian considerations when reviewing cases involving female defendants, factors that can significantly influence the outcome. The Long Road Through the Appeals Process Before a death sentence can be carried out in Bangladesh, a case must pass through several layers of judicial scrutiny. These generally include: High Court confirmation of the death sentence (Death Reference) Appeal before the Appellate Division Review petition Presidential clemency application Completing these stages can take anywhere from ten to twenty years or even longer. Research on Bangladesh’s death penalty system has found that the average time required for final disposal of death sentence cases often exceeds a decade. As a result, many condemned prisoners remain on death row for years without a final resolution. A notable example is Ayesha Siddika Minni, convicted in the widely publicized Rifat Sharif murder case. Since receiving a death sentence in 2020, she has remained at Kashimpur Women’s Central Jail while her appeal continues through the courts. For many female death-row inmates, the prolonged legal process itself has become a defining feature of their imprisonment. Death Row Inmates, But No Gallows Perhaps one of the most striking aspects of Bangladesh’s prison history is that the country’s largest women’s correctional facility, Kashimpur Women’s Central Jail, was reportedly built without a dedicated execution platform. Prison officials have previously indicated that, because no woman had ever been executed in independent Bangladesh, authorities did not consider such infrastructure a necessity when the facility was established. Today, a significant portion of the country’s female death-row population is housed within that same prison. How Many Women Are on Death Row? According to recent prison statistics, 96 women are currently among Bangladesh’s 2,594 condemned prisoners.(Kaler Kantho) The largest concentration of female death-row inmates is held at Kashimpur Women’s Central Jail in Gazipur. Most were convicted in cases involving murder, family disputes, child killings, or other serious criminal offenses. Several high-profile names have recently been added to the list. Swapna Swapna was sentenced to death in the widely discussed rape and murder case of child victim Ramisa in Savar. The verdict was delivered in what was described as one of the country’s fastest criminal trials. Sheikh Hasina Former Prime Minister Sheikh Hasina has also become one of the most prominent names on the list of female death-row convicts following a verdict delivered by the International Crimes Tribunal. What History Tells Us Archived prison records and media reports indicate that while hundreds of executions have been carried out in Bangladesh since independence, all of those executed have been men. Reports published over the years have consistently noted that although dozens of women were sentenced to death, none ultimately faced execution. As a result, Bangladesh continues to maintain a unique and largely overlooked record: for more than five decades, no woman has been sent to the gallows. Will the Record Be Broken? For now, the answer remains uncertain. On one hand, courts continue to impose death sentences on female offenders in cases deemed exceptionally grave. On the other hand, judicial review, lengthy appeals, humanitarian considerations, and evolving legal standards frequently result in those sentences being reduced or overturned before reaching the stage of execution. Consequently, the extraordinary record remains intact. Fifty-five years after independence, Bangladesh has never executed a woman. Whether that record survives the years ahead or eventually becomes history itself will depend on the decisions of the courts, the state, and the evolving direction of the country’s justice system.