Bay of Bengal – Naval Cauldron of China versus USA – Behind the drama of Sheikh Hasina’s flight from Dakka

Bay of Bengal – A Naval Cauldron Pitting China versus USA –

Behind the drama of Sheikh Hasina’s flight from Dakka – The collapse of the comprador bourgeois, authoritarian government of Bangladesh

Hari Kumar 23 August, 2024

Introduction

The imperialist bastard creation of the partitioned states of Pakistan and India left its peoples with two major festering questions. These are:

i) How will the national question in the Indian sub-continent be resolved?
ii) And how will the social revolution be brought to fruition there?

These questions echo down and continue to play out in Bangladesh today.

W.B. Bland’s work on “The Pakistani Revolution”, 1971  written for the Marxist Leninist Organisation of Britain – highlighted these above two  inter-related and unsolved questions. Bland also presciently outlined how the multi-national character of India was sidelined by Communist Party of Great Britain revisionism as led by R.P.Dutt.

These unresolved questions, lingered even after the 1971 rupture of “Pakistan” into the current states of Pakistan and Bangladesh. That the underyling questions remain extremely relevant is illustrated by Bangladeshi Awami League Prime Minister Sheikh Hasina’s recent dramatic flight to India.

The Awami League was formed initially to promote and represent the national bourgeoisie of Bengali capital within the then still unitary state of ‘Pakistan’. Struggling against the larger Pakistani dominating classes – whether the ‘Karachi’ clique or the ‘Punjabi’ nascent national bourgeoisie, the Bengali national class in East Pakistan pressed for its’ national rights.

This led to the unitary Pakistan’s brutal repression led by President Yayha Khan. The ensuing war for national liberation was inevitable. But being weak, the Bangladeshi forces were forced into assistance from the Indian state, its ruling classes and its army.

Thereafter the Awami League became an openly pro-Indian comprador bourgeoisie. After the murder of its leader Sheikh Mujibar Rahman, his objective role was fulfilled by his daughter Sheikh Hasina. The party ended up by 2024 as compradors for both India but in a twist, also China.

The national bourgeoisie of Bangladesh was forced to re-group. After some time, it took a new visible shape when Ziaur Rahman became head of the state. In 1978 he founded the Bangladesh Nationalist Party (BNP). Upon his assassination his role was taken by his widow Begum Khaleda Zia. Initially they took a pro-China position, but were usurped by the Awami League. In the final twist that occurred by 2023-2024, they became the pro-comprador forces of the USA.

However the desperately floundering and ultimately national bourgeoisie refused to take anything like a path that might embolden the working class to take a truly independent path. They followed the varying international power currents – that took them to beg at the thrones of China as well as India.

But the situation in Bangladesh is also further complicated by the escalating cauldron that the Bay of Bengal is becoming, as China, India and… the USA push and shove. With the “AUKUS” [Australia-United Kingdom-USA) nuclear submarine alliance, the temperature in the Bay just got hotter.

Finally the Bengal Nationalist Party (BNP) became the vehicle of the USA – to finally – displace Sheikh Hasina of the Awami League.

In the meantime the communist forces of Bangladesh – whether they had taken part in the national liberation war – or had refused to – had become completely sidelined. The revisionist pro-Moscow East Pakistan Communist Party (EPCP) was coopted into the Awami League’s false embrace of ‘socialism’. The Maoist left in Bangladesh was completely thrown into disarray by the People’s Republic of China open support to the brutal Yayha Khan’s military oppression.

Now only splintered fractions of Leftists remain, mostly still wearing social-democratic or Maoist colours. They exercise no mass influence.

The real political and economic history of Bangladesh behind the curtains, is one of a war between those subordinate to Indian sub-imperial domination, and a much weaker struggling national bourgeoisie who attempted to find a supporting anti-Indian force – usually this was China. But on the 21st century stage, the space for any national bourgeoisie is increasingly narrow. The national bourgeoisie is therefore forced to ask for support of other imperial nations. It tries to play one such power off against the other.

The story again reveals how without a Marxist-Leninist party pursuing an independent role and leading the working class to socialism, there can be no solution to the immense social problems. Not even to the ‘purely’ national question.

The aims of this work are to summarise key aspects of the political and economic history of Bangladesh from the war of liberation up to the collapse of the Hasina Government. It updates Bland’s work, and adds some facts that came to light after 1971.

In this work we aim to cover this ground:

1) Briefly review the multi-national character of states in the Indian sub-continent;
2) Detail USA reaction to the Bangladesh national liberation war – the “Blood” telegrams
3) Detail further reactions of left parties of East Pakistan to the war
4) Consider economic trajectory of Bangladesh in the years 1971-2024.
5) Review the political events leading up to the present day.

1. The multi-national nature of the states in the Indian sub-continent

The Marxist-Leninist Analysis

Bland’s analysis flowed from the multi-national character of the Indian sub-continent, that was pin-pointed by J.V. Stalin. This section draws entirely from Bland Pakistan in the following long quote.

“Marxist- Leninists hold, of course, that the Indian sub-continent is inhabited not by a single “Indian nation”, but by peoples of many different nationalities:

“Today India is spoken of as a single whole. But there can scarcely be any doubt that in the event of a revolutionary upheaval in India (N.B.: Stalin is speaking of India under British colonial rule – Ed.), scores of hitherto unknown nationalities, having their own separate languages and separate cultures, will appear on the scene.”
(J.V. Stalin: “The Political Tasks of the University of the Peoples of the East”, May 1925 in “Works”, Vol. 7; Moscow; 1954; p.141).

When the leadership of the Communist Party of India was still faithful to Marxist-Leninist principles, this view of India as inhabited by peoples of many different nationalities, some of them developing into nations, was accepted by the party as a matter of course:

“Every section of the Indian people which has a continuous territory as its homeland, common historical tradition, common language, culture and psychological make-up and common economic life would be recognised as a distinct nationality with the right to exist as an autonomous state within the free Indian union or federation, and will have the right to secede from it if it may so desire. This means that the territories which are homelands of such nationalities and which today are split by artificial boundaries of the present British provinces and of the so-called ‘Indian states’, would be reunited and restored to them in Free India. Thus Free India of tomorrow would be a federation or union of autonomous states of the various nationalities such as Pathans, … Punjabis, … Sindhis, Bengalis; …. etc.”
(“On Pakistan and National Unity”: Resolution adopted by the enlarged Plenum of the Central Committee of the Communist Party of India, September 1942).

At the same time as the Communist Party of India was putting forward this Marxist-Leninist analysis of the multi-national character of the Indian sub-continent, British revisionist R. Palme Dutt was asking:

“Can the diversified assembly of races and religions, with the barriers and divisions of caste, of language and other differences, and with the widely varying range of social and cultural levels, inhabiting the vast sub-continental expanse of India, be considered a ‘nation ‘?”
(R.P.Dutt: “A Guide to the Problem of India”; London; 1942 p.80)

and was answering the question in the affirmative, in terms acceptable to the dominant section of the Hindu capitalists:

“In the modern period the reality of the Indian nation can in practice no longer be denied.”
(R.P. Dutt: ibid.p.99).

In contrast to this revisionist line, the Communist Party of India, its leadership then still loyal to Marxist-Leninist principles, recognised the existence of a single Bengali nation:

“Our first formulation is that the Bengalis form a nation and so should be given the right to self-determination. … It is correct to say that the Bengalis are a nation and Bengal should have its own separate state.”
(C. Adhikari: “Pakistan and National Unity”, published by the Communist Party of India, 1943).

The Bangladesh liberation movement must therefore be seen as the most developed section of the national-liberation movement of the Bengali nation as a whole, part of which is dominated by the Indian state.

The Bangladesh national liberation movement must also be seen as the first stage in a whole series of national-liberation movements that are developing throughout the Indian sub-continent, movements in which the aim of the national capitalists, who at present constitute the leading force in these movements, is to redraw the existing state boundaries of the Indian subcontinent along national lines, and secure the establishment of a number of national capitalist states.

While the working class has an objective interest in supporting these national-liberation movements, its interests are served not by the establishment of new national-capitalist states on the Indian sub-continent, but by the establishment of a federation of socialist states in which the exploitation of the working class has been abolished and in which the working class is the ruling class.

The objective interests of the working class lie, therefore, in working for the transformation of these national-democratic revolutions into socialist revolutions.

This transformation is possible only if the working class gains the leadership of the national-democratic revolutions from the national capitalists, and if the working class itself is led by a Marxist-Leninist Party which has rid itself of all revisionist trends.”
Bland Pakistan

(ii) The Partition of India by the British imperialists in conjunction with Indian compradors Mohandas Gandhi and Muhammed Ali Jinnah

In 1971 Bland pointed out that the Partition of India was undertaken by British imperialism as they saw the impossibility of preventing the mass movement. He cited Stafford Cripps:

“This transfer of power was not, of course, purely voluntary; but neither was it the result of an outright victory of the national-democratic revolution. The position was that the latter had developed to the point where the declining strength of British imperialism was no longer sufficient to enable it to continue to rule the Indian sub-continent in the old directly colonial way. It had become necessary to replace direct colonial rule by indirect neo-colonial domination.
Sir Stafford Cripps virtually admitted to this when he told the House of Commons on March 3th, 1947;
“What, then, were the alternatives which faced us? These alternatives were fundamentally two… First, we could attempt to strengthen British control in India on the basis of an expanded personnel in the Secretary of State’s office and a considerable reinforcement of British troops. The second alternative was that we could accept the fact that the first alternative was not possible… We had not the power to carry it out”.
Bland Pakistan

In 1993 Alliance Marxist-Leninist reiterated that the partition of India had been engineered for the benefit of British imperialism. Partition enabled a domination of the economy, and it continued the strategy of ‘divide and rule’ and refining the mythology that religion was an equivalent of nationality:

“The main purpose of Partition was to enable the Imperialists to continue to dominate the economy of the Indian sub-continent. This would be performed in two main ways.

Firstly Partition in fact effectively divorced the raw material from the heavy industrial base for working on the raw material. The internal balance of Trade at Partition expressed in millions of rupees shows this clearly:

INDIA PAKISTAN

A. RAW COTTON, RAW JUTE, FOOD -950 +950

B. COAL, IRON, COTTON TEXTILES,
SUGAR AND JUTE MANUFACTURE. +900 -900

Cited “Eastern Economist” January 2nd, 1948.

The Second major reason for the Partition was the even more simple raison d’etre of divide and rule. The British had long known that the Indian sub-continent was composed of different nations:

“The notion that India is a nationality rests upon that vulgar error which political science principally aims at eradicating.. India is .. only a geographical expression, like Europe or Africa, It does not mark the territory of a nation and a language, but the territory of many nations and many languages.”
Sir John Seeley: “The Expansion of England”, London, 1885. p.254,257.

