Recent events in Bangladesh, particularly the August 5 coup, have been widely perceived as a popular uprising against an authoritarian regime accused of election manipulation and violent repression. However, Dr Abhinav Pandya, writing for News 18, suggests that the situation is far more nuanced than it initially appears.
In the wake of recent political turmoil in Bangladesh, several Indian media outlets, including the Economic Times, The Print, and NDTV, have reported on an undelivered speech by former Prime Minister Sheikh Hasina. The speech, which Hasina was reportedly set to deliver before her abrupt departure from the country on August 5, contains significant accusations against the United States.
According to these reports, Hasina alleged that the US orchestrated her removal from power. “I resigned so that I did not have to see the procession of dead bodies. They wanted to come to power over the dead bodies of students, but I did not allow it. I resigned from [the] premiership,” she was quoted as saying. Hasina reportedly also mentioned that she could have remained in power if she had compromised on Saint Martin Island and allowed the US to dominate the Bay of Bengal.
Her son, Sajeeb Wazed Joy, has denied the authenticity of these reports, calling the attributed resignation statement “completely false and fabricated.” Despite this, Joy has suggested that foreign forces played a role in the protests that led to his mother’s resignation, though he did not specify which country was involved.
According to an article by Jannatul Naym Pieal published on The Diplomat, Sheikh Hasina has long harbored suspicions of US intentions. In a parliamentary session in April 2023, she claimed, “The U.S. can overthrow the government in any country, particularly Muslim countries,” reflecting a strained relationship with Washington. This tension has been exacerbated by several events, including allegations of electoral irregularities during the January 7 elections, which the US criticized as neither free nor fair.
The discord between Dhaka and Washington has a history. In December 2021, the US imposed sanctions on Bangladesh’s Rapid Action Battalion (RAB) over human rights abuses. This move was vehemently condemned by Hasina’s government. Further sanctions followed in 2023, and the US imposed visa restrictions on Bangladeshi officials, which Hasina denounced as unjust.
Hasina’s accusations against the US also involve claims about Saint Martin Island and the possibility of an American airbase. She alleged that there were attempts to coerce Bangladesh into ceding control of the island and joining the Quad, a strategic alliance which she had resisted.
These geopolitical tensions are mirrored in statements from other global actors. Russian Foreign Ministry spokeswoman Maria Zakharova predicted that the US would seek to destabilize Bangladesh if Hasina remained in power, a claim the US has consistently denied.
According to Pandya, Bangladesh’s strategic importance has attracted global attention since its independence from Pakistan. The recent coup, involving significant foreign influence, challenges the simplistic view of a domestic uprising. Indian External Affairs Minister S Jaishankar hinted at foreign interference, suggesting that the protests aimed primarily to remove Sheikh Hasina from power. Dr Pandya points out that the judiciary, rather than Hasina’s government, played a key role in supporting the dissent, with the judiciary remaining intact despite Hasina’s departure.
The US, Pakistan, and China are identified as key foreign players in the unrest. The US, a major investor and trading partner for Bangladesh, has been critical of Hasina’s independent foreign policy and her growing alignment with China.
Pandya also examines the role of Jamaat-e-Islami, an extremist group with ties to Pakistan’s terror organizations, in mobilizing protests. The group, which played a significant role in the coup, has been accused of coordinating with Western NGOs and civil society groups. Furthermore, the tensions between the US and Hasina’s administration are framed within historical contexts, including the 1971 War of Liberation and the subsequent strengthening of US-Pakistan ties.
The article notes Hasina’s allegations against the US, including claims of plans to build a naval base on Saint Martin’s Island and the creation of a “Christian state” in the region. These accusations, coupled with Pandya’s insights into US geoeconomic interests, such as concerns over India’s deep-sea drilling in the Bay of Bengal, suggest a complex interplay of global strategic interests.
Pandya also considers the possibility of a deeper collaboration between the US and China, despite their perceived rivalry. The narrative within India’s media and think tanks often points to China as the primary actor behind the coup, yet Pandya questions whether such a scenario is plausible without more substantial evidence.
I appreciate the thorough analysis.