Addressing claims about "US-Backed" Regime change in Bangladesh
Addressing claims about "US-Backed" Regime change in Bangladesh
After the recent revolution in Bangladesh, there seems to be a lot of suspicions arising on foreign involvement, mainly fueled by Indian media. I attempt to address some.
I would like to start this by addressing the article of Brian Berletic. He’s a YouTuber I deeply respect and trust on various issues. However, he published an article recently on Bangladesh. I think while writing it as an outsider who is new to Bangladeshi politics, he encountered several misunderstandings which I attempt to address. Instead of adding external points, I would like to directly address what he wrote in his article.
Addressing “Who Was Protesting and Who Was Behind Them? “
Brian brings up the issue of former US ambassador to Bangladesh, Peter Haas of him having meetings with pro-democracy forces in Bangladesh. While there’s truth to this claim. It is a bit more nuanced.
Last year in September, the US indeed announced a policy of visa sanctions against leaders involved in undermining democracy in Bangladesh. However after the elections in January 2024, which was marred with vote rigging as I documented in my account on X, no sanctions came.
Even after this much vote rigging, the US retracted it’s policy of sanctioning Bangladeshi officials and recognised the results on 8th January 2024. This is a bit suspicious. What you have to understand here is that the US played a “value-based” foreign policy for Bangladesh. Why you may ask? There is simply no force in Washington as of now encouraging a very hawkish foreign policy in Bangladesh. However, unlike Bangladesh in other places, several forces, like neoconservatives in Washington push for a very hawkish foreign policy in Middle East for countries like Iran. That’s what I think. You may disagree. But as I said explained further below there is simply a lack of evidence the US advocated for regime change in Bangladesh as it didn’t seem a reason for it.
The US and Bangladesh always, even during Sheikh Hasina’s reign had a fairly healthy relationship but sometimes it became a bit shaky, especially in the recent years. However it remains relatively stable. Donald Lu, Assistant Secretary Bureau Of South And Central Asian Affairs, visited Bangladesh a few months ago and had health discussions with both the government and opposition. Last year, instead of being hostile, he called for dialogue between all parties too as a show of friendliness, instead of being hawkish.
The most important thing here is that this double-faced US policy of pretending to support legitimate democracy in Bangladesh and then not taking actions(like putting pressure or imposing sanctions) was seen negatively here. This led to former US ambassador resigning in May 2024 as a sign of protest at this hypocritical foreign policy.
This policy is explained by perhaps the Indo-pacific strategy of the US in countering China by cooperating with powers like India. It is a common knowledge in Bangladesh that India fiercely backed the previous regime. The US has stated that it supports India’s leadership in the region for it’s Indo-Pacific strategy. I could perhaps explain this in a conversation with Brian in more detail. But I hope my point is clear. The US actually had good relations with this regime rather than hating it. India gave Sheikh Hasina shelter for a reason and calls her a very good friend. During the Awami League’s government their policy towards the west was similar to that of India, i.e. mostly normal, sometimes shaky, thus here in Bangladesh she is referred to as an “agent of India” as the party itself has relations to the country dating as far back as the 1960s.
If we had not helped her, it would have been a disgrace for India…nobody would have wanted to be our friend if we had treated our friend badly. Hasina ji has had (good) relationships with all Indian leaders. She is a friend of India, and India is a friend of hers.
- Influential Indian Politician Shashi Tharoor
To know the extent of Indian interference and influence in Bangladesh, consider carefully reading this detailed documentation of India’s work here regarding the last election and a bit of history. It shows how much involved Indian intelligence agencies like Research and Analysis Wing are in Bangladesh.
That’s why there was an India out campaign earlier this year in Bangladesh which gained a lot of traction. I have written a bit about the campaign earlier this year on a Wikipedia draft(which was rejected because it wasn’t “notable” according to an Indian editor). You can read it here if you want to.
Recently right before the protests, Bangladesh-China relations were shaken too. Here’s a detailed article explaining some of the details as Hasina suddenly cut her visit to China short and loan agreements were also severely hit. Again, this is easily explained by India’s disproportionate influence in the previous regime.
