The United States, often self-proclaimed as the global champion of democracy and human rights, is conspicuously silent on the escalating crisis in Bangladesh. This silence becomes even more deafening when juxtaposed with the vigorous advocacy for human rights that the US usually demonstrates worldwide. The omission of Bangladesh from the joint readout of the Modi-Biden talks is a glaring example of this strategic silence. The question arises: why is the US avoiding any critical stance on the situation in Bangladesh under the military-backed caretaker government led by Muhammad Yunus?
Historically, the US has not aligned with India's interests in Bangladesh. In 1971, during the Liberation War, the US opposed the creation of Bangladesh, siding with Pakistan, and since then, has often supported political forces in Bangladesh that are not favorable to India's strategic interests. The current situation is no different. Despite the well-documented human rights abuses, including targeted attacks on minorities and the deteriorating law and order situation in Bangladesh, the US has chosen to remain silent. This is particularly alarming given that the US has not hesitated to criticize India on similar issues in the past.
The recent political upheaval in Bangladesh following the departure of Prime Minister Sheikh Hasina has further exposed this divergence in US and Indian interests. The US's tacit support for the new regime, which includes individuals aligned with American interests, is a continuation of its longstanding strategy to influence Bangladesh's political landscape. This strategy has systematically weakened Hasina's government over the years, ultimately paving the way for a regime change that aligns more closely with US interests.
Also Read: 5 Ways The BJP Government Has Enhanced Olympic Success For Indian Athletes
Experts like Brahma Chellaney highlight this discrepancy, pointing out that the US's silence on Bangladesh is not an oversight but a calculated move. By not addressing the human rights abuses and the targeting of minorities, particularly Hindus, the US is signaling its tacit approval of the current regime. This raises serious concerns for India, which has strategic and security interests in maintaining stability in Bangladesh.
Shafquat Rabbee, a Bangladeshi-American political analyst, further elucidates the US's role in undermining Hasina's government. Through a combination of diplomatic pressure, support for civil society movements, and media narratives, the US has systematically eroded Hasina's domestic and international standing. This has allowed for the rise of a government that is more aligned with American interests, even if it means overlooking the ongoing human rights violations.
The implications of this silence are profound. For India, Bangladesh is not just another neighbor; it is a crucial partner in regional stability and security. Any disruption in Bangladesh has direct consequences for India, unlike the US, which is geographically distant and insulated from the fallout. The US's current stance suggests that it is more interested in ensuring a government in Bangladesh that is compliant with its geopolitical objectives rather than one that respects human rights and democratic norms.
The Biden administration's muted response to the crisis in Bangladesh, despite acknowledging concerns in private discussions with India, is indicative of a broader strategic calculation. The US's historical alignment with anti-India forces in Bangladesh and its current support for the new regime should be a cause for concern for Indian policymakers. As the situation in Bangladesh continues to evolve, India must remain vigilant and consider the long-term implications of the US's actions in the region.
In conclusion, the US's silence on the crisis in Bangladesh is not just a matter of diplomatic oversight; it is a strategic choice that reflects broader geopolitical interests. For India, this silence should serve as a warning that its strategic interests in Bangladesh may not align with those of its supposed ally. As the situation in Bangladesh continues to unfold, India's approach must be guided by a clear understanding of these divergent interests and the potential risks they pose to regional stability.
