REPORT: Bangladeshi Military Coup: Role of Foreign Stakeholders
usanasfoundation 
Report
By Preeti Khenta
Usanas Foundation organised an Interview with Namit Verma, Geopolitical Expert and Security Analyst on Bangladeshi Military Coup: Role of Foreign Stakeholders
Here is the excerpt of the Interview : -
Dr. Abhinav Pandya: The military coup that occurred in Bangladesh yesterday has completely altered the dynamics in South Asia. The government previously had a strong relationship with the Sheikh Hasina administration, which recently returned to power with a decisive majority. There have been accusations of foreign interference in Bangladesh by some Western powers. My initial question is, how do you view the recent events in Bangladesh, especially in terms of timing? What is your perspective on this?
Namit Verma (Opening Remarks) :
It's obvious that the current situation in Bangladesh involves more than just a student uprising. There is information about secret talks between the BNP and the Jamaat in London. In the week leading up to this event, there were discussions in American diplomatic circles. Some countries have alleged election rigging, but on-site observers, including the American Observer, declared the election fair. The US State Department in Washington, however, later claimed the elections were unfair. This situation mirrors historical great power struggles, and what's happening in Bangladesh now is a revival of an earlier defeat the Americans faced. The media tends to downplay American losses. The Soviet Union previously thwarted American efforts in 1971, and today's dynamics seem like a continuation of that conflict. It's important to remember the events of 1971, including Kissinger's choice to ignore reports of atrocities, which the American establishment has never fully acknowledged. Much of this has not been widely reported.
Much of the historical events of 1971 have been overshadowed by prevailing narratives, particularly in India. However, numerous declassified documents from the past fifty years are shedding new light on the events that transpired. These documents provide a clearer understanding of the culmination of the war, especially the circumstances leading to the movement of the seventh fleet and the British aircraft carrier Eagle, among others. The internal politics within the British cabinet, as well as the American influence on Britain's efforts in 1971, are also coming to the forefront. Additionally, there is evidence of the Pakistani intentions conveyed to the American consul general, indicating their willingness to surrender, which was not promptly communicated to the Indian government by the Americans. The delay in relaying this critical information seemed to have been fueled by the American interest in engaging in armed conflict with the Indian army and the enterprise carrier group before eventually informing India. The current economic challenges faced by the United States seem to be reviving strategies reminiscent of former U.S. Secretary of State Henry Kissinger's approach. Furthermore, other significant developments need to be considered to comprehend the motives behind the US's actions. Notably, Sheikh Hasina indirectly referenced the US' demands for an airbase back in May without specifically naming them.
There are two recent instances that have led to this flashpoint. The first is Saudi Arabia's refusal to renew the petrol dollar agreement, which expired on the eighth of May this year. The second is India's initiative for deep-sea oil exploration and extraction in the region. These two actions have affected the American economy. American imperialism is based on influencing global trading trends, which has been challenged by China over the last twenty to thirty years. Now, there is growing opposition, including from MBS and others. The emergence of the BRICS conglomerate and China's SCO axis, along with the involvement of Russia and others, in crude oil trading in non-dollar-denominated terms, poses the single biggest economic challenge to American monetary supremacy. All these factors may have forced their hand. PM Hasina might have miscalculated, assuming that the Americans wouldn't take action before November fifth. However, the deep state complex cannot afford to risk an adverse electoral decision in January or November, so they had to take action regardless of the circumstances. They are attempting to build up a situation similar to the NATO expansion into Ukraine in Bangladesh against India.
Dr. Abhinav Pandya : When I consider the situation, recently, Sheikh Hasina visited China and signed a number of agreements. It seems that she was tactfully managing the interests of both China and India, mainly focusing on Chinese commercial interests. However, during her visit to the US for the World Bank meeting, she had significant disagreements with the American government. It's worth noting that no one from the Biden administration met her, despite several statements that have been made. In the recent past, the American government accused the Bangladeshi government of election rigging and handling democracy unfairly. On the other hand, Pakistan, with its complete military control over the system, is not being held accountable by the Americans. This differential treatment gives the impression of continual interference, which we have also experienced in India's case. I'd like to understand more about the interplay between China and the US, and the interests at stake. Why would the US engage in such actions, and what are the motivations for China's involvement?
Namit Verma: It appears that the Chinese are expressing dissatisfaction with recent developments. A lobby in India, termed the "Blame China lobby," is purportedly influenced by American sponsorship and demonstrates a predisposition to implicate China regardless of the circumstances. For example, when Sheikh Hasina of Bangladesh disclosed an offer from a Western entity for a favorable election outcome in exchange for permitting an airbase, China backed Hasina's decision, signaling the potential impact of Bangladesh's relationship with India on China due to their geographical proximity. Over the past several decades, the US, China, and India have seemingly engaged in attempts to leverage one another to their advantage, resulting in mutual repercussions. Additionally, recent revelations indicated that the US sought to facilitate the sale of Bangladeshi oil and gas to India, a proposal that Bangladesh declined. It is imperative to consider these factors in evaluating the present state of affairs.