I think I should explain the street-violence part a bit too. There was not much street violence for much of 2023 during the protests until October 28, 2023 when the opposition officially started their grand movement. However, the violence after it is also disputed as there is no evidence to support opposition carried out the violence except blank accusations by Sheikh Hasina. It should be noted Sheikh Hasina’s Awami league has an undisputed history of massively using political violence as a tool since the 1990s. 1
There seems to be a confusion between recent protests and 2023 Bangladeshi protests which were carried out by the opposition but failed to achieve it’s goal after which they gave up.
Addressing “The “Muscle”“
There’s some accusations about Jamaat-e-Islami Bangladesh being a terrorist organisation, which the US Government apparently “whitewashed”. It is true Jamaat-E-Islami was against the independence of Bangladesh, however they reformed themselves and came up as a new party later, splitting away from the old Jamaat-E-Islami(now based in Pakistan) which opposed the independence, forming Jamaat-E-Islami Bangladesh. More reading about the party here.
The article then refers to controversial trials of several Jamaat leaders in 2013 which convicted them of ‘war crimes’. However, again, these trials have been proved to have been politically motivated, especially the one for the Jamaat leader Delwar Hossain Sayeedi, a popular Islamic figure in Bangladesh. The trials were filled with irregularities like witnesses being kidnaped and leaked emails showing the government pressured judges to give favourable verdicts. It’s the same for another Jamaat leader whose trial was also filled with several irregularities, Abdul Quader Mollah. However, the point is clear, the Awami League hates Jamaat-E-Islami so it constantly accuses it of crimes, often without hard proof.
It’s very ironic for Sheikh Hasina to blame Jamaat-E-Islami Bangladesh, because she herself was allied with the party in 1994-1996 protests against the BNP government at that time. Their friendship even goes as far back as 1991 when they discussed about sharing power. It should be clear these are baseless accusations by Hasina.
Also, The Russian Federation has designated the Original Jamaat-E-Islami as a terrorist organisation which is now based in Pakistan. The Bangladeshi one, which has no connections with the Pakistani is not a terrorist organisation. It’s true Jamaat somewhat joined the protests, truth is it’s extremely unpopular in Bangladesh and it hardly played any role in changing the tide, which was done by normal apolitical people. They got 4.28% and 4.70% of the votes in the 2001 and 2008 election respectively, the last two free and fair elections in Bangladesh.
It should be noted that Awami League regularly used to accuse BNP and Jamaat of being an united force. While they have been allied before, BNP started distancing itself from the party in 2018, formally severing ties in 2022.
Addressing “The “Face” of the Protests”
There seems to be some misunderstandings on who led the protests. It was a popular uprising but the main forces who were considered the de facto leader is the group of Anti-Discrimination Students Movement. What you have to understand here is that it was originally a protest against the quota system in government jobs. However the protest turned into a 9-Point demand protest after the government murdered hundreds of people in a brutal crackdown which is backed by various video evidence and other accounts. There’s simply 0 proof to show otherwise. 560 people have been confirmed to have been killed, although some are policemen and ruling party men, the overwhelming majority are normal people shot by security forces. I myself went through it and the internet blackout and I still have a lot of bad memories from the massacre. The students vowed to protest until these 9 demands were met which were mostly about holding the officials who murdered protestors accountable.
It ONLY turned into One-point demand of demanding Hasina’s resignation after the 3rd of August after the people had enough and because even after the protests resumed in early August after a calm in end of July, the government proceeded to kill several more(approx. 100+) and refused to listen to the demands of holding the murderers accountable . So it became a one-point demand of Hasina’s resignation only TWO DAYS before 5th August(When she fled). Even when you read the story of her fleeing, there is no mention of Foreign involvement. Another report by Reuters here. See reasons for her fall. An extensive documentation of the crimes during this movement is documented by the Bringing Justice to You - Bangladesh Telegram channel. A more extensive documentation is yet to be organised as plans are underway by experts.