The false notions that India’s nationality depended upon religion were played upon to create even further disruption and chaos. All players on the poetical scene agreed for differing reasons to this tactic. We have already outlined… that the big bourgeoisie of Marwari-Gujerati-Parsi background induced the Indian National Congress not to seriously contend against Partition; because this would hamper the emerging regional bourgeoisie who would challenge the newly dominant Central bourgeoisie.

The CPI contributed to this subterfuge by including the so called nations of “Hindu” “Moslem” and “Sikh” in their catalogue of the Indian Nations.

Their approach to the elections was also opportunist, as outlined above. They agreed that there should be separate electoral rolls,and that they would defer in a Hindu area to a Hindu candidate and the same in a Moslem area, if they were sanding no candidates themselves.”
“The Role Of The Bourgeoisie In Colonial Type Countries:What Is The Class Character Of The Indian State? Part b” Alliance Marxist-Leninist (North America)
Issue Number 5. October, 1993;

In Bland Pakistan, it is pointed out that in 1943, the Communist Party India was still taking a correct line that Bengal for example, was a nation:

“In contrast to this revisionist line (of R.P.Dutt of the CPGB – Ed) the Communist Party of India, its leadership then still loyal to Marxist-Leninist principles, recognised the existence of a single Bengali nation:
“Our first formulation is that the Bengalis form a nation and so should be given the right to self-determination. … It is correct to say that the Bengalis are a nation and Bengal should have its own separate state.”
(C. Adhikari: “Pakistan and National Unity”, published by the Communist Party of India, 1943).

Oriental academic specialists in the pre 1952 USSR were divided upon the underlying questions. But the most astute of these – Dyakov – was quite clear: (follows citations from Alliance ML 1993)

“Dyakov, a member of the USSR Academy of Sciences, was an acknowledged expert on Indian affairs. His observation of the multi-national character of the Indian state is key to forming current Marxist-Leninist policy in India.

Dyakov thought that the post-Partition state represented a coming to power of a section of the bourgeois and the middle bourgeoisie that had turned reactionary. But, according to Dyakov, until Partition (engineered by the Mountbatten Plan), the now reactionary bourgeoisie had been struggling against British imperialism. In this struggle, he clearly identified a dominant national bourgeoisie that was now oppressing other nationalities:

“The expression of the centralistic tendencies of the summit of the Indian bourgeoisie, primarily the big tendencies of the province of Gujerat and Marwara.. this capitalist group aspires to a monopoly to dominate the Indian market and in this sense it struggles not only against British capital but also against the bourgeoisie of other nationalities of India.. which strive to tear its own market away from the hands of Gujerati-Marwari capital.”
Dyakov, Cited in Selig Harrison. “India the Most Dangerous Decades.” Princeton, 1960. p. 158.

This Marwari national bourgeoisie then came to be the Pan-Indian national bourgeoisie.”
Alliance ML 1993

This work cannot delve into how the CPI came to revise its correct position on the National Question in India. Alliance has looked at this question previously in 1993 as indicated above.

iii) The Awami League

The Awami Moslem League – as it developed a coherent policy – became the Awami League. This represented the interests of the national bourgeoisie of East Pakistan:

“In March 1950 there was formed in East Pakistan the Awami (People’s) Moslem League, led by Husain Shahid Suhrawardy, Sheikh Mujibur Rahman and peasant leader Maulana Abdul Hamid Khan Bhashani… Also in September 1953, the Awami Moslem League dropped the religious adjective from its name to become the Awami League…
the national bourgeoisie of East Pakistan, the interests of which the Awami League represented”.
Bland Pakistan, p. 10; p.18

These aspirations were “crystallised into a “six-point programme” put forward by Sheikh Mujibur Rahman:

“In February 1966 Sheikh Mujibur Rahman the President of the Awami League, put forward a six-point programme,

1) The Constitution of Pakistan must be federal, with a parliamentary form of government and a legislature directlv elected on the basis of adult franchise,
2) Federal subjects to be limited to defence and foreign affairs only;
3) There should be:
i) separate currencies for the two wings, freely convertible into each other, or,
ii) in the alternative, one currency subject to statutory safeguards against flight of capital from the East to the West wing;
4) Power of taxation and revenue collection to be vested in the federating States; the Centre to be financed by allocation of a share in the States, taxes,
5) Separate foreign exchange accounts to be kept for East and West Pakistan: the requirements of the Federal government to be met by the two wings in equal proportions or on any other fixed basis as may be agreed upon,
6) self-sufficiency for East Pakistan in defence matters: an ordnance factory and a military academy to be set up in the East wing, the federal naval headquarters to be located in, East Pakistan”.
Bland Pakistan p.49

Nonetheless, the members of the Awami League were mainly not based in any tangible industrial “production”:

“The ruling Awami League (after the national liberation war – Ed) was a party of lawyers, jute brokers, other kinds of middle men, small traders, primary and secondary school teachers, insurance agents, unemployed youth etc who were divorced from production. After seizing state power, instead of acquiring wealth through production, they began to plunder existing wealth. In order to extend their area of plunder, they nationalised industries, commercial houses, banks etc in the name of socialism.”
Badruddin Umar, “The Left in Bangladesh”; Revolutionary Democracy April 2016 Vol. XXII, No. 1

2. USA reaction to the Bangladesh war of national liberation – The Archer Blood Telegrams – The ”Blood” Telegrams

Bland pointed out that the unitary Pakistan state had made an alliance with the USA, and was supported by both aid and weapons. But the unitary state was dominated by the West Pakistan class coalitions (of both landlords, comprador and national capitalists) – all united in the wish to exploit East Pakistan as a sub-colony. Obviously the USA had enormous influence over the policies of these West Pakistani leaders.

However the USA leadership was simply not interested in halting what was clearly an evident genocide of East Pakistanis – Bengalis – by the ‘West’ Pakistan army:

“Kissinger and Nixon knew exactly what was going on. In The Blood Telegram, a bracing history of Nixon and Kissinger’s complicity in the killings, Princeton professor Gary Bass relays an astounding conversation where the two entertain a comparison between Pakistan’s genocide and the Holocaust, and still conclude that doing literally anything to stop it would be unwise.
Dylan Matthews, “What Henry Kissinger wrought“; “Vox”, Nov 30 2023;

Archer Blood was the American Consul-General in Dhaka in then East Pakistan. He wrote several telegrams to the US President Nixon and the National State Security Adviser Henry Kissinger. These have been rather aptly termed “The Blood Telegrams”. On March 27, 1971 Blood wrote one of his many telegrams informing his superiors that:

“With the support of the Pakistani Military… Non-Bengali Muslims are systematically attacking poor people’s quarters and murdering Bengalis and Hindus.”… They were met with a stoic silence from President Richard Nixon and his National Security Adviser, Henry Kissinger…
The Blood Telegram, the most strongly worded expression of dissent in US Foreign Service history, was then sent. It was signed by 20 US diplomatic staff in Dhaka, led by Archer Blood, as a dissent note rebuking the Nixon government for doing nothing as the mass murder took place.

In the genocide carried out by Pakistani forces in the early 1970s, rough estimates suggest that nearly 3 million Bengalis lost their lives. The Pakistani army’s systematic extermination focused on Hindu men, intellectuals, and professionals, sparing women from death but subjecting nearly 4,00,000 to rape and sexual enslavement
They were engaged in a nasty game to win over China and turned a deaf ear and a blind eye to the desperate pleas for help from their own officials stationed in Dacca (now Dhaka) and the pogrom in Bangladesh…
Kissinger was informed that their men in Dhaka had seen the Pakistani Army using US-made Sabre fighter jets for airstrikes and M-24 Chaffee light tanks for ground operations against Bengali resistance. Additionally, US-marked jeeps equipped with .50-caliber machine guns were seen patrolling and engaging in combat in Chittagong, the White House was informed.

Around the same time, the American ambassador to New Delhi urged the White House to halt US arms supplies to Pakistan as clear and growing evidence of the West Pakistani army’s massacres emerged…

The atrocities of the Pakistani Army escalated to the point where, by May 1971, 2 million refugees had crossed into India, with 90% of them being Hindus, and about 50,000 more arriving daily, according to academic Gary J Bass. By December, when 6.8 million refugees had arrived, Indira Gandhi was compelled to take military action against Pakistan, he noted.”

“The trigger-happy Pakistani army, led by Tikka Khana dubbed the “Butcher of Balochistan” and later the “Butcher of Dhaka” was given a free hand. (the infamous Operation Searchlight on March 26. ) This led to approximately 3 million deaths, 10 million Bengali refugees fleeing to India, and nearly 4,00,000 women and girls being raped, with Bengali Hindus disproportionately targeted, noted academic and author Gary J Bass in his 2013 book, “The Blood Telegram: Nixon, Kissinger and a Forgotten Genocide”…
Archer Blood was punished severely for speaking up. He never again got an envoy posting and retired as a desk official.”
Sushim Mukul; “ Blood telegrams on genocide of Bangladeshi Hindus, and how US turned a blind eye”; India Today 10 August 2024.

The same reporter notes that decision makers in Washington certainly knew what was happening:

“It’s not that the urgent cables of Blood and his officials didn’t reach Washington.
“There is evidence that US-supplied equipment is being utilised extensively, including planes, F-86s and C-130s, tanks and light arms,” one of the staff at the White House briefed the American NSA Kissinger, sometime in early 1971…
However, the alarm and pleas from the ambassador met with deaf ears in the Oval Office. American President Richard Nixon, who believed that “sufficient military strength is essential for internal security”, never confronted Pakistani dictator Yahya Khan about the use of American weapons to attack Bengali civilians in East Pakistan (now Bangladesh)…
Nixon’s callous disregard for Bengali lives was starkly revealed in his statement: “Pakistan, they’re just a bunch of brown goddamn Muslims”.
India Today 10 August 2024.

Bland had noted that:

“With the counter-revolutionary “cultural revolution” in China… a rapprochement began to develop between the Chinese rulers and the U.S. imperialists. This ended the possibility of the Ayub regime being able any longer to use the threat of closer relations with China as a means of putting pressure upon Washington…

While the Pakistan Army was still carrying on its initial offensive against the people of East Bengal, Chinese Prime Minister Chou En-lai sent on April 12th 1971, a message to Yahya Khan expressing the full support of the Chinese government for Yahya Khan’s:
“useful work in upholding the unification of Pakistan and in preventing it from moving towards a split. We believe that, through the wise consultations and efforts of Your Excellency… the situation in Pakistan will certainly be returned to normal…
The Chinese government holds that what is happening in Pakistan at present is purely the internal affair of Pakistan”
Bland Pakistan

Later investigators concluded much the same. They corroborate this, and explain the USA reluctance to stop Yahya Khan’s army because Pakistan was by this stage an ally of China’s:

“The US used Pakistan, and its dictator Yahya Khan, as a bridge between the US and China to gain support against the Soviets during the Cold War…
“We had to demonstrate to China we were a reliable government to deal with. We had to show China that we respect a mutual friend,” noted Winston Lord, Kissinger’s deputy at the National Security Council…. Pakistan was treated as an ally of the US, noted a 1979 India Today report.”
Sushim Mukul; India Today 10 August 2024.

