It seems that Bangladesh suddenly gained independence from India, as if, like 28 other provinces, it had been a state of India and became independent on August 5 last year.
Doesn’t the discourse of Indian journalists, the role of the Indian government, and the regrets of its people following this unprecedented revolution in Bangladesh prove that? It proves that Sheikh Hasina was apparently the Chief Minister of India's ‘Bangladesh province.’ A lot of new and old information can be placed in this regard. Before that, it is now essential to review the question of an Indian journalist and its answers following the meeting between Trump and Modi in the United States.
US President Donald Trump met with Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi in the Oval Office of the White House on February 13. After the meeting, one journalist asked President Trump, in the last part of his three-part question, "And Mr President, what would you like to say about the Bangladesh issue because we saw, and it is evident, how the deep state of US was involved in regime change under during the Biden administration. Then Muhammad Yunus met Junior Soros also. What is your point of view about the Bangalis?"
In response, Trump said, "Well, there was no role for our deep state. This is something that the prime minister has been working on for a long time and has worked on for hundreds of years, frankly. I have been reading about it. But I will leave Bangladesh to the prime minister."
Trump did not intend to go any further into the topic and left it for PM Modi to answer. What Modi said next was very important. Indeed, he did not speak about Bangladesh at all. Instead, he skillfully avoided the topic and shifted the conversation toward the Ukraine-Russia war.
There were doubts whether the issue of Bangladesh would even be raised during the conversation between the two leaders, particularly because of Trump’s ‘tariff war’ with India. However, due to the question from the Indian journalist, President Trump had to address the Bangladesh issue. Some political analysts in Bangladesh suspect that the question was strategically posed by the Indian government’s insiders.
The news of the talks was published by media outlets such as Voice of America, raising four key questions among Bangladesh’s public regarding Trump’s response and Modi’s role.
First, why did the Indian journalist bring up the role of the United States in Bangladesh’s political shift? Second, does this suggest that the journalist perceives Bangladesh’s student-led revolution as either a credit to the US in a positive sense or an incitement in a negative sense? Third, does creating a context for the US and India to comment on the internal affairs of an independent nation align with diplomatic norms? Fourth, is the US President aware that the Indian Prime Minister has been studying Bangladesh’s affairs for many years, and has he entrusted Bangladesh-related issues to Modi?
Let’s now discuss Trump’s statement. First, he attributed the credit for Bangladesh’s revolution entirely to the people of Bangladesh, acknowledging their efforts without diminishing them. Second, Trump pointed to the Indian influence over Bangladesh and its failure, holding Modi accountable. Trump is not unaware of Delhi's long-standing research and greed over Bangladesh. He has also made it clear that Washington is well aware of India’s role in Bangladesh, particularly since the 1947 partition, Bangladesh's independence in 1971, and the 16-year rule of Sheikh Hasina.
Anyway, as Trump said he left the issue to Modi, Indian journalists seem to be complacent, believing that Trump has handed over the responsibility for Bangladesh to Modi. However, upon deeper analysis, it’s clear that Trump was highlighting Delhi's role in Bangladesh in the past. Indian media have largely praised Trump’s remarks, interpreting them as the President leaving the decision-making and oversight of Bangladesh’s issues to Modi.
However, this interpretation seems flawed as Trump pointed at Modi to respond the issue. But Modi avoided addressing the topic of Bangladesh, instead steering the conversation to the Ukraine-Russia conflict. This shows that Modi, too, was uncomfortable with the subject.
Now, how should we interpret Trump’s words? It appeared that he was annoyed by such questions. Those who watched the video of the meeting could see Trump making a somewhat sarcastic remark toward Modi, saying, "...the prime minister has been working on for a long time and has worked on for hundreds of years."
When the Indian journalist asked, Trump pointed to Modi, as if Trump were the president of the world and Modi the prime minister of this land.
The excitement expressed by Awami League supporters in Bangladesh over this meeting was remarkable. However, the conduct of Awami League leaders and activists during Modi's visit to the U.S. was disgraceful. They greeted Modi with slogans, as if they were welcoming the Prime Minister of Bangladesh—as if the Awami League were the Bangladesh branch of India's BJP. The mindset of Awami League leaders and activists has deteriorated to the point where they appear unbothered by the prospect of India installing Hasina as Bangladesh’s prime minister at the cost of the nation’s sovereignty. Their stance on the country and its independence once again raises the question: was the party’s once-glorious role in Bangladesh's liberation struggle actually part of an Indian conspiracy to break up Pakistan?
India’s role in Bangladesh has become increasingly relevant recently. Over the past 16 years, India’s unequivocal support for the Awami League has contributed to the destruction of Bangladesh’s democracy, a burden that India now shoulders. India cannot escape responsibility for supporting the fascist transformation of Sheikh Hasina before her departure. Consequently, many are pointing fingers at India for the 2009 BDR massacre that left 74, including 57 army officials dead. The family members of the slain army officers believe that the assassination mission was carried out with the intention of weakening the Bangladesh army. Their relatives have held several press conferences on the matter.
Besides, in the 2014 elections, MPs were elected to 154 seats without any votes. India played a significant role in helping the Awami League secure power in the remaining seats, where no voters participated. Delhi further increased Sheikh Hasina's dependence by supporting her in the 2018 'night vote'. Through the January 7, 2024 vote, India helped transform Hasina into an absolute dictator.
India cannot evade responsibility for the disappearances, murders, and torture that have occurred at 'Aynaghor' (secret detention centers) during Sheikh Hasina's sixteen-year rule. Like her, India has also fueled resentment among the people of Bangladesh through its actions. It has not distanced itself from this role; rather, the radical Hindu nationalist government of Narendra Modi appears to be reeling from the frustration of its declining influence. As a result, it has launched an anti-Bangladesh campaign both domestically and internationally. Even the Indian media has not refrained from launching personal attacks against Professor Muhammad Yunus.
Most people in Bangladesh remember India's role in the Liberation War with gratitude. However, public resentment over India's five decades of oppression, including the drying up of northern Bangladesh during the dry season due to the construction of the Gajoldoba Barrage without signing the Teesta Treaty, the diversion of water from the Padma, the release of excess water during floods, indiscriminate killings along the border—most notably the brutal killing of Felani, whose body was left hanging on barbed wire—and the sheltering of Awami League fugitives, including Sheikh Hasina, has further intensified during Modi's visit to the United States.
Writer: Executive Editor, Banglanews24.com
BDST: 1619 HRS, FEB 20, 2025
SMS