The platform was made only to reform the quota system but as hundreds were massacred by the students it turned ugly. Besides that Only Nusrat Tabassum is from the political science department. However Nusrat Tabassum is not the main face. The main face are the following: Nahid Islam from the sociology department, Sarjis Alam from the zoology department and Asif Mahmud from the Linguistics Department. They were apolitical figures who had no political connections or connections to any NGOs whatsoever. They were no activists before the quota movement and no one knew them, however some did indeed protest in 2018 to reform the traffic rules of Bangladesh. Keep in mind that was not an anti-government protest either. They only gained prominence after leading the protest to simply reform the quota system. They started the movement to protest the quota system which happened to turn into an antigovernmental protest because the people are angry at the government for massacring hundreds. All Bangladeshi support them adamantly and I don’t see any evidence that any foreign force has influenced the decision of the individuals rather the public’s concerns always influenced their decisions. Please read this article to understand fully the background of this movement.
I understand the concern of US NGO funding in Dhaka University. However I don’t really think that scholarships played a role in the movement or anything. Receiving scholarships in the west is seen as a very great opportunity here as very few people can afford studying there so everyone always seeks to get these scholarships. People who manage to get these scholarships and get degrees are easily hired by universities more often so Universities tend to have more professors with things like Fulbright scholarships who studied in the west usually due to the local hiring practices, thus I don’t think it’s proof of “deep US infiltration into Bangladeshi higher education”.
These professors didn’t do anything in promoting a pro-US agenda nor did the student protestors(majority of whom are not from political science department) during the movement. Aid from the United States has significantly benefitted Bangladesh and as of now there is no evidence the US is seeking to misusing the benefits it’s giving to serve malicious US interests.
Bangladeshi experts, especially those of Dhaka University’s Political Science Department, like Zahed-Ur-Rahman is an excellent political analyst for example who provides a very good view on Bangladesh politics for example, and don’t promote US interests/agenda. I don’t think these intellectuals serve interests of the US by promoting their agenda, at least by analysing the history I haven’t seen evidence from my perspective at least. Dhaka University used to be dominated by ruling party men until recently, as evident by their sheer force.
Addressing “Who Do the US-Backed Protesters Want in Power?"“ and “A Familiar Template”
Firstly, Dr. Yunus wasn’t demanded by students from Political Department. He was demanded by students NOT from the political department. As the article shows, it was Nahid Islam from Sociology Department, Sarjis Alam from Zoology Department and Abu Bakar Mazumdar from Geography Department. And this was chosen due to Yunus’ extreme public popularity and his intellect, which is needed to navigate through this deep crisis.
However people claim Dr. Yunus is an US puppet. It is indeed true Dr. Yunus has good relations with the west, especially the United States. However you have to understand a few things.
Yunus is a very intelligent person who has been in the US regularly from the very early years of his life. Using his intelligence, he pioneered the concept of microfinance. This excellent work made him very popular which led to his noble peace prize in 2006 year. With this popularity he made a lot of friends in the west all by himself mostly for his own benefit.
But I believe there should be a distinction made here between being an “asset” and a good friend. Good relations with the United States cannot automatically mean you are there to promote their agenda. He isn’t a puppet of theirs but rather a friend which he had for his own benefit. He supported Bangladesh's liberation war from the US by spreading awareness and raising support(Which the US opposed by the way). He later played a huge role in introducing microfinancing in Bangladesh which greatly helped reduce poverty and this concept is now used in more than 100 countries today(both developing and developed).
This genius idea led to his ideas being widely appreciated in the United States where it was replicated. As Dr. Yunus lived a big portion of his life in the US, he built very good relations in the 1980s and onwards with people like the Clinton family and other influential people in the United States.2 These good relations led to him winning the Congressional Gold Medal in 2009(after opening Grameen America in the United States to implement his microfinancing concept there) before his Nobel Peace Prize in 2006.
However, this shouldn’t be taken in a way to assume Dr. Yunus may be an US asset. The legal harassments of Dr. Yunus by Sheikh Hasina during her rule was seen negatively but the US government took no real initiative to save him as he himself fought this harassment. Even after he was sentenced in 1st January 2024, the US .government took no real initiative to save him, rather the Bangladeshi government said the trial did nothing to hamper the relations, further raising the doubt whether he really is an important asset of theirs. Read these two analyses to understand the legal harassments against him: Analysis 1, Analysis 2
I’m aware that Yunus lobbied to the US embassy in 2009 when the government was changing the rules of Grameen Bank. However that failed too and in 2011 the government managed to fire him without any American pressure whatsoever. This puts more doubt if the US government consider him as a valuable puppet. I just think he has them as a friend he tries to get benefits from at times.