3. The Bangladesh Communist left and the War of liberation against West Pakistan

As noted above, the counter-revolutionary position of the Chinese government on Bangladesh – was to support the Pakistani brutal suppression led by Yahya Khan. This gave rise to numerous rifts within the Maoist parties and groups throughout the world.

Bland showed this particularly as they affected the British Maoist Left. But he also noted some effects on West Bengal communist movements:

“In West Bengal, India, one section of the Maoist “Communist Party of India (Marxist-Leninist)”, headed by Ashim Chatterjee, called for guerilla attacks upon the liberation army of Bangladesh, while another section of the party, headed by Charu Mazumdar, advocated neutrality.”
Bland Pakistan p. 65

However since 1971, more detail about the Bangladeshi movement has become available.
Within Bangladesh, the communist movement ultimately played only a small part in the Bangladeshi liberation war. Even the decision to join the national liberation war was not agreed on by the whole left. Upon what did their policies depend?

Firstly their views of the Pakistani state (“Had it fully overcome feudalism?” “Was it now on the socialist stage of revolution?”) and, Secondly how obedient they were to the dictates of the Chinese state leaders.

Many left parties joined with the Awami League. The largest of these left parties was the pro-Moscow East Pakistan Communist Party (EPCP). But in joining the Awami League, they were not able to over-take the Awami League leadership.

“communists could neither claim their leadership, nor declare their strong presence in the war for liberating Bangladesh.
A section of the communists including the then-pro-Moscow Communist Party joined the war in alliance with the Awami League. But their contribution was eclipsed by Awami League (AL), if only because Moni Singh led the then-pro-Moscow East Pakistan Communist Party (EPCP)’s tailist role in the war behind the AL.”
Syed Fattahul Alim; “ Has Left Politics any Future? Daily Star, 2012 February Volume 6 Issue2: 

This was important as the EPCP could not thus move the Bangladeshi revolutionary war uninterruptedly into the socialist phase.

Some Maoist parties also took part as allies with the AL in the war of liberation, but also did not exert any left influence, with the same negative effect:

“Similarly, neither the Purbo Banglar Communist Party (Marxist-Leninist) or PBCP (M-L) led by Matin-Alauddin; or the Deben Sikder faction of PBCP-ML, who fought the war, (could -ed) establish their strong presence or leadership in the war. The story was not different in the case of Purbo Bangla Sarbohara Party (PBSP) (Maoist) led by Shiraj Shikder, or the Amal Sen-led faction of the East Pakistan Communist Party (Leninist). None of them could command any noteworthy influence though each of those communist factions participated in the liberation war separately. “
Syed Fattahul Alim; Daily Star, 2012 February

What considerations had led these various parties to correctly decide upon joining forces with the Awami League in this national liberation struggle?

“Some… consider(ed) Pakistan government either as a colonial power such as the Sarbohara party of Shiraj Shikder, or as the main enemy of national liberation (such as PBCP (M-L). To others the society was ripe for socialist phase of revolution (such as Moni Singh led EPCP), briefly passing through the historical phase of democratic revolution. Imperialism was the external enemy, but defeating the immediate enemy of Bengali nationalist aspiration in, the Pakistan state, was the immediate necessity.”
Syed Fattahul Alim; Daily Star, 2012 February

Another factor is invoked by Badruddin Umar of the Marxist-Leninist left at the time. Umar identifies an earlier factor of religious divisions. The CP leadership was predominantly from Hindu background, and wished to “work through the Awami League”:

“The Communist party of East Pakistan (EPCP) held a party conference in Kolkata in 1956. There they decided to carry its political work through the Awami League which was then the biggest political party in East Bengal. They decided to pursue this tactical line because they felt difficulties in communicating with the people directly. Most of the CP members and leaders at that time were persons from Hindu families. They thought that it would be more effective if they could work through Muslims. That is why they first formed the Gonotantric Dal (Democratic Party). But the Gonotantric Dal could not make any headway. Then they decided to work through the Awami League. What is surprising is that they did not try to organise the working people, the peasants and workers. The old peasant organisation and the trade unions were liquidated after the collapse of the Ranadive line in 1950. The Student Federation also ceased to be a functioning organisation. But the EPCP had no plan to reorganise them.
Instead, they decided to work among the people, the people at the grassroots, through the Awami League. Their fraternity with the Awami League did not last long.”
Badruddin Umar, “The Left in Bangladesh”; Revolutionary Democracy April 2016 Vol. XXII, No. 1

That period came to an end in 1957, as the AL then sided with USA imperialism. However in Umar’s estimation, these communists were by this stage corrupted:

“It ended in early 1957 at the Kagmari conference of the Awami League after their confrontation with the latter on the question of Pakistan-American military pact signed in 1954. Being opposed by Suhrawardy and his followers, the impractical attempt of the communists to force the Awami League to change its pro-imperialist foreign policy failed. But the communists did not learn the proper lesson from this. They did not realize that it was not possible to coerce a bourgeois petty-bourgeois political party to change its class character. So they came out of the Awami League and formed another petty-bourgeois party called the National Awami Party (NAP) in 1957… they too began to be more bourgeoisified, and in the process whatever communist character they had eroded considerably.”
Badruddin Umar, Revolutionary Democracy April 2016

The fate after of the EPCP after the independence of Bangladesh was frankly capitulationist:

“The pro-Russian EPCP endorsed the Awami League line without any reservation and thereby virtually liquidated whatever remained of their so-called communist character. As a follow up of this development they formally liquidated the CPB and merged with the Bangladesh Krishak Sramik Awami League (BAKSAL) formed by Sheikh Mujibur Rahman in 1975 and formally became a part of the ruling class.”
Badruddin Umar, Revolutionary Democracy April 2016

“The former pro-Moscow communist party, now Communist Party of Bangladesh (CPB) and the Workers Party of Bangladesh led by Rashed Khan Menon have opted for parliamentary politics. “
Syed Fattahul Alim; Daily Star, 2012 February

Most Maoist Mlists refused to take part in the liberation war:

“The pro-Chinese Communist parties, which were called EPCP (ML), opposed the Awami League line and described the fight between the Awami League and the Pakistan military government as a fight between two dogs. Being wholly divorced from the realities of the existing political situation in 1971, they were completely alienated from the people. Their line was doomed and it liquidated their position as communist parties. Each of these parties was split during the course of the war, and in spite of their nominal existence became politically irrelevant.”
Badruddin Umar, Revolutionary Democracy April 2016; Ibid

“The Sukhendu Dastider-Mohammad Toaha-Abdul Huq-led faction of EPCP (M-L), on the other hand, rejected the liberation war. “
Syed Fattahul Alim; Daily Star, 2012 February; Ibid

The main reason for refusing to support the war of liberation, clearly seems to be that they were following the call of the CPC.

Numerous splits further weakened all parties:

“The traditional communist parties who rejected parliamentary form of politics have disintegrated into more than a dozen factions.
… Most of them follow Maoist ideology…

The former Purbo Banglar Communist Party (M-L) led by Abdul Matin of … and Alauddin Ahmed and Tipu Biswas, whose pre-independence slogan was establishment of People’s Democratic East Bengal splintered into several factions after Bangladesh’s independence. They launched a military struggle following the Charu Majumder line of West Bengal’s communist party Communist Party of India (Marxist-Leninist). After the debacle in that war against post-independence Awami League government, most of their leaders landed in jail. The remaining faction gradually reorganised but followed the extreme pro-Charu Majumder line of class annihilation as a way of building organisation. Their leader Mufakkhar Chowdhury was killed in a police raid during Bangladesh Nationalist Party (BNP) government (2001-2006). Another faction of the party, after Matin-Alauddin-Tipu Biswas were in jail, launched a theoretical debate to reorganise all the communist factions with pro-Peking background under a single banner with the slogan of communist unity. Finally, they formed a party led by Badruddin Umar-Saifud Dahar styled Bangladesher Communist Party (M-L).                                                                     The Purbo Banglar Sarbohara Party (PBSP)’s founder leader Shiraj Shikder was killed by police during Awami League government in January 1975…
The EPCP (M-L) of pre-independence period, later recognised Bangladesh as an independent country in 1978 and assumed the name Bangladesh Revolutionary Communist Party (M-L). But it also underwent several divisions… A leading figure former EPCP (M-L), Mohammad Toaha formed Bangladesh Samyabadi Dal and denounced Charu Majumder’s line of class annihilation. Another faction led by Nagen Sarker-Noni Dutta-Khondoker Ali Abbas followed orthodox Maoist line.“
Syed Fattahul Alim; Daily Star, 2012 February; Ibid.

It is true that some point out that the left forces offered a united Front to the Awami League and were rejected. They point out that events could have been different:

“Had the Awami League – led Provisional Bangladesh Government embraced the offer from the Coordinating Committee for National Liberation of the progressive Left forces to mount a united liberation war, perhaps the outcome would have been qualitatively different. Perhaps, we would not have seen rampant corruptions and abuse of power immediately following the emergence of Bangladesh as an independent country. Perhaps people would not have become disillusioned so quickly.”
Anis Chowdury, “Bangladesh’s liberation: Contributions of the Left Movement”; Global Bangladesh Volume 1 Issue 4.

This seems to be wishful thinking since the Left forces were relatively small by 1971.

To conclude, no principled mass Marxist-Leninist party in Bangladesh developed that could assist in moving the national liberation war un-interruptedly into a socialist revolution.

Unsurprisingly then, the history of Bangladesh following this “War of National Liberation”, for the small working class and a larger rural toiler class dominated by landlordism – was one of a progressive slide into an ever worse immiseration.

