Daily meals were no longer just about sustenance; the people of Bangladesh saw how they became instruments of political control. For over fifteen years, Sheikh Hasina’s tenure as Bangladesh’s Prime Minister was marked by an unprecedented centralization of powera, transforming the state apparatus into a rigidly controlled system that exhibited traits of an authoritarian-fascist model. Under her rule, governance became synonymous with hegemony, penetrating not only political institutions but also the market economy, manufacturing systemic dependencies that served the ruling elite rather than the people.
Among the most glaring manifestations of this economic subjugation was Bangladesh’s reliance on Indian onion imports. What might appear on the surface as a simple trade imbalance was, in reality, a calculated political discourse—a cognitive framework imposed upon the masses to foster economic dependency, thereby consolidating political control.
Indian Onions: Market Crisis or Political Hoax
The oft-repeated claim—“If onions don’t come from India, what will people eat?”—was not just an economic statement but a discursive illusion, designed to psychologically entrap the population within a state of artificial necessity. This narrative was not rooted in genuine market conditions but rather in a carefully engineered construct aimed at conditioning public perception.
By orchestrating artificial shortages and inflating prices, the government normalized economic hardship, embedding a subconscious dependency on external imports. The intent was clear: to reinforce the notion that survival itself hinged upon a fragile economic structure controlled by the state and its transnational trade alliances.
From a Hegelian dialectical perspective, this phenomenon unfolded as a classical thesis-antithesis-synthesis sequence. The state’s imposition of market dependency served as the thesis, public frustration and economic strain functioned as the antithesis, and, following Hasina’s removal, the normalization of the market signified the synthesis.
Michel Foucault’s theories on power and knowledge offer a deeper understanding of this phenomenon. The control over onion imports was not merely economic—it was epistemological. By shaping what people perceived as necessary for survival, the regime established a form of “governmentality”, where power was exercised not just through coercion but through the production of knowledge that dictated economic behavior.
Market Crises as Hyperreal Constructs: The Baudrillardian Lens
From the perspective of Jean Baudrillard’s Simulacra and Simulation, the onion crisis was not a material reality but a hyperreal construct—a carefully curated mirage that distorted the genuine dynamics of supply and demand. By manufacturing scarcity and amplifying the fear of unavailability, the state crafted a simulation of crisis that was indistinguishable from reality, effectively coercing the public into unquestioning compliance.
This crisis exemplifies third-order simulacra, where the distinction between the real and the fabricated collapses, leaving behind a self-sustaining illusion. The dependency on Indian onions, then, was never an economic inevitability but a political performance—an elaborate façade designed to make subjugation appear organic.
Hasina’s Fall
Seven months after Hasina’s departure, Bangladesh’s dependence on Indian onions has dramatically declined, and market stability has been restored without the anticipated food crisis. This shift is more than just an economic correction; it symbolizes a cognitive rupture—a break from the imposed epistemic order that dictated people’s understanding of economic survival.
This transformation aligns with Edward Said’s critique of Orientalism, where dependency narratives serve as tools of political hegemony. The portrayal of Bangladesh as inherently incapable of self-sufficiency—requiring external trade lifelines to function—was part of a broader postcolonial power structure that reinforced economic submission under the guise of pragmatism. The dismantling of this myth represents not only economic emancipation but also a decolonization of thought.
Breaking the Chains
Those who once asked, “What will Bangladeshis eat if Indian onions stop coming?” must now confront an uncomfortable reality: what are they eating today? The artificial crisis has collapsed, exposing its inherent falsity. The market has stabilized without external crutches, and the psychological shackles of economic dependency have begun to erode.
This is not merely a fiscal adjustment—it is a political decolonization of economic consciousness. It signifies the reclamation of agency, a rejection of imposed vulnerabilities, and a reassertion of national autonomy in shaping its economic future.
In the end, the onion crisis was never about onions. It was about power—who controls it, who surrenders to it, and who ultimately reclaims it.
©Team Informer365