Dr. Abhinav Pandya: Did India actually start deep-sea drilling in the Indian Ocean region in the 1970s, or was it just a plan at that time? Also, did we have the technology required for deep-sea drilling in the 1970s and 80s?
Namit Verma: The unavailability of certain technologies had placed us at a disadvantage. The technological superiority of Western nations acted as a deterrent to potential technology-sharing agreements, as there were concerns about the risk of sabotage. Consequently, we were compelled to independently develop our capabilities in areas such as space exploration, nuclear technologies, and computer systems.
In 1989, the Rajiv Gandhi government made significant changes to the Indian economy by introducing software and hardware computer technologies to compete on a global scale. However, an act of arson destroyed Semiconductors India Limited, and the government did not provide the necessary funds for its rebuilding. After Rajiv Gandhi's assassination, American dominance in our government systems hindered efforts to revive it until it became outdated.
It's only in this century, post-1989, that there has been an attempt to restart and hearing about chip manufacturing by Tata in collaboration with a Taiwanese company. The risks associated with such collaborations are often underappreciated in our country. Furthermore, there is a lack of understanding about economic warfare and the impact of what is referred to as American gunboat diplomacy, which ultimately seeks economic dominance.
Dr. Abhinav Pandya: The other area, which has been posing serious challenges for India since yesterday, is Bangladesh, and there have been several cases of rape, arson, and deaths, and reports indicate that Jamaat-e-Islami has destroyed over 250 Hindu temples.
Now that the military is back in control and Jamaat elements, the BNP's core support, are in place, it appears that minorities in Bangladesh will have difficult times ahead of them. The situation is particularly dire in West Bengal, Rohingya and Bangladeshi migrants are entering West Bengal illegally. So how do you interpret that? Do you believe that the Islamic extremist organisations and the anti-Indian terrorist groups in the north-east states would find safe havens in Bangladesh?
Namit Verma: The leaders of the Jamaat were present, along with the general, when they made announcements about the interim government. This was a significant indicator. There are reports of prior meetings between the Jamaat and the BNP in London in the month leading up to this event, as well as their interaction with their American handlers. Given all this, it is clear that there is a plan in place. I understand that Mr. Yunis, who is closely connected with the American State Department, has agreed to become the chief advisor or mentor of the interim government. This indicates American involvement. We will have to wait and see if their request for an airbase in Bangladesh is approved. In May, Sheikh Hasina raised several issues. She rejected the demand for an airbase for a smooth election, stating that she didn't need the help. She also mentioned an attempt to create a new Christian country by taking parts of Bangladesh, Myanmar, and Northeastern India. This statement by Sheikh Hasina resonated with Prime Minister Modi's speech in Parliament, where he revealed threats related to the Manipur problem. The need for an airbase in Bangladesh is linked to the Russian submarine interface, which denied Kissinger the ability to engage militarily with the Indian armed forces. The Americans justify their actions by claiming it is to counter China, but everything points to an equidistant stance with India.
Dr. Abhinav Pandya: We definitely have a problem in Bangladesh due to Pakistan's deep-rooted interference, which is backed by the Americans and involves actors from Jamaat-e-Islami. This is going to be a problematic spot for us. With Pakistan, there is a renewed emphasis on terrorism and extremism. We are also experiencing tough border situations with China, where talks are not progressing, leading to a stalemate. It seems like India is now faced with not just two, but three challenging fronts. How should India navigate this situation?
Namit Verma: It seems that on a superficial level, it might appear that there is a fair amount of unwillingness to compromise in the way our foreign policy is being conducted today. There seems to be a certain eagerness to confront China on these issues. It appears that the Western establishment might be influencing our foreign policy to create conflicts with China. However, we could potentially have much more to gain by working cooperatively with China rather than engaging in conflicts. A proper dialogue could possibly resolve these issues very easily.
For nearly fifty years, the interactions among India, China, and the United States have been more like a game, with each country vying for influence. This is not just an issue with the Americans or the Chinese, all three countries have been trying to manipulate the others. This negative game does not benefit anyone.
In reality, China does not have any significant economic conflict with us, as we are a crucial market for them. It would not be in China's best interest to worsen relations with India. The territorial disputes are being provoked by American advocates within the Chinese government, and the Chinese are also concerned about India aligning with the United States against them in alliances such as the Quad.
These issues are being overlooked by the Indian security establishment, while everyone is aware of what is happening.