A Brief summary of the next two sections

By 1971 Bangladesh had emerged as an independent country after a revolutionary war of liberation. But there were considerable human and economic and infra-structural costs to this war, leaving the new nation of Bangladesh in a very weak position:

“During the war, there were widespread killings and other atrocities—including the displacement of civilians in Bangladesh (East Pakistan at the time) and widespread violations of human rights beginning with Operation Searchlight on 25 March 1971. Members of the Pakistani military and supporting paramilitary forces killed an estimated 300,000 to 3,000,000 people and raped between 200,000 and 400,000 Bangladeshi women in a systematic campaign of genocidal rape. Pakistan’s religious leaders openly supported the crime by labelling Bengali freedom fighters “Hindus” and Bengali women “the booty of war”. .. A large section of the intellectual community of Bangladesh were murdered, mostly by the Al-Shams and Al-Badr forces, at the instruction of the Pakistani Army… Many mass graves have been discovered in Bangladesh… Numerous women were tortured, raped, and killed during the war; the exact numbers are not known and are debated… Genocide is the term still used to describe the event in almost every major publication and newspaper in Bangladesh.”
‘Bangladesh Liberation War”; Wikipedia

“Even the most modest assumptions place the direct and indirect cost estimates at $9.53 billion and $14.08 billion respectively, far greater than the $200 million claimed by the United Nations Relief Operations Survey. In short, the war was not a minor event either by absolute or relative measures…
Saud Choudhry and Syed Basher; “The Enduring Significance of Bangladesh’s War of Independence: An Analysis of Economic Costs and Consequences”; The Journal of Developing Areas, Autumn, 2002, Vol. 36, No. 1 (Autumn, 2002), pp. 41-55

That weakness was conducive to seeking comprador relations. The only alternative would have been social revolution – something that no leading faction of the ruling class would tolerate.

The subsequent political history was a steady slide from the semblance of a parliamentary democracy to an autocracy. Military dictatorships were also adopted according to their expediency at any time. Each of the two dominating classes and their political party representations adopted each of these forms of government.

These two dominating classes and their parties were as follows:

The Awami League representing the pro-Indian comprador bourgeoisie, The first of these were the Awami League who had previously represented before the War of National Liberation against the unitary Pakistan – the national bourgeoisie of the Bengali part of Pakistan or East Pakistan. After the Indian Army entered the war and pushed out Pakistani armed forces, the character of the Awami League changed.

and the Bangladeshi National Party representing the national bourgeoisie. The party was formed when it became clear that the Awami League had renounced its role for the national bourgeoisie. Initially they came to ally with the Chinese state.

But in a surprising twist, the rivalry between India and China – became dwarfed by their need for a mutual dependency against USA imperialism. This complicated the relationship.

India’s interests in supporting the Awami League of Bangladesh are multiple including the obvious need for markets in their immediate neighbourhood. But one reason is not so visible to casual gaze. This is to prevent the possible resurgence of Bengali nation. Currently that nation is currently divided between two states. India is a multi-national state.

To make any sense of the history it is necessary to inter-relate the economic and political history. Hence we first consider the economic structure of Bangladesh currently. In brief it has remained at a neo-colonial level of dependency.

4. Failure of comprador status of Bangladesh 1971-2024 – to improve the people’s wellbeing. Deeper dependency on foreign sub-regional imperialisms of India and China, with increasing autocracy and single party rule

i) The overall demographics
The populations count is stated on Wikipedia:

“The April 2023 total population was 169,532,362 which makes Bangladesh the eighth-most populous country in the world.”

Yet many of the total population are forced to work overseas, even though the labour force was noted to be 80.27 million as of 2016:

““Labour force: 80.27 million note: extensive export of labor to Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, UAE, Oman, Qatar, and Malaysia; workers’ remittances were $10.9 billion in FY09/10 (2014 est.)”
Bluebook 21st ed. 2016 World Factbook 66 (2016-2017).

By its own government statistics, as of 2020 30% of the population had received no education at all. (See Bangladesh Bureau of Statistics (BBS) Statistics and Informatics Division, Ministry of Planning”; See Table Key Indicators; labelled originally as Tables 2.6). From that same report is shown government reported rates of poverty by some criteria – which we need to approach with some caution see Table 1  below (Table originally labelled as 12.1) BBS:

Many sources independent of the government confirm the population is extremely poor. Bluebook 21st ed. 2016 World Factbook 66 (2016-2017).

Nonetheless, there has been a steady relative improvement in the well-being of a proportion of its population as noted by South Asian Monitor:

“According to the World Bank’s latest report, Bangladesh has a strong track record of development and prosperity. Over the last decade, it has been one of the world’s fastest-growing economies, owing to a demographic dividend, robust ready-made garment exports, remittances and stable macroeconomic conditions. Following the Covid-19 pandemic, the country experienced a rapid economic recovery.

From being one of the poorest nations at birth in 1971, Bangladesh reached lower-middle-income status in 2015. It is on track to graduate from the UN’s Least Developed Countries list in 2026. Poverty declined from 43.5 percent in 1991 to 14.3 percent in 2016, based on the international poverty line of $1.90 a day. Moreover, human development outcomes have improved along many dimensions.”
John Rozario, South East Monitor April 23, 2022

But the structure of the economy is entirely that of a dependent comprador economy.

ii) An agrarian predominance – with growing small landed, or a landless labouring class

Bangladesh remains overwhelmingly an agricultural based economy, in terms of the proportion of the labour force engaged in it:

“Labor force: 80.27 million..
Labor force – by occupation:
agriculture: 47%
industry: 13%
services: 40% (2010 est.)
Unemployment rate:
5% (2014 est.)
5% (2013 est.)
note: about 40% of the population is underemployed; many persons counted as
employed work only a few hours a week and at low wages”
Bluebook 21st ed. 2016 World Factbook 66 (2016-2017).

However this majority is also reflected in the proportion of GDP generated, where half is from agriculture – mostly from rice:

“Bangladesh’s economy has grown roughly 6% per year since 1996 despite political instability, poor infrastructure, corruption, insufficient power supplies, slow implementation of economic reforms, and the 2008-09 global financial crisis and recession. Although more than half of GDP is generated through the service sector, almost half of Bangladeshis are employed in the agriculture sector with rice as the single-most-important product.”
Bluebook 21st ed. 2016 World Factbook 66 (2016-2017).

What is the structure at present of the agrarian system?

Bland had noted that the 1950 Land Reforms had not made any in-roads into the peasant reality up to 1971. Later research confirms his conclusion. In fact land concentration is intensifying.

Up to the 1960 census, Atiru Rahman found an overwhelming predominance of small farmers:

“The 1960 census reveals that 51 per cent of farm households had less than 2-5 acres and operated about 16 per cent of the total operated area. On the other, hand, only about 11 per cent of households with about 39 per cent of operated area controlled more than 7.5 acres on the average. Similar findings were also reported in the 1968 Master Survey. Neither the 1960 nor the 1968 source gives information on the ownership pattern.”
Atiur Rahman; “Differentiation of the Peasantry In Bangladesh An Empirical Study With Micro Level Data“; PhD Thesis PSOAS 1983, London; published Proquest Ann Arbor 2017; p.92.Available via ‘Academia’

He further noted that by 1980 there had been evident land concentration and concomitant increased “functional landlessness”:

“about 29 per cent of rural families were landless (having at best homestead land), and if we include in this figure, the families who owned up to 0.5 acres, the total comes to about 50 per cent, who are functionally landless. At the other extreme, 2.7 per cent of rural families owning more than 10 acres control nearly one fourth of the total land. Households owning more than 5.0 acres constitute the top 8.5 per cent of the rural households. They own nearly half of the total land, although they constitute only 15 per cent of the population.”
Atiur Rahman Ibid p. 97-98; Academia

This can be seen in the distilled table from Rahman below.

Table 2: Cited by Atiur Rahman Ibid p. 97 Academia

Moreover even more recent data shows the same trend: An increasing mass in a rural landless labouring class. This inexorable process was expedited by both modern machine technology and high yieild rice crops demanding more cash inputs. In 1978 the government began to transfer any public state support for machinery, grain and other inputs from state to private distributor hands:

“The whole reform process took several years, and by the mid-1990s, the privatization of the input distribution system was largely completed. As the government began to downsize the volume of subsidies, input prices correspondingly increased, while rice prices at the producer level remained depressed. This posed few problems for wealthy farmers. However, the unfavourable terms of trade squeezed small peasants financially, and they found it tough to invest in the purchase of expensive machinery and other necessary inputs.”
Manoj Misra; “Is Peasantry Dead? Neoliberal Reforms, the State and Agrarian Change in Bangladesh”; Journal of Agrarian Change, 2016; Vol.17 No.3, 2016, pp.

Against this backdrop, in 1999 the government instituted the national Agricultural Policy (NAP) which aimed with the World trade Organisation to promote mechanisation. They succeeded:

“From zero private-sector participation in the late 1970s, the market share for privately sold agro-machinery rose to Taka 13.08 billion in 2004,
and then further increased to Taka 35.29 billion in 2007, suggesting a tremendous boom in the market (Matin et al. 2008). As such, Bangladesh has emerged as ‘one of the most mechanised agricultures in Asia’, with 80 per cent of the tillage operations done with the help of mechanized tractors (Biggs et al. 2011, 79–80).”
Misra 2016; Ibid.

As this occurred the World Bank agreed targets to increase productivity. This was translated into increased exports including of grains including rice. Consequently:

“export and commercial bias and the promotion of high-value cash crops are slowly diverting scarce agricultural land from food production for the masses to commercial production for industries and the urban wealthy consumers.”
Misra 2016; Ibid.

“Several factors arising out of the deregulation and modernization of the agricultural sector, including small plot sizes, high costs of agricultural wage labour, higher fertilizer and irrigation prices, and unfavourable agricultural terms of trade, contributed to this declining income and thereby to the profitability of small peasant producers (Zohir 2001; Hossain et al. 2003; Ahmed et al. 2007). A rough estimate by this author shows that if a small peasant sells her entire annual paddy production
in the market at the current rate, the profit she may be able to generate from rice farming is approximately Taka 11,214.00 a year17 (US$136.72 in current terms), which is way below the national rural poverty line income.”
Misra 2016; Ibid.

Unsurprisingly there has been a huge increase in the landlessness:

“The increased incidence of rural wage dependency over the past few decades is therefore hardly surprising. The 2008 agriculture census data (BBS 2010a) indicate that the number of agricultural labour households increased from 5.4 million in 1983/84 to 6.4 million in 1996, and then to 8.7 million in 2008. Moreover, rural landlessness also increased during the same period, from 8.67 per cent in 1983/84 to 10.18 per cent in 1996, and 9.58 per cent in 2008.”
Misra 2016; Ibid.

The drift of landless to the cities has enabled the growth of the ready-made garment industry – one which “predominantly employs young women and pays below poverty line wages.”

iii) Balance of agriculture and industry

It seems in recent years that the proportion of GDP accruing from agriculture is only about 13-14% in recent years. It then appears remarkable that for a former colonial type country to have a proportion of industry to GDP at around 33-35%. (See Table 3 below (An Extract of Table 10.1 from Government Bangladesh Statistics)

Table 3

However this is not to be taken at face value since –

“The only value added export commodity over and above raw materials is ‘readymade garments’’ (Misra 2016; Ibid).

