Bangladesh is once again facing a serious public health test. On one side, measles is spreading at an alarming rate; on the other, dengue cases are rising rapidly. The two diseases are different in nature, transmission and prevention. Yet their consequences are converging at the same point—the lives of people, the economic burden on families and the capacity of the country’s healthcare system.

What is particularly concerning is that measles is a vaccine-preventable disease. Effective vaccines have been available for decades. Yet gaps in vaccination coverage, disruptions in routine immunisation programmes and inadequate public awareness have allowed a preventable disease to develop into a major health concern. When this happens, it is no longer simply a medical problem; it raises serious questions about the effectiveness of the public health system.

Dengue, meanwhile, is not a new challenge for Bangladesh. The country has faced recurring outbreaks, particularly during and after the monsoon season. With years of experience in dealing with dengue, Bangladesh should have stronger forecasting, prevention and preparedness mechanisms in place. Yet whenever hospitals come under pressure from a growing number of patients, the same question returns: are we learning enough from previous outbreaks?

The greatest victims of this double health burden are children. Measles can be particularly dangerous for young children, while dengue can also become severe rapidly, especially when warning signs are missed. When the two diseases surge simultaneously, hospitals face additional pressure for beds, doctors, nurses, diagnostic facilities, medicines and other essential resources.

This brings us to the most important question: Are our hospitals prepared?

Simply increasing the number of hospital beds will not answer that question. Hospitals are the final line of defence. The real strength of a public health system lies in its ability to prevent people from reaching the hospital in the first place.

For measles, that means strengthening routine immunisation, identifying children who have missed vaccines and ensuring that they receive appropriate vaccination without delay. Vaccination efforts must reach not only urban communities but also children living in remote areas, informal settlements and other underserved communities.

The fight against dengue must begin outside hospitals. Eliminating mosquito breeding sites, preventing stagnant water, improving sanitation and ensuring coordinated action by health authorities and local governments are essential. Treating patients after they become seriously ill cannot be the country’s only strategy.

Urban management is equally important. Construction sites, abandoned containers, rooftops, drains and other places where water accumulates can become breeding grounds for Aedes mosquitoes. Efforts to eliminate such sites must be continuous rather than limited to short-term campaigns or occasional drives. What is needed is regular monitoring and accountability at the local level.

Another critical issue is data. Health authorities need timely information on where measles and dengue cases are increasing, which communities are most affected and which age groups face the greatest risks. Early and accurate data can allow authorities to respond before an outbreak becomes unmanageable. In modern public health management, success is not simply measured by how well a country responds after an outbreak; it is measured by how effectively it anticipates and prevents one.

We must also remember that a child’s death is never merely a statistic. Behind every death is a family, a future and dreams that will never be fulfilled. When children die from diseases that can be prevented or effectively managed, society has every reason to ask difficult questions about the effectiveness of public policy and healthcare delivery.

Increasing investment in healthcare is essential. But funding alone is not enough. There must also be transparency over how resources are spent, whether those resources reach the communities that need them and whether health authorities are capable of managing crises effectively.

The public also has a role to play. Parents must ensure that children receive their recommended vaccinations. Fever, rash, breathing difficulties or other concerning symptoms should not be ignored. People must also take responsibility for eliminating stagnant water around their homes and communities. But public awareness cannot become an excuse for institutional shortcomings. The state must ensure that citizens have access to reliable information, affordable healthcare and essential preventive services.

The simultaneous spread of measles and dengue should be treated as a serious warning. The question is not simply how many people have been infected or how many hospital beds remain available. The larger question is whether Bangladesh is building a health system capable of identifying risks early and containing outbreaks before they overwhelm hospitals.

Keeping hospitals prepared is essential. But an even greater priority is building a public health system in which the strongest line of defence exists before a patient reaches the hospital. Measles reminds us that no gap in vaccination coverage is safe. Dengue reminds us that the battle for public health begins not inside hospitals, but in homes, neighbourhoods and the way our cities are managed.

The response now must be based not on panic but on coordinated action. Bangladesh needs immediate medical preparedness alongside long-term prevention strategies. If this double outbreak becomes an opportunity to strengthen the country’s public health system, then the painful lessons of today can help prevent even greater losses tomorrow. The question, therefore, is not simply whether our hospitals are ready. The real question is whether our entire health system is ready.

Editorial:

Bangladesh’s Rohingya crisis is no longer simply a humanitarian emergency. After years of hosting a large displaced population, the crisis has increasingly become intertwined with national security, border management, economic pressure, environmental degradation and regional stability.

Bangladesh has demonstrated remarkable humanitarian responsibility by providing shelter and assistance to Rohingya refugees fleeing violence in Myanmar. But humanitarian assistance, however essential, cannot be a permanent solution. The longer the crisis continues, the greater the burden becomes for Bangladesh—and the greater the risks become for the refugees themselves.

