There is a tendency among scholars to understand third-world countries by assessing the policies of their leaders. No doubt, ‘personality politics’ plays an important role there. But amid heightened authoritarianism and global democratic backsliding, this tendency often single-outs leadership separating from the people and state. Such analysis is everyone’s cup of tea as it seems to serve the tasty critiques opposing authoritarianism. But in the post-positivist era, where we are now challenging the popular discourses, it seems such analysis often has an orientalist nature and creates a greater divide between states and citizens. Most of these analyses are also ‘alarmist’ in nature. For instance, let’s take a deeper look into the latest article by the Hindustan times on Sheikh Hasina, the current prime minister of Bangladesh. The article warned that Hasina is losing ground considering the great power politics and social and economic distress looming over Bangladesh. This narrative may attract many, especially dissidents. But what does ‘Hasina’s losing ground’ means for Bangladesh and its people? And how is the article separating the fate of Hasina from the Fate of Bangladesh and its people? This article aims to challenge this discourse and focus on orientalism in our narrative.