As the Rana Plaza horror from a huge building collapse and fire in an exploitation closed-box showed, this is a direct result of foreign company “out-shoring” production:

“The collapse of the illegally constructed nine-storied Rana Plaza complex in April 2013, claiming lives of over a thousand garment factory workers (one of the biggest industrial debacle in Bangladesh’s history) reveals the high exploitation level that prevails in the Ready Made Garments (RMG) sector—which is the most significant economic sector of Bangladesh. The plight of the garment factory workers, and reports about their poor working conditions and wages published after the incident and the subsequent sanctions by the western investors for maintaining safety standards and necessary labour conditions signifies the social need of the Bangladeshi society.”
Srimanti Sarkar; “The Role of the Left in Bangladesh’s Democracy: Challenges and Prospects”; in Subharanjan Dasgupta (ed.), Democratic Governance and Politics of the Left in South Asia, AAkar Books, New Delhi, 2015, pp. 228-244; and
Rana Plaza disaster Independent 23 April, 2020

This is not the type of “industry” that a civilized socialist country would attempt to develop. And it has not thereby enabled Bangladesh to become free of foreign entanglement.

iv) Relations of trade

Since the main industry in Bangladesh is the ready-made garment industry – it is an export driven trade designed for the imperialist home markets of the West. The proportion of this export industry in Bangla Desh is seen in Table 4 below (originally labelled Table 9.2 in Government Bangladesh Statistics)

Table 4

That the markets for the ready-made garment (rag-trade) industry are the imperialist countries, is readily seen in the destination of exports. The main relations of trade are displayed below from government 2022 figures (In original files Bangladesh Statistics these are shown as Tables 9.2; 9.3, and 9.4). 

Table 5 (originally 9.2) shows the net balance of import to exports; and Table 6 (originally 9.3) shows the destination of the exports.

Table 5 above shows the overall negative balance of foreign trade. In Table 6 is seen the main countries to where the exports go – predominantly the USA, UK and Canada – together accounting for over 45% of the total.

By 2023, Bangladesh was in a neo-colonial state dependency.

There were two states of especial note to which Bangladesh was beholden to – India and China. This is not so evident from the countries to which Bangladesh exports (Above Table 6  originally Table 9,3).

But it does begin to show up in data on the countries from where Bangladesh imports (Table 7 – originally Government Statistics Table 9.4).

In some contrast to the figures for export, are these figures for countries of the main imports for goods into Bangladesh. Here over 35% came from China and India. Since India remains in a neo-colonial dependency to the USA and secondarily to the UK, this may be interpreted as ultimately accruing to the USA or UK profits overall.

But the shifting allegiances of India put this into a differing context. India has developed its role initially as the imperialists local policeman, but has recently been seeking a position of its own via the BRICS multi-polar arguments.

Moreover other data shows that both China and India have emerged as two key and predominating trade partners. In recent years China has been the top trade and investment country, as part of its ‘Belt and Road Initiative”.

Further considerations involve the growing emergence of important so-called “mega-structural” funding – for “megaprojects”. These are defined as follows:

“Megaprojects are large-scale and billion-dollar complex ventures that involve multiple public and private stakeholders. They have a far-reaching impact on millions. For a developing country like Bangladesh, infrastructure megaprojects are the critical catalyst for accelerating economic growth. In the ongoing budget for 2021-22, Bangladesh has allocated $5.45 billion (BDT 47,283 crore) from the total annual development programme to implement 12 megaprojects to strengthen the country’s communication, power and energy sector.”
Shaikh Abdur Rahman; “Megaprojects of Bangladesh: Competitive opportunities for its development partners”; South Asia Monitor Aug 23, 2024;

In these projects, India and China have been vying to top donor position in Bangladesh’s economy:

“Since 2015, China has been the top trading and investing partner for Bangladesh. The country has implemented several energy and transportation projects, including the flagship megaprojects of Padma Bridge Rail Link and the Payra Coal-fired power plant. The issue of debt management of multi-dollar projects has often been raised.
Exemplified with Pakistan’s Gwadar port and Sri Lanka’s Hambantota, some economists express concern over whether Bangladesh is falling under the “debt trap” by joining the Belt and Road Initiative (BRI).
However, unlike many other South Asian countries, Bangladesh’s selective engagement with China’s BRI has helped Dhaka avoid debt problems…
On the other hand India, the closest neighbour of Bangladesh, has been unable to match China’s big-ticket infrastructural investments in Bangladesh. The only India-funded fast-track mega project, Maitree Super Thermal Power Plant, is expected to be in operation in June. Other India-funded infrastructure projects are facing delays and upward cost revisions. “
Shaikh Abdur Rahman; “Megaprojects of Bangladesh: Competitive opportunities for its development partners”; South Asia Monitor Aug 23, 2024;

India has been unable to be as forthcoming as China, but is close:

“Since 2010, India has disbursed only 10 percent of the total $7.36 billion pledged as loans. At the same time, proposed projects like Teesta River Comprehensive Management and Restoration with Chinese assistance have been criticized in Indian media outlets. However, India has yet to offer competitive investment proposals that will reduce the appeal of China for infrastructural funding in Bangladesh.”
Shaikh Abdur Rahman; South Asia Monitor Aug 23, 2024;

Moreover again, the growth of ambition in the BRICS grouping puts this into context.

This brings up other nations of BRICS. As Russia has been increasingly shunned by other markets following its war of aggression against Ukraine, it has been expanding into renewed emphasis in areas such as Bangla Desh:

“The government has proposed the highest allocation of approximately $2.12 billion (BDT 18,426 crore) for the country’s first nuclear power plant, the Rooppur Nuclear Power Plant in Pabna, which Russia has implemented.”
Shaikh Abdur Rahman; South Asia Monitor Aug 23, 2024;

None of this negates the fact that the USA has been a key source of fiscal aid for Bangladesh. In fact in monetary terms remains the largest:

“The US is the largest importer of Bangladeshi products, importing $8.3 billion in 2021. US companies are the largest foreign investors in Bangladesh, making the US top source of Foreign Direct Investment (FDI) in 2021. US companies have made $4.3 billion in investments as of 2021, which accounts for 20% of the total FDI stock in Bangladesh. Over the past 50 years, the US has invested over $8 billion Bangladesh.”
Why US Cancelled Sheikh Hasina’s Visa And How Their Ties Turned Testy
News 18:

In addition Japan and Taiwan have given large sale development grants also, but are outweighed by China and India.

We have not even considered yet, the funding for military and naval facilities. This will be discussed in more detail in the next section. However one graphic is fairly revealing, as below. This shows how much China and Russia spend on Bangladesh arms in 2010-2022 as compared to the rest of the world. (Figure 1) We will return to this theme later.

Figure 1 from Matthew P. Funaiole, Brian Hart, Aidan Powers-
Riggs, and Jennifer Jun; “Submarine Diplomacy a snapshot of China’s influence along the Bay of Bengal”; Center for
Strategic and International Studies (CSIS); November 17, 2023

In an interim conclusion we can see that the state is largely in a huge negative balance of payments with two countries in especial – India and China. What is the current geopolitical perspective of these two countries? This lies in the formation of the entity known as BRICS.

The Emergence of the BRICS

We previously discussed the BRICS formation as a part of the attempt of some imperialist ocuntries allied to some nationalist bourgeoisie to fight back against the larger imperialist blocs led by the USA. (Hari Kumar “Changes in forms of imperialism over stages of capitalist development“; Red Phoenix March 26 2023; Hari Kumar “Mr.Scholz goes a-wooing BRICS – the meaning of mulitpolarity Red Phoenix March 4, 2023; Hari Kumar; “Germany hedges bets in changing international order” Berlin Left 8 March 2023)

In summary, the BRICS (Brazil, Russia, India, China, South Africa) – as a term – was coined in 2001 as an acronym by an economist Jim O’Neil, working for investment bankers Goldman Sachs. In 2014 the “S” was added for South Africa, making the acronym “BRICS.” O’Neill identified BRIC as a large and growing portion of the world GDP. In 2007 he looked back:

“In 2001… we argued that the BRIC economies would make up more than 10% of world GDP by the end of this decade. As we near the end of 2007, their combined weight is already 15% of the global economy. China is poised to overtake Germany this year to become the third-largest economy in the world. Our ‘BRICs dream’ that these countries together could overtake the combined GDP of the G7 by 2035… remains a worthy dream.”
O’Neill, J. (2007, Nov. 23). “BRICs and Beyond.” Goldman Sachs.

In 2009, the BRIC countries began to formalise their political links. Their first formal meeting was in 2009. In 2018 they had:

“a combined nominal GDP of US$26.6 trillion (about 26.2% of the gross world product), a total GDP Purchasing Power Parity of around US$51.99 trillion (32.1% of global GDP PPP), and an estimated US$4.46 trillion in combined foreign reserves.” (Report for Selected Countries and Subjects, IMF.)

“The group accounts for 40% of the world’s population and just over a quarter of global GDP. To put this in context, the G7 countries with a far smaller population base constitute just over 30% of global GDP on purchasing power parity.”
Doshi, T. (2022, July 21). “BRICS In The New World Energy Order: Hedging In Oil Geopolitics.” Forbes.

Numerous other countries of recent years came closer to the grouping, and want to formally join BRICS.

“BRICS International Forum president Purnima Anand reported… that three more countries — which included Egypt and Turkey along with Saudi Arabia — could join the BRICS group “very soon.” This followed earlier announcements that Iran and Argentina had formally applied for membership with Chinese support.”
Doshi, T. (2022, July 21). “BRICS In The New World Energy Order: Hedging In Oil Geopolitics.” Forbes.

As long ago as 2014 the BRICS grouping agreed to establish alternative banking systems:

“An agreement to establish a “New Development Bank” (NDB) and a “Contingent Reserve Arrangement” (CRA) was a public-relations coup… reiterate(s) their dissatisfaction with the World Bank, the International Monetary Fund, and the role of the dollar in the global monetary system.”
Eichengreen, B. (2014 Aug. 14). “Do the Brics need their own development bank?” Guardian.

Obstructions were placed in their path, for example, the U.S. engineered downfall of Dilma Rousseff, the president of Brazil. The trial of her predecessor, Luiz Inácio Lula da Silva (Lula), set the stage to try to derail Brazil’s leadership. (Guardian 2016).