The fundamental question is therefore becoming increasingly difficult to avoid: How long can Bangladesh continue to manage the crisis without a credible pathway to resolving it?

Food, healthcare, education and shelter remain essential for the Rohingya population. International humanitarian assistance must continue. But relief programmes address the consequences of displacement, not its root causes.

The central issue remains unchanged: why are the Rohingya unable to return safely to their homeland, and what must be done to create the conditions for a voluntary, safe and dignified return?That is where diplomacy must take centre stage.

A humanitarian crisis with security implications 

The prolonged presence of large refugee communities has placed significant pressure on Bangladesh, particularly in Cox’s Bazar and surrounding areas. Local infrastructure, public services, the environment and economic opportunities have all faced additional pressure.

There is also a growing security dimension. Concerns over organised crime, human trafficking, narcotics networks, illegal arms flows and the activities of armed groups in and around refugee camps cannot be ignored. At the same time, it is important not to stigmatise the Rohingya population as a whole. The overwhelming majority are victims of displacement who want security, basic rights and the opportunity to return home.

The challenge for Bangladesh is to protect the refugee population while preventing criminal and armed networks from exploiting the vulnerability created by prolonged displacement. This requires stronger law enforcement, intelligence cooperation, border surveillance and action against trafficking and organised crime. But security measures must also remain consistent with humanitarian principles. Ordinary refugees should not become victims of collective suspicion or punishment.

Myanmar remains at the centre of the problem

Ultimately, the Rohingya crisis cannot be permanently resolved inside Bangladesh because the root of the displacement lies in Myanmar. The continuing instability in Myanmar, particularly in Rakhine State, makes the prospect of safe and sustainable repatriation increasingly complicated. If conditions inside Rakhine do not allow refugees to return with adequate security and basic rights, simply sending people back would not constitute a genuine solution.

Unsafe repatriation is not a solution; it risks creating another cycle of displacement. For that reason, Bangladesh must continue to insist that any repatriation process be voluntary, safe, dignified and sustainable. The international community also has a responsibility that goes beyond humanitarian fundraising.

From aid diplomacy to solution-oriented diplomacy

For years, international attention has focused heavily on humanitarian assistance. That support has been indispensable. But the international response cannot remain confined to raising funds to sustain refugee camps indefinitely. The objective must now be to build a credible international framework for a lasting political solution.

Bangladesh should intensify diplomatic engagement with the United Nations, regional organisations and countries capable of exercising political and economic influence over Myanmar. The major powers and regional actors must be encouraged to play a more active role in creating conditions for safe and sustainable repatriation.

Diplomatic discussions should move beyond general expressions of concern. There must be greater focus on practical questions: security guarantees, citizenship and legal rights, freedom of movement, access to essential services, property and livelihood rights, and international monitoring of the repatriation process. Without addressing these issues, repatriation risks becoming a numbers exercise rather than a durable solution.

Bangladesh cannot carry the burden indefinitely

Bangladesh has already carried a substantial humanitarian and economic burden. International support for refugees must therefore continue, but the burden on host communities must also receive greater attention. The people of Cox’s Bazar and surrounding areas should not feel that they have been forgotten while international attention remains focused exclusively on the refugee population.

Development assistance should therefore address both refugees and host communities. Infrastructure, healthcare, education, employment opportunities and environmental protection require sustained investment. This is not about placing refugees and local residents against each other. It is about recognising that long-term stability depends on supporting both communities.

The next generation is at stake

Perhaps the most serious long-term concern is the future of Rohingya children and young people. A generation is growing up in an environment defined by displacement and uncertainty. Without adequate education, skills and hope for a better future, prolonged marginalisation can create frustration and vulnerability to exploitation by criminal or armed groups.

Education and skills development must therefore remain central to the humanitarian response. Providing young Rohingya with opportunities is not simply an act of charity; it is also an investment in regional stability.

At the same time, Bangladesh must strengthen the security and governance of the camps without turning them into permanent detention-like environments. Humanitarian protection and security are not mutually exclusive. In fact, effective humanitarian management can itself reduce security risks.

Bangladesh needs a stronger diplomatic strategy

Bangladesh now needs to move beyond crisis management towards a more comprehensive diplomatic strategy. The country should pursue three objectives simultaneously: protecting the humanitarian rights of the Rohingya, safeguarding Bangladesh’s national security, and creating sustained international pressure for safe and dignified repatriation.

These objectives should not be treated as competing priorities. They are interconnected parts of the same solution. Bangladesh should also ensure that the Rohingya issue remains on the international agenda. Global attention tends to shift as new conflicts and crises emerge. But the absence of headlines does not mean the crisis has disappeared.