What Bangladeshis here think is that: He is a patriot and his intellect is needed to save the country from this horrible situation right now. He indeed, when he lived in the United States in the 70s, ran a campaign to raise awareness and support for the Bangladeshi Liberation war, opposed by the United States. Bangladeshis are well aware that Dr. Yunus has good relations with the west. However they realise he has always worked as a patriot for his country and he won’t be a total puppet, rather he will exploit his good relations with the west to benefit Bangladesh but not harming it like some puppet leaders you know well. Simply, he is a clever, intelligent person.
He is also a supporter of the Palestinian cause and blamed the United States for this problem. Besides, there was attempts to ruin his image by spreading false information that he apparently donated millions of dollars to Israel.
Lastly, let’s look at parties involved in this revolution. Whole country was united. Leftists, Nationalists, Islamists, Normal people, students, people of all ideological backgrounds united to overthrow it.
I recommend reading about the whole movement at least once to understand it fully. Wikipedia, even though sometimes biased, gives a fairly good account for this movement to understand it at least.
Addressing “The Implications of Regime Change in Bangladesh”
All major powers have recognised this new government like China, EU, US, Russia, India. No one has spoken about an alleged US-backed regime.3 Even though an Indian-friendly government has been deposed, India still is trying to be friendly to the new government in order to not destabilise the region which could have further domino effects in India’s Eastern regions.
Russian Ministry of Foreign Affairs in their statement mentioned no foreign involvement and called this an internal affair of the country, which it indeed is. Usually they speak very vocally about US-backed regime change operations.
The thing is the opposition, especially BNP, has contributed the most to China-Bangladesh relations to counteract the influence of India, as opposed to the Awami League. The Bangladesh Revolution and Its Aftermath by Talukder Maniruzzaman explains how the relationships were forged during BNP’s Zia's time and the diplomatic backing Bangladesh received from China to counteract India. This was continued by successive governments of the BNP.4 But Awami League government was always pro-India and anti-everything else, if you want to say it simply. Even during the AL government, they shifted from traditional Russian and Chinese equipment to western and Indian ones, over the past several years.
The main point is that, in Bangladesh, it’s wrong to see it from the perspective of east and west. The west mostly has less geopolitical involvement in Bangladesh and it’s more like moving between India and China/Pakistan for our best benefit which have more influence here.
The opposition tried to sought support to restore democracy in Bangladesh, which actually is true. During Hasina’s 15 year rule, democracy has been wildly eroded and all elections have been rigged with hard proof to prove it, as I showed it for the January 2024 farcical elections. Read about the rigging in 2018 election and 2014 elections too. However they understood the US won’t sanction Bangladesh or put any actual pressure to bring change.
There is simply 0 evidence that the United States actively fueled the whole revolution because if you understand the context, it simply shows that the notion is not true as it was a genuine revolution of the people who were extremely annoyed at this corrupt, undemocratic and unfair system enforced by this government which created a sort of “mafia state”. See Al Jazeera’s documentary on it for further information on this label used. There also has been no negative reaction from any powers, neither any sanctions, which are usual sign of a typical foreign-backed regime change.
Conclusion
It’s not possible to explain everything in one article. Understanding the situation requires a deep understanding of the history and the politics here. If there is interest, I am down to participate in a conversation about the background in much much more detail which can give a better picture.
There is a full series in English documenting the use of political violence by the Awami league. The supposed political violence in the end of 2023 is mostly done by Awami League.
Here’s the links to all the parts.
See “US Urban Experience” and “US Rural Experience” from p.135 and onwards of Dr. Yunus and his experience from BANKER TO THE POOR by MUHAMMAD YUNUS & A. Jolis
Mujib Mashal, the south Asia bureau chief of the New York Times, said in a video post on X that it was “complete mob rule”.
“The victims of yesterday are perpetrators of today; men armed with clubs and pipes (many identified themselves as BNP and Jamaat) thrashing and chasing away anyone they suspect of being Awami League,” he said.
https://www.theguardian.com/world/article/2024/aug/15/protesters-attack-supporters-ousted-bangladesh-pm-dhaka-sheikh-hasina