The removal of the Sheikh Hasina regime in Bangladesh is being projected as the handiwork of the American deep state. This is being accentuated by the appointment of Mohamad Yunus as head of the interim government. The 84-year-old Yunus is US educated and has close links to the Clinton Foundation as well as the US government. Barack Obama awarded him with the 2009 Presidential Medal of Freedom. Fresh elections are not expected for the next three to five years. Donald Lu, the US Assistant Secretary of State for South and Central Asia, believed to be the mastermind behind the revolution in Bangladesh, visited New Delhi and Dacca from 10 to 16 September. In Dacca, he joined an ‘interagency delegation for meetings with the Bangladeshi interim government.’
The delegation had representatives from the US Department of the Treasury, USAID, and the Office of the US Trade Representative. It promised Bangladesh $202 million in aid. This is the same Bangladesh which the US termed as undemocratic during the tenure of Sheikh Hasina and refused to engage with. Sheikh Hasina was not invited for Biden-led democracy summits, while Pakistan, a quasi-democracy, was. This adds credence to the suspicion of the US being behind the regime change. No one explains how the US deep state, with all its power, could have compelled Sheikh Hasina to commit errors including employment of disproportionate force as also ignore dialogue with protestors resulting in large scale protests, nor how the deep state could have made her feel invincible.
Further, could the army refusing to engage the mass movement, which arose suddenly, have been engineered? Further, the US pushing for an Islamist dominated regime is unlikely. In Pakistan, discussions persist on whether a similar situation could arise in that country. Anger amongst the public, poor economic conditions with soaring inflation, increasing unemployment, domination of the economy by global lending institutions, suppression of rights and back seat control by the army, create a near similar scenario to Bangladesh. Rising terrorism in Balochistan and Khyber Pakhtunkhwa are a threat to the nation’s unity. The on-going tussle between Imran Khan’s PTI and the Pakistan army and its puppet government are ideal for creating conditions for anarchy which could result in Imran donning the mantle.
The crackdown on the PTI leadership is adding to internal tensions, similar to what happened in Bangladesh by the banning of the Jamaat-e-Islami and arrest of the leaders of the opposition BNP. There is a growing demand for the release of Imran, whom many believe to be the saviour for the country. His unwillingness to bend and initiate dialogue with the deep state despite being incarcerated is adding fuel to fire. The recent PTI rally indicates that despite all efforts of the Pakistan army, the popularity of Imran remains untouched and the public believe he has been framed.
In India too, there is a view that the US deep state would attempt to change the current dispensation in Delhi by inciting internal disturbances. Some have been advocating that this is on the agenda, especially with the recent visit of Rahul Gandhi to the US, where he interacted with members of the anti-India cabal. Many of his comments against the government and the current state of the country are music to those who desire a regime change. There are reasons why people believe this could happen. The first is India’s strategic autonomy and refusal to toe the US line. It is known that the US traditionally dislikes strong and powerful leaders whom they cannot manipulate.
At a time when the US is desperate to isolate Russia and destroy its economy, India and China refuse to toe their line. Indian oil procurements continue from Russia benefiting both nations. Comments in Western media, pushed by the US and its allies, talk of India funding the Ukraine-Russia conflict. PM Modi’s recent visit to Kyiv and his indication that India is willing to mediate did offset some criticism. The next reason is India’s insistence on ‘Atmanirbharta’ or selfreliance. Under this initiative India’s reliance on Western arms, mainly the US, would reduce.
Arms supplies have always been a leverage which the US possessed over nations. The slowing down in delivery of Apache helicopters and GE engines for the Tejas aircraft, claimed on account of interruptions in the supply chain, are indicators. The US even brought down Indian priority for Apache helicopters, which took months to reverse. Thirdly, India and China have signalled a thaw in their relations. There are indications that Chinese pullback from friction points and resolution of one of the on-going standoffs could lead to a Xi-Modi summit at the forthcoming BRICS meeting in Kazan, Russia. Levels of distrust between the two nations would remain high for the foreseeable future.
The US has always thrived on the India-China rivalry and would not desire that the same ends. Fourthly, there is Indian backing for the BRICS+ grouping, accounting for almost 36 per cent of the world’s GDP on Purchasing Power Parity terms, to adopt local currencies in trade and financial transactions. Simultaneously, discussions are on for a common currency for BRICS+. In case that happens, it could result in de-dollarization. Currently one-fifth of the global oil trade is sans the dollar. Donald Trump, in his election campaign, has vowed to impose 100 per cent tariffs on nations which ‘shun the dollar.’ It would never accept the world’s second largest economy (China) and fifth largest (India) to simultaneously shun the dollar.
However, while the above are considered viable issues, the possibility of the US attempting a regime change in India is farfetched. Regime changes are possible where there is instability, economic mishandling, large scale unemployment and mass dissatisfaction. In India, despite the opposition projecting a different picture of dissatisfaction, it was false narratives projected during elections which garnered them additional seats. The same cannot be repeated. The Indian economy, democracy, governance model and size are far beyond being easily influenced. Attempts, if any, would remain localized and containable.
For the US deep state to attempt any regime change while remaining in the background is not feasible. Its attempts would be visible. Embassy officials meeting a few disgruntled politicians implies nothing. Hence, reports suggesting a US ploy are possibly playing the anti-American card to add to the political weight of the current dispensation.
(The writer is a retired Major-General of the Indian Army.)