Some progressives initially saw the BRICS movement as a progressive step eroding the power of the bigger imperialist nations, in especial the United States. But this hope is completely illusory. As a student of BRICS, Patrick Bond writes:

“the BRICS are ‘collaborating actively with imperialist expansion, assuming in this expansion the position of a key’ bloc, whose own interests also rest in sub-imperialist stabilisation of international financial power relations, for the advancement of their own regional domination strategies.”
Bond, P. (2016). “BRICS Banking and the Debate Over Sub-imperialism” (Third World Quarterly Vol. 37, No. 4). pp. 611–629.

Elsewhere Bond calls the BRICS by the term “junior partners in imperialism.”

This grouping includes both Russia and China, both imperialist nations.

India and China being drivers within BRICS, have an especial interest in the Bay of Bengal.
Hence their particular interest in subordinating Bangladesh’s developments into their own plans.

How did the political comprador status of Bangladesh take place, and which parties brokered this?

5. Bangladesh 1971-2024 –political history towards autocracy and deepening dependency on India and China

The Awami League moved very quickly towards a single party state, one which adopted a cloak of “socialism” in 1972 adopting a constitution proclaiming a unicameral parliamentary system:

“In January 1972 the leader Mujibar Rahman declared the new nation to be
socialist, democratic and non-aligned.”
Morten Ougaard, “The Origins Of The Second Cold War”; New Left Review; 1/147’ Sep/Oct 1984.

To fit the mirage of a progressive social-democracy, and because of a necessity to use all state resources – the Awami League nationalized key industries. It also then combined all labour unions within one single organization.

Yet even as it did so it began increasingly to manipulate elections. The 1973 General Election was rigged allowing a domination by the Awami League. That enabled the Awami League to alter the constitution. This resulted in the 4th Amendment of Constitution of 1975, officially turning Bangladesh into a one-party populist authoritarian state:

“The Awami League secured a supermajority in the 1973 election, which enabled it to amend the constitution, moving away from Westminster-style democracy and introducing a one-party system.”
Ali Riaz “Pathways of Autocratization The Tumultuous Journey of Bangladeshi Politics”; London Routledge; 2023; p.3

Within five years of the liberation, and even more overtly after the assassination of Mujibur Rahman in 1975– the Awami League came to represent the pro-Indian comprador bourgeoisie.

Assassination of Sheik Mujibur Rahman

But the national bourgeoisie having been displaced, were not about to leave the stage quietly, as events in 1975 showed. As the Awami League became more authoritarian it provoked protests. Mujibur Rahman was assassinated by the national bourgeoisie who used the cover of mass unrest.

This occurred in August 1975 August, in the form of a military coup. It killed President Sheikh Mujibur Rahman, and most of his family members and associates. Only two daughters survived as they were in Europe. Sheikh Hasina and Sheikh Rehana who claimed political asylum in the United Kingdom. Sheikh Rehana, the younger sister remained in the UK, but Sheikh Hasina moved to India and lived in self-imposed exile.

In 1975 November an extension of the coup was triggered by the pseudo-leftist party Jatiya Samajantantrik Dal (JSD) – a wing of the student wing of the Bangladeshi Awami League. This unrest provided the new pretext of a military coup led by General Ziaur Rahman.

The JSD was originally a wing of the student wing of the Bangladeshi Awami League:

“In the post-Bangladesh reality, a large number of youths who participated in the war of liberation under Awami League’s banner got disillusioned with their mother party’s way of running the country. They formed the Jatiya Samajtantrik Dal (National Socialist Party) and declared their programme of socialism on the ideological basis of what they termed scientific socialism… MA Jalil, who was the commander of Sector 9 during the war of independence, but later frustrated with Awami League, was the President of JSD. Colonel Abu Taher was another leader of the party. But this urban-based socialist movement soon fizzled out in the face of political repression… The JSD… soon underwent numerous divisions… A section of that group under Hasanul Huq Inu is now engaged in parliamentary form of politics and a parliament member.”
Syed Fattahul Alim; Ibid; Daily Star, 2012 February

After the military coup, Rahman clamped down on the JSD also, as they had fulfilled their function for the national bourgeoisie. Colonel Taher was executed. (Interview with Mushtuq Husain: the struggle in “Bangladesh” ‘International Socialism’ Quarterly Review (London); Issue: 121; 2nd January 2009

Soon in April 1977, the fig-leaf of a temporary military rule was dispensed with. General Ziaur Rahman was named head of the state.

The national bourgeoisie was not going to be left only with a military junta as its’ sole representatives. Accordingly, the Bangladesh Nationalist Party (BNP) was created to fulfil a civilian role for the class. In 1978 Zia formed the political party – the Bangladesh Nationalist Party (BNP).

The ensuing period was one of trying to balance off the role of India as a ‘benefactor;’ of Bangladesh. Accordingly Ziaur for the national bourgeoisie, improved Bangladesh’s relations with both the West and China, and reduced ties to India:

“Bangladesh’s relationship with India, which played a pivotal role in the birth
of the country in 1971, has gone through ups and downs prior to 2009. It is generally observed that the relationship between these countries becomes closer when the AL is in power in Bangladesh and the Indian National Congress (INC) in India. Notwithstanding the personal relationship between the leaders of these parties, they also share ideological affinities. On the other hand, the Indian establishment has always viewed the Bangladesh Nationalist Party (BNP) as “unfriendly” to India. BNP’s position within domestic politics has also been described as “anti-Indian,” as the party used anti-Indian nationalist rhetoric to rally its supporters. In 2009, as Hasina came to power for the second term (the first term being 1996–2001), the relationship with India began to warm up. There is a clear indication that India was pivotal in the power transition from the 2007–8 military-backed government to the AL.”
Ali Riaz; “Pathways of Autocratization The Tumultuous Journey of Bangladeshi Politics”; 2023, London, Routledge p.62

But Ziaur faced twenty-one coup attempts. Over the next 15 years there were to be further periods of military rule and governments.

Meanwhile Sheikh Hasina was permitted to return when the Awami League elected her its president. Shortly after, in 1981 came the assassination of President Ziaur Rahman. His widow, Begum Khaleda Zia, was to later lead the BNP, serving two terms as prime minister.

In 1982, a new coup placed General H M Ershad as head of state. He founded a new political party (Jatiya or Jatiyo Party). He began to increase the denationalization of the economy. Jatiyo Party (JP) party supported an Islamisation of Bangladesh, and occupied a centrist position in relation to either the Awami League or the BNP.

Bangladesh National Party Attempts to use China as a counter-weight to India

While the Awami League sought aid from India – it was not averse to aid from China.
However the other parties were far more avid for Chinese aid. Both the BNP and later Ershad tried to use China to off-set Indian dominance.

Chinese interests included trying to diminish Taiwanese investment in Bangladesh:

“Khaleda Zia has visited China twice, once in December 2002 and the second time to attend the Microcredit Summit in Shanghai in July 2004. Bilateral relationship during the past Awami League Administration was equally friendly which resulted into significant economic cooperation. During this period, Chinese economy has been growing at the rate of 8 to 9 percent per year… its readymade garment (RMG) industry… with the end of multi-fiber agreement (MFA) regime.. is seriously threatened. Most of the business in this new era is likely to move to China. In fact, Chinese potential to dominate the world textile market trade has caused concern in West. …
Taiwan has promised huge investment in Bangladesh. It is world’s seventh largest foreign investor with US$ 100 billion investment in mainland China and wants to be the number one foreign investor in Bangladesh by 2006. Taiwan intends to invest especially in textile, electronics and ICT.
The most important factor, which encouraged Bangladesh to take this decision, was the promise of Taiwan to employ Bangladeshi labour. Bangladesh is a labour surplus country and the issue of import of manpower from Bangladesh was the key issue during the negotiations on the establishment of representative offices. Taiwan… would take 10 percent of their workers by the year 2006 from Bangladesh… This kind of favour Bangladesh could have never got from China.
Bangladesh is also hopeful that a large number of Taiwanese industries would be relocated to the country after the Vietnam and USA agreement following which Vietnam cannot increase its textile export to the US market by more than 8 per cent a year. Initially, China tried to get this office closed by using pressure tactics. But, when this strategy did not work it has resorted to diplomacy …
China is concerned over the Taiwan issue after Bangladesh established trading relationship with it.
After the summit meeting between Prime Minister Khaleda Zia and Chinese Premier Wen Jiabao nine accords — five agreements, two memoranda of understanding (MoU), a contract and an exchange of letters — were signed.
China agreed to give six million US dollars for capacity building of Bangladeshi civil servants. Under an agreement on public security, China agreed to help in capacity building of Bangladeshi law enforcement including providing training on criminal investigation techniques and technology and forensic tests…Bangladesh is third largest trade partner of China in South Asia. But, the bilateral trade between them is highly tilted in favour of Beijing. The two-way trade stood at $1143 million in 2003-04. Bangladesh imported goods worth $1079 million against its export of $ 46 million to China. … As a gesture of goodwill, China would take steps to promote Chinese enterprises’ investment in Bangladesh’s textile industry… China has offered cooperation in solving water problems and in management of different rivers in Bangladesh, including Brahmaputra.”                                                                                         
Anand Kumar “Changing Dynamics of Sino-Bangladesh Relations“; South Asia Analysis Group; Paper no. 1345; 21.04.2005

In the meantime, Ershad ruled by coercive tactics against major opposition parties and many street agitations and boycotts. Both the Awami League under Sheikh Hasina and the BNP under Begum Khaleda Zia mounted mass demonstrations against him. This led to the 1986 elections.

In 1986, new Parliamentary election, pitted the Awami League (AL) and the Jamaat-i-Islami (JI) essentially un-opposed in elections which were boycotted by the BNP and left political parties. An increasingly repressive regime ensued under Sheikh Hasina. This provoked mass movements. After an eight-year pro-democracy United Front there was a popular uprising.

The Caretaker Government (CTG) mechanism

Because of a fierce series of contesting of power, in 1991 a caretaker government (CTG) was introduced.

This CTG system was placed into the constitution supposedly to act as a guardrail
against large-scale fraud in the election process. This step was precipitated by:

i) Rigging of a few by-elections of parliamentary seats by the incumbent BNP;
ii) Resignations of 143 opposition members in 1994, & violent street agitations by the Awami League and its allies;
iii) February 1996 election was boycotted by all main opposition parties.

In fact originally this mechanism was demanded by Hasina:

“This system, first tried successfully in 1991 as Bangladesh transitioned out of military rule, was written into the constitution in 1996 after Hasina, then in the opposition, herself mounted a two-year agitation demanding it.”                 Kamal Ahmed; “In Bangladesh’s sham election, the only real contest is geopolitical”; Himal South Asian 28 Dec 2023

The system required setting up an interim non-party government headed by the past Chief Justice of the country for three months to oversee the election. But as we shall see Hasina was to reverse herself and remove this option in 2008.

