Bhasan Char - “Beacon of Hope” That Became an Island of Confinement
Will Bhasan Char’s Charade Finally End?
I’ve just published a piece for Failed Architecture on Bhasan Char. Read it here.
Here, I’d like to explore some bits and pieces I didn’t discuss in the article.
Now That Hasina Is Gone, Will Bhasan Char Change?
With Sheikh Hasina no longer in power, we’re at a turning point. Will the current leaders finally dismantle this monstrous island project? Or will they double down on using Bhasan Char as a cash cow, angling for more international aid and patting themselves on the back for “solving” a crisis they actually perpetuate?
Bhasan Char didn’t happen in a vacuum. It’s part of a global trend of warehousing refugees in remote facilities - out of sight, out of mind. For Bangladesh, it’s a chance to appear proactive on the world stage while sweeping vulnerable people under the proverbial rug.
It’s time we stop calling Bhasan Char a humanitarian operation and label it for what it really is: a forced containment strategy that dehumanises a traumatised community. Now that the political landscape has shifted, international donors and rights groups must demand accountability. If we can’t do that, we risk letting Bhasan Char become the permanent blueprint for how to lock away “undesirable” populations - an example other governments may all too eagerly adopt.
Hasina’s Legacy of Big Promises and Bigger Failures
This project is rooted in the Awami League government’s “Ashrayan Project,” originally meant to help landless Bangladeshis. Along the way, former Prime Minister Sheikh Hasina's appetite for headline-grabbing "solutions" led to the addition of Bhasan Char as a flashy spin-off. But look deeper, and you’ll see how this reflects Bangladesh’s larger logic of treating displaced people as a “surplus population” - bodies to be contained rather than integrated. So they built Bhasan Char - an environment designed to confine, not to rehabilitate.
Bhasan Char reveals everything you need to know about Bangladesh’s political corruption under Hasina. Lucrative contracts were handed out, and of course the military was a beneficiary. They even built an opulent, eight-crore-taka guesthouse that no one uses.
The Armed Forces Division of the Prime Minister’s Office declared Bhasan Char to be ‘one of the finest camps in the globe for displaced nationals,’ even before its completion. That page has been removed from its web site, but thanks to the way back machine, one can still see the absurd boast!
Actually, one of the most galling aspects is the relentless spin - championed by officials and uncritically echoed by many editors and journalists. Promotional material used phrases like “Beacon of Hope” and “safe and transient accommodation,” but these words are a smokescreen. This island is a prison in all but name. It’s “transient” only in the sense that refugees remain stuck there indefinitely, with no guarantee of actual resettlement or safe repatriation!
Worse still, the bureaucrats and architects behind it expected praise for inflicting this nightmare on a vulnerable population. The architects - a UK firm called MDM Architects - even tout their own benevolence, labelling the island a “paradise.” That’s an insult to the Rohingya who have ended up there.
I reached out to Mr. Mukta, the principal architect behind the infamous “paradise” remark, and asked a series of questions, including why they hadn’t fenced off the ponds linked to multiple deaths of young children. He told me he couldn’t speak without the Bangladesh Navy’s permission. I then contacted the Navy, requesting that they either let him respond or speak to me directly themselves. They never replied.
Interesting aside here: Burma Campaign (UK) lists H R Wallingford on its Dirty List. HR Wallingford is a UK engineering firm, and it was involved in the construction of the island. However, Burma Campaign does not mention MDM Architects. I wrote Burma Campaign two emails requesting that they put MDM Architects on the same list. I did not receive a response to either email. I then DM’d Mark Farmaner of Burma Campaign on X. He told me that they had indeed received the emails but they could not tell me when the Dirty List would be next updated (the last update was August 2023). Slightly odd behaviour by Burma Campaign UK, but there you are.
The government brandished Bhasan Char as a charitable effort, all the while keeping the Rohingya locked away from society - no job prospects, no social integration, extemely limited health care and no real support for the traumatised people who fled violent persecution in Myanmar.
And I want to conclude on that note concerning trauma.
I received a Google Alert on 5 April that mentioned a newly published article. The snippet read: “The Rohingya refugee crisis has led to significant mental health challenges, particularly for those recently relocated to Bhasan...” Yet, when I clicked the link, I landed on an SSRN page stating: “This paper has been removed from SSRN at the request of the author, SSRN, or the rights holder.” Naturally, this piqued my curiosity.
Using the partial title I had - “Prevalence and Factors Associated with Psychosocial Distress and Trauma Among…” - I searched on Google and found another excerpt indicating that around 60.8% of refugees on Bhasan Char experienced psychosocial distress or trauma, a figure significantly higher than 38.4% elsewhere. We’ve heard anecdotes about suicides on the island, so learning that more than half of the refugees there may suffer from distress or trauma is alarming. Why did this paper vanish within hours? Am I reading too much into its sudden removal?
If you found the article on Failed Architecture helpful or provocative, please share it with friends and colleagues. The Rohingya’s fate shouldn’t be decided on a silt island under the guise of “charity.”
Good news