The US’ role in ousting former Bangladeshi Prime Minister Sheikh Hasina is of comparable national security consequence to India as its role in ousting former Ukrainian President Viktor Yanukovich through similar Color Revolution means ten years ago was for Russia.
The Washington Post (WaPo) cited unnamed Indian and US sources to report that “India pressed U.S. to go easy on Bangladeshi leader before her ouster, officials say”, which confirms what was analyzed a year ago about how “India’s Reported Pushback Against US Meddling In Bangladesh Is Driven By Security Concerns”. It was also observed last summer that “Growing Western Pressure On Bangladesh Might Presage Forthcoming Meddling In Northeast India”, thus explaining what drove India to do that.
According to WaPo, “If the opposition were allowed to gain power in an open election, Indian officials argued (in a series of meetings with the US), Bangladesh would become a breeding ground for Islamist groups posing a threat to India’s national security.” An anonymous Indian government advisor told the outlet that “There were a lot of conversations with the Americans where we said, ‘This is a core concern for us, and you can’t take us as a strategic partner unless we have some kind of strategic consensus.’”
Anonymous US officials denied that their softened rhetoric was due to Indian pressure, however, instead alleging that it was part of a “balancing act” that even angered some hawkish figures in the administration. WaPo then boldly wrote that “While India is seen by the Biden administration as a crucial partner in countering China, India itself is increasingly viewed by its smaller neighbors in South Asia as a meddling, aggressively nationalist power under Prime Minister Narendra Modi.”
These sharp accusations align with the ruling liberal-globalist policymaking faction’s hardline approach towards India, which was analyzed here earlier in the spring and assessed to be due to their fury at its independent foreign policy, particularly towards Russia. They can’t openly admit their hegemonic intentions so they’re instead trying to disguise them with high-sounding rhetoric to make it seem like the US is now taking the side of regional underdogs against the neighborhood bully.
Former Deputy Chief of Mission at the US Embassy in Dhaka Jon Danilowicz, who also served as the Consul General at the US Consulate in Peshawar, doubled down on this spin by telling WaPo that “The U.S. has built its relationship with India and has this tendency to defer to its wishes in the region, and probably nowhere was that more evident than Bangladesh. But the risk is like Iran 1979: If you’re seen as colluding with the dictator, when the dictator falls, you’re left playing catch-up.”
The reality though is that the US played a major role in the regime change that just toppled Bangladeshi Prime Minister Sheikh Hasina as explained here. Danilowicz is therefore trying to throw everyone off the trail by ridiculously claiming that the US was taking orders from India when formulating its policy towards Bangladesh. If that was the case, then India wouldn’t have advised the US to tone down its rhetoric, nor would Hasina have accused the US of plotting her ouster in order to obtain a military base.
READ ALSO: Will Westerners soon pilot Ukrainian F-16s out of Moldova for sorties against Russia?
The earlier cited analysis from last summer about the connection between Western pressure on Bangladesh and unrest in India’s Northeast States, which could advance the US’ goal of punishing India for its independent foreign policy, was also vindicated in WaPo’s article. They cited an unnamed official from a Western country who told them that their Indian counterparts were raising the alarm about the regional consequences of regime change in Bangladesh for some time.
In their words, “It was intense. They started briefing Western governments that Bangladesh could become the next Afghanistan, that the BNP could lead to instability, violence and terror.” WaPo then added for context that “Indian officials say they have reason to feel burned by the Bangladeshi opposition. During the rule of Hasina’s rivals, the BNP, in the mid-2000s, militants smuggled weapons to attack northeast India and trained in camps inside Bangladesh with the help of Pakistani intelligence”.
What had hitherto been the realm of educated conjecture is now out in the open after this “newspaper of record” shed light on previously speculative Indo-US differences over Bangladesh per those unnamed official sources that spoke to them for their report. The unnamed Indian government advisor that was mentioned above succinctly summarized their contradictory policies when declaring that “You approach it at the level of democracy, but for us, the issues are much, much more serious and existential.”
Seen in this way, the US’ role in ousting Hasina is of comparable national security consequence to India as its role in ousting former Ukrainian President Viktor Yanukovich through similar Color Revolution means ten years ago was for Russia, thus representing a complementary Hybrid War power play. Both major countries’ “soft underbellies” within their respective “civilizational spheres of influence” were turned into unconventional threats through American meddling as punishment for their foreign policies.
Bangladesh might still avoid Ukraine’s fate in becoming a full-fledged American puppet for waging a proxy war against its neighbor since nothing in international politics is predetermined, but the latest trends strongly suggest that it’s moving in that direction, and it’ll be difficult to alter this trajectory. Deft diplomacy from India, including possible deals with its military elite and receptive members of the opposition, could change Bangladesh’s destiny but success can’t be taken for granted of course.