Over the years of 1990-2009, three elections alternated victory between the BNP, led by Khaleda Zia, and the Bangladesh Awami League (BAL), led by Sheikh Hasina.

But continued corruption occurred, including of electoral Commission and judicial appointments, particularly at the High Court. Power became further concentrated in the hands of the Prime Minister.

With the on-going turmoil, in 2006 there were disputes on the CTG leadership which led to street agitation and violence. The opposition AL was opposed to the past Chief Justice K M Hasan as head of CTG. Mr. Hasan had become eligible because of a constitutional amendment made by the BNP in 2004. But he had been a member of the BNP in the late 1970s before becoming a justice in the 1990s.

A deadlock developed which was finally resolved in 2008, by “external pressure, a global economic crisis, growing popular discontent, and the inability of the regime to deliver on its promises of reforming the political system”. New elections were held. That election delivered a supermajority to the Awami League.

When Hasina had been in opposition, she had strongly favoured the CTG mechanism. Now she abolished it:

“Both (last elections) were held under the administration of the Awami League government after Hasina unilaterally abolished a constitutional provision that mandated the formation of a non-party caretaker government to oversee elections. This system, first tried successfully in 1991 as Bangladesh transitioned out of military rule, was written into the constitution in 1996 after Hasina, then in the opposition, herself mounted a two-year agitation demanding it. The amendment that abolished the caretaker system caused enormous controversy, and was never put to a referendum as required under the constitution at the time. Hasina, using her massive majority in parliament, also removed the referendum requirement for constitutional changes by the same amendment. She has been in power ever since.”                                                              Kamal Ahmed; “In Bangladesh’s sham election, the only real contest is geopolitical”; Himal South Asian 28 Dec 2023

Increasingly any rights to voicing criticism were muzzled:

“The Awami League government also passed the draconian Digital Security Act, which has been used to silence its critics and has now been replaced with the no-less-severe Cyber Security Act. Along this slide towards authoritarianism, officials in Hasina’s government have been implicated in several scams and instances of corruption. All of this has inflamed a citizenry that has been battling high inflation and high rates of unemployment. The quota protests became a turning point and people came out to express their unhappiness with their government even in the face of a bloody reprisal.”
Riaz Ali; “State of Southasia #07: Ali Riaz on how Bangladesh’s mass protests have already transformed the country“; Himal 29 Jul 2024

Now the new Prime Minister pushed for more power. In 2009, the AL, led by Sheikh Hasina:

“chose a path toward the gradual decline of democracy, concentration of power in the hands of Prime Minister Sheikh Hasina, a legislature without an opposition worthy of its name, decimation of civil society, a partisan civil
administration and a compromised judiciary… Aided by a “foreign actor”.
Ali Riaz; “Pathways of Autocratization The Tumultuous Journey of Bangladeshi Politics”; 2023, London, Routledge p.29

This external actor supporting Hasina – referred to by Ali Riaz – was India:

“In his memoir, then Indian External Affairs Minister Pranab Mukherjee (who later became the President) informs that he had provided assurance to then military chief General Moin U Ahmed in 2008 that he (Mukharjee) would ensure General Moin’s safety after Hasina’s return to power (Mukharjee 2017, 114–115). Within a year, India’s security concern that Bangladesh provides a safe haven for the Northeast Indian insurgents was addressed by the Bangladesh government. Support for these insurgents ceased, and many leaders were arrested and handed over to India (Rahman 2016, 382). Various Western countries, particularly the United States, were supportive of the warm relationship, as India was the linchpin of US South Asia policy. Post-9/11 security cooperation with India was enhanced, as was economic cooperation” Ali Riaz; “Pathways of Autocratization The Tumultuous Journey of Bangladeshi Politics”; 2023, London, Routledge p. 63

The subsequent elections were completely corrupt and marked by violent attacks on both the BNP activists and other opponents:

“Most of the parties not allied with the Awami League have been demanding restoration of the caretaker system. This led them to boycott the 2014 parliamentary election, when Hasina’s party secured its second consecutive term by winning more than half of seats uncontested. … she initially promised to hold another election as soon as an amicable solution to the opposition’s grievances could be agreed. But she backtracked quickly from this pledge after India and China gave her their strong endorsement, in contrast to the discomfort expressed by other international powers.
In 2018, despite the Awami League’s refusal to budge on a caretaker government, the BNP and other opposition groups decided to take part in the election after … Hasina pledged full neutrality and fairness in conducting the vote. But thousands of opposition activists were soon arrested or detained, opposition parties were denied permission to hold meetings, and there were reports of election agents being abducted and opposition candidates being confined at home. In the end, widespread ballot-stuffing aided by civil servants and the police helped the Awami League and its allies win 293 out of 300 seats. “
Kamal Ahmed; “In Bangladesh’s sham election, the only real contest is geopolitical”; Himal South Asian 28 Dec 2023

Increasing attempts of the USA to restrain the Hasina Regime

Even in 2014, the USA tried to moderate the Indian position of unstinting support for the AL’s and Hasina’s increasing repressions. But its’ concerns were brushed off by India. Foreign Secretary of India Sujatha Singh “arm-twisted” the Jatiya Party’s leader Ershad to stand as a token opposition:

“In 2013, with the election approaching, the opposition parties took a firm position that they would boycott the election unless the caretaker government system was restored. The US administration, EU, United Nations, and other international actors were concerned that such a non-inclusive election would be detrimental to the democratic process. Yet, India did not budge. It rebuffed the US’s move, particularly by the US Ambassador to Dhaka Dan Mozena. The External Affairs Minister of India, Salman Khurshid, suggested the US should be viewing the Bangladesh situation through India’s prism. He said, “India’s understanding of Bangladesh will help the US” and “while the US is at some distance from Bangladesh, India is right next to it” (Dikshit 2013). It is against this background that Indian Foreign Secretary Sujatha
Singh made a 21-hour trip to Dhaka on 4 December 2014. She was quite unequivocal that “India will neither broker a deal nor mediate between the opposition
BNP and the ruling AL” (The Telegraph Online 2013). Meanwhile, she arm-twisted the Jatiya Party led by H.M.Ershad, to join the election. Singh met General H M Ershad, the leader of the Jatiya Party (JP), and reportedly “convinced” him to join the poll.”
Riaz A, Ibid; p.63

Somewhat conveniently for the Awami League, Ershad was then “hospitalised”:

“Soon after the meeting, he was taken to the hospital by the elite police force Rapid Action Battalion (RAB). JP was the only opposition party to join the poll. An election boycotted by the remainder of the opposition took place, in which more than half of the parliament members were elected without opposition and without casting a single vote. India was quick to congratulate Sheikh Hasina and her party on their victory. The unequivocal support amounted to a direct intervention and took place despite warnings that democracy was being eroded under the Hasina regime.”
Riaz A, Ibid; p.64

After the 2014 Awami League electoral fraudulent victory, the other parties continued to be suppressed and never recovered:

“The center-right Bangladesh Nationalist Party (BNP) never quite recovered from its boycott of the 2014 election, and its party chair, Begum Khaleda Zia, was imprisoned in 2018 on corruption charges. Zia was granted bail on certain conditions through a government executive order in 2020. Although the government extended the bail for the fifth time in March 2022, BNP leadership still complains about repression. The other center-right party, Jatiya Party (JP), struggles to maintain its role as the main opposition party, holding only 26 out of 350 parliamentary seats. The far-right Bangladesh Jamaat-e-Islami (BJI) lost its registration status due to the leadership’s war crimes in the 1971 liberation war. Another far-right party, Islami Andolan Bangladesh (IAB), captured third place in the 2018 parliamentary election, but it failed to secure a single seat in parliament.”
Tahmina Rahman; “From Revolutionaries to Visionless Parties: Leftist Politics in Bangladesh”; September 6, 2022; Carnegie Endowment Fund.

Developing even deeper dependency on India

But the cosy relationship between the AL and India was becoming complicated and extremely resented. On the backdrop of the increasing unhappiness of Bangladeshi national capitalists, came two specific issues – water and security on the Indian border:

“The relationship between Bangladesh and India was increasingly
becoming lopsided as legitimate demands of the former were ignored by the
latter, although Dhaka was meeting New Delhi’s demands. Two key issues,
the sharing of water from common rivers and India’s border security forces’
disproportionate use of lethal force on the border, were discussed with no substantive progress. The trade deficit continued to rise in favor of India. The relationship was officially repeatedly described as “a golden era” (Dhaka Tribune 2017; Law 2018), but observers continued to question whether Bangladesh had conceded more than what it received from India (Kabir 2015).”
Riaz A, Ibid; p.63

The “security issue” was the refugee influx into Bangladesh of the Rohinga migrants from Myanmar’s persecution. They threatened to flood into India as well. In addition there was an increasingly strident anti-Muslim position in India which fuelled concerns in Bangladesh. As the climate became increasingly unstable, that further concerned the USA.

Meanwhile in India there was a change of government in Delhi from the Indian National Congress to the BJP. But this did not alter the support given to the Awami League. While European and Asian electoral observers began to withdraw support for the electoral process in Bangladesh, Indian increased support for the AL:

“Following four years, the Bangladesh-India relationship became closer
despite the change of guard in New Delhi from the INC to the Bharatiya
Janata Party (BJP)… Well, before the 2018 electoral process began, there were signs that the Awami League government would not risk a free election… all symptoms of an autocracy became evident. Bureaucratic obstructions to the deployment of international observers were insurmountable, forcing the Asian Network for Free Elections (ANFREL) to abandon its plan to send observers. The European Union (EU) also refrained from sending its team. In 2018, although it was evident to the Indian establishment that the Awami League had already “assiduously subverted democratic norms and institutions” and that in a fair election “the Awami League will be reduced to an embarrassing minority in the next Parliament” (Chakravarti 2018), India’s support for the Awami League remained unflinching. On the other hand, Bangladesh’s ruling AL has become so dependent on India that Foreign Minister AK Abdul Momen has said that he has made requests to India to
ensure the survival of the Hasina regime at any cost (The Business Standard
2022).”                                                                                                                                                                                                          Riaz A, Ibid; p.64

The alienation between the USA and the Awami League grows

We saw above that the USA was already trying to restrain Hasina’s government in 2014. That wish re-surfaced in 2024 with the new elections. Hasina now was increasingly using the Indian government to act as a bulwark against the USA actions against her own government:

“The 2024 election seems set in many ways to be a rerun of the old drama, with many of the actors repeating the same roles and parts. As early as in 2022, US pressure rattled Hasina’s government so much that her foreign minister, A K Abdul Momen, sought New Delhi’s help to lobby in favour of a continued Awami League government. Delhi has done this in two ways. First, it has been opposing, through public statements, any other country making statements or taking measures that might bolster Hasina’s opponents. Second, it has raised the issue at the highest bilateral levels with the United States, explaining how continuity of the current regime would help India, an increasingly close ally of Washington DC, on both the security and economic fronts.
The India–Bangladesh relationship has hit new heights in almost all respects over Hasina’s tenure in Dhaka and Narendra Modi’s decade in power in New Delhi. Bilateral trade has taken an impressive leap – Indian exports to Bangladesh have tripled, though the balance of trade has also widened in India’s favour. Cooperation now even extends to Bangladesh procuring arms from India, after decades of China dominating its defence imports.
India’s media and analysts, too, have been relaying their government’s narrative, and criticising the United States for calling for a free, fair and democratic election in Bangladesh. They have termed this an unwarranted intervention in another country’s affairs – conveniently forgetting how Modi urged US voters to pick Donald Trump over Joe Biden in the 2020 US presidential election with the slogan “Abki baar, Trump sarkaar”.
Kamal Ahmed; “In Bangladesh’s sham election, the only real contest is geopolitical”; Himal South Asian 28 Dec 2023

A tacit agreement to share Bangladesh as a joint neo-colony became evident from India and China – a reflection of “multipolarity”

Despite this deepening dependency on India, at the very same time Bangaldesh’s government has been developing a co-dependency on China.