Diplomatic engagement must therefore be continuous, coordinated and evidence-based. Bangladesh has a strong moral and legal argument for seeking international support. But moral appeals alone are not enough. Dhaka needs a clear strategy, measurable diplomatic objectives and stronger coordination with countries that have influence over Myanmar.

Relief must continue—but it cannot be the destination

The international community should not mistake the relative stability of the refugee camps for resolution of the crisis. A camp can provide temporary shelter. It cannot replace a homeland. Humanitarian assistance can save lives. It cannot resolve statelessness. International funding can sustain basic services. It cannot guarantee a political settlement. That is why the international response must evolve from relief diplomacy to solution-oriented diplomacy.

Bangladesh should continue providing humanitarian protection, but it should also make clear that the country cannot be expected to carry the consequences of a crisis it did not create indefinitely. The Rohingya crisis has reached a point where humanitarian responsibility and national security must be addressed together. Ignoring either dimension would be a mistake.

Bangladesh needs stronger border security, better camp management and tougher action against criminal networks. But it also needs sustained international diplomacy aimed at changing the conditions that made mass displacement possible in the first place.

The ultimate solution lies not in making refugee camps more permanent, but in making return possible. The Rohingya crisis will not be solved by relief alone. It will be solved when diplomacy produces the conditions for a safe, voluntary and dignified return.

For Bangladesh, the message should now be clear: aid must continue, but the goal must be a solution. The Rohingya crisis cannot remain a permanent humanitarian burden when what is urgently needed is a lasting political and diplomatic settlement.

Editorial:

Democracy is not limited to elections, voting rights or the formation of a government. The real strength of a democratic system lies in transparency, oversight and accountability in the exercise of power. Parliamentary committees are among the most important institutional mechanisms for ensuring that accountability.

A government exercises enormous authority in the name of the people. Parliament, therefore, must have the ability to scrutinise how that authority is being used. When parliamentary committees are unable to perform their duties effectively and independently, oversight of the executive becomes weaker. That raises a fundamental question: if parliamentary committees are weak, who will hold the government accountable?

The role of parliamentary committees is far more important than simply holding meetings or calling government officials to provide explanations. Committees are expected to examine government policies, expenditures, development projects, administrative decisions and the performance of public institutions. They can identify irregularities, question failures and recommend corrective measures.

Effective parliamentary oversight creates an institutional check on executive power. It helps ensure that public money is spent properly, government decisions are examined and public institutions remain answerable for their actions.

But oversight loses much of its meaning if committees are constrained by political influence, excessive partisanship, administrative obstacles or a lack of access to information. A committee that cannot independently examine government actions cannot effectively fulfil its constitutional and democratic purpose.

Accountability must also extend to the implementation of parliamentary committee recommendations. If a committee identifies irregularities and makes recommendations, but the relevant ministry or agency simply ignores them, what happens next? The public should be able to know which recommendations have been implemented, which have not, and why.

Parliament represents the people. Every institution operating with public money must ultimately remain accountable to the public. This is one of the fundamental principles of democratic governance.

The independence and effectiveness of parliamentary committees are therefore critical. Committee members should have access to relevant documents, information and expert assistance. They should be able to question officials and investigate matters of public interest without unnecessary interference.

The opposition also has an important role to play. In a parliamentary democracy, the opposition’s responsibility extends beyond criticising the government from the floor of Parliament. Parliamentary committees provide an institutional avenue through which government policies and decisions can be examined more closely. Meaningful opposition participation can strengthen oversight and help maintain a balance of power.

At the same time, accountability should not become an excuse for political obstruction. Parliamentary scrutiny should be based on facts, evidence and public interest rather than partisan calculations. Good decisions should be recognised, while failures and irregularities should be exposed without fear or favour. That is the essence of responsible parliamentary practice.

For Bangladesh, strengthening parliamentary committees should therefore be an important part of strengthening democratic institutions. A Parliament does not become strong merely by passing laws. Its real strength also depends on its ability to scrutinise government actions and demand answers on behalf of citizens.

Regular committee meetings, greater transparency, access to information, effective follow-up mechanisms and meaningful implementation of recommendations are essential. Committee proceedings and reports should receive appropriate public attention so that citizens can understand how their elected representatives are performing their oversight responsibilities.

Political parties also have a responsibility in this regard. Parliamentary committees should not become extensions of partisan politics. National interest and public accountability must come before party loyalty.

Ultimately, the principle is simple: if political power comes from the people, those who exercise that power must be answerable to the people.

Parliamentary committees are one of the principal institutional mechanisms for demanding that accountability. Weak committees therefore do not merely weaken parliamentary procedures; they weaken the broader democratic system of checks and balances.

A functioning democracy needs a strong government, but it also needs a strong Parliament and effective parliamentary committees. Power without oversight is dangerous, and democracy without accountability is incomplete.