Despite its’ own problems with border issues and China, surprisingly India did not take a contrary stand.

We interpret this to mean a secret agreement was made to share the spoils of Bangladesh between Inda and China. Naturally this fits into the framework of the so-called multipolar ambitions of BRICS.

China’s Bay of Bengal strategy and a developing confrontation with the USA

Map 1 From Razon Chandra Saha; “The role of Chittagong Port to support MSR in providing maritime transport facilities through intermodal freight transportation system in Asia”; Maritime Technology and Research 2021; 3(1): 71-88; citing Google. (2020a). Seaports in the Bay of Bengal. Retrieved from https://www.google.com/maps/ @15.4538263,84.8962593,5z

The map shows how vulnerable supply lines might be for China. It should first be noted that the Straits of Malucca between Malysia and Indonesia is the route by which the bulk of oil and petroleum for China travels. This poses a dilemma for China:

“The vulnerability of China’ s oil supply through the Strait of Malacca was highlighted when former Chinese President Hu Jintao termed it as the ‘ Malacca Dilemma’ . In other words, the steady supply of oil through sea lanes to China was contingent on the narrow Strait of Malacca to being open and free for navigation.”
Anasua Basu Ray Chaudhury & Pratnashree Basu (2016) Meeting
with China in the Bay of Bengal, Journal of the Indian Ocean Region, 12:2, 143-160.

The concept of the “Maritime Silk Road’ has been therefore heavily promoted since October 2013, by China’s President Xi Jinping (Mohd Aminul Karim; “China’s Proposed Maritime Silk Road: Challenges and Opportunities with Special Reference to the Bay of Bengal Region; Pacific Focus, Vol. 30, No. 3 (December 2015), 297–319)

Unsurprisingly the USA is firmly interested in its own presence in these areas:

“The Bay of Bengal is a key maritime zone of interest and influence for the U.S. Navy to promote regional security and rules based order through campaigning. The Bay is a key geographic crossroads between the Indian Ocean and the Pacific Ocean through which extensive maritime traffic transits.”
Mohammad Rubaiyat Rahman; “The Bay of Bengal Gray Zone: U.S. Navy Roles In Integrated Campaigning”; Center for International Maritime Security November 14, 2023

As the BRICS attempt at fostering a “multi-polarity” of world powers developed, this has enabled China to tie Bangladesh into significant military and naval links:

“China and Bangladesh have strong economic ties. Beijing has invested over $25 billion in various projects in Bangladesh, the second-highest in a South Asian country after Pakistan. It has played a significant role in building bridges, roads, railway tracks, airports, and power plants in Bangladesh. Bilateral trade grew from $3.3 billion in 2009-10 to over $20 billion in 2021-22. Importantly, a broad array of products from Bangladesh enjoys zero tariffs in China.
In addition, China has emerged as an important military ally of Bangladesh. It provided the Bangladesh Navy with two refurbished submarines in 2016 at a discounted price of $205 million. Moreover, Bangladesh’s Prime Minister Sheikh Hasina inaugurated a $1.21- billion China-built submarine base last year. Located at Cox Bazaar off the Bay of Bengal coast, the base can house six submarines and eight warships simultaneously. China’s bolstered relationship with Bangladesh, especially in naval cooperation, stems from the 2002 Defense Cooperation Agreement, covering military training and defense supplies.”
Saqlain Rizve; “China-Bangladesh Military Exercises Signal Shifting Geopolitical Landscape”; The Diplomat May 6, 2024

Thus nowadays the Bay of Bengal cannot be discounted from the evolving power struggles between China and the USA. Most of the attention is directed on the South China Seas. But the Bay of Bengal is now a critical area as well.

“Monish Tourangbam, honorary director at the Kalinga Institute of Indo-Pacific Studies (KIIPS), “Bangladesh is the most crucial node in the emerging geopolitics of the Bay of Bengal, which is not only a theater of India-China power dynamics but also that of the U.S.-China competition in the broader Indo-Pacific.”
He emphasized that “the China-Bangladesh joint military exercise, which will reportedly focus on counter-terrorism scenarios, will not rattle New Delhi immediately. However, India has a critical role in building a multipolar South Asia that believes in a consultative partnership with its neighbors amid China’s growing influence in the region.”
Saqlain Rizve; Ibid; The Diplomat May 6, 2024

“China has also built closer relations with Bangladesh under Hasina, and has been voicing similar views to India’s in relation to the upcoming election. This is a rare point of agreement for New Delhi and Beijing, which are otherwise bitter regional rivals. China began building a special relationship with Hasina by extending a much-needed line of credit for the construction of the Padma Bridge, a long-awaited and badly needed piece of infrastructure. This came at a crucial moment, when the World Bank, the Asian Development Bank and the Islamic Development Bank pulled their financing commitments for the project alleging corruption. Since then, China has also been enthusiastically financing a number of other infrastructure “mega projects”. During a state visit in 2016, the Chinese president, Xi Jinping, committed USD 20 billion in loans for key projects, in addition to deals worth more than USD 13 billion signed between Chinese and Bangladeshi firms. China’s exports to Bangladesh have reached an annual value of over USD 24 billion, though its imports from the country remain at just around USD 1 billion. “
Kamal Ahmed; “In Bangladesh’s sham election, the only real contest is geopolitical”; Himal South Asian 28 Dec 2023

“Bangladesh ordered its first two submarines from China in 2013 for the bargain price of just $203 million. Both vessels are Type 035G diesel-electric attack submarines, a Ming-class variant first commissioned into the PLA (Peoples Liberation Army) Navy (PLAN) in 1990. China refitted and upgraded the two vessels before handing them over to Bangladesh in 2016, but their capabilities remain far behind modern attack submarines fielded by today’s leading navies. Just one year after handing over the vessels, the giant Chinese state-owned defense contractor Poly Technologies secured a $1.2 billion contract with Bangladesh to build a new submarine support facility on the country’s southeastern coast… Work on the BNS Sheikh Hasina Naval Base kicked off in the summer of 2018… Bangladesh has sought to balance its geopolitical relationships with both India and China. Even as it courts military support from China, the Bangladeshi military also conducts annual bilateral exercises with the Indian military, including most recently in October 2023. Nevertheless, as China endeavors to strengthen ties with Bangladesh, the PLAN may find it an increasingly receptive partner in the Bay of Bengal.”
Matthew P. Funaiole et al; Ibid; Center for Strategic and International Studies (CSIS); November 17, 2023

China has been also cultivated bases along other bordering areas of the Bay of Bengal:

“Further south along the bay’s coast, China appears to be pursuing a similar strategy in Myanmar. In 2021, it transferred a Type 035B (Ming-class) submarine to the Myanmar navy in a sign of support to the embattled military junta.” Matthew P. Funaiole et al; Ibid; Center for Strategic and International Studies (CSIS); November 17, 2023

It is possible that a broader canvas is in play, involving both the anti-Myanmar forces and Pakistan spy agencies in tandem with the USA:

“Sino-Myanmar bilateral relations are very warm, in terms of economic and military cooperation. China’s influence in Myanmar is further evident by the Rohingya crisis. China considers Rohingya Muslims as its potential threat. The China-backed military junta in Myanmar is facing widespread civil protests, armed resistance from ethnic insurgent groups, and civil defense forces backed by the National United Government(NUG). NUG has acknowledged and accepted the arms struggle of the Arakan Rohingya Salvation Army (ARSA), which has a deep-rooted connection with the ISI( Pakistani espionage agency). Both NUG and ISI have strategic ties with the US. Hasina’s government stance on ARSA may not align with US expectations.”
M A Hossain; “U.S. Strategic Engagement in the Bay of Bengal: Navigating
Superpower Rivalry”; Modern Diplomacy; October 2, 2023

The stage was set for the re-entry of the USA into the rapidly developing Chinese presence in the Bay of Bengal. It is in this background context that the final forced eviction of Sheikh Hasmina has to be viewed.

But as we moved closer to this final stage, the Bangladeshi Awami League kow-towing to India became even more flagrant, and likely this set ablaze the final series of matches.

2023 Deals favouring the Modi-Adani alliance

Throughout the period from 2005-2024, the amount of trade and dependency on India outweighed other countries. Although China was also heavily involved, Hasina made clear preferences for trade and links with India. This recently provoked further controversy as Hasina signed deals on power, heavily favouring the Indian business titan Adani.

Gautam Adani has been the main capitalist backing Narendra Modi Prime Minister of India. His financial dealings were largely hidden from view, while he built a vast empire.

“The data underlines how funds of unclear provenance have helped Adani build his sprawling group as he expanded a trading and plastics operation into an infrastructure giant while aligning himself with Prime Minister Narendra Modi’s development agenda. The full extent of money flows from connected offshore entities into Adani Group is likely to be even higher given FDI data only captures a portion of overseas investment.”                                                                                   Financial Times March 22, 2023.

“Although Hasina had an excellent relationship with China, too, she managed to convey to India that its interests came first. She had recently said, for example, that she preferred India over China for a $1bn river development project. However, what really tightened the relationship between India and Bangladesh was a deal struck between Hasina’s government and the Indian Adani Group in the power sector. The agreement would see Bangladesh receive coal-based power from a $1.7bn plant in Jharkhand, India. But the deal generated unease within the opposition, as Bangladesh would be paying higher tariffs than what it would pay for other sources. Moreover, there was disquiet over the deal as any agreement with Adani was also seen to earn favour with Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi.
“It was not a secret to the AL [Awami League] that Adani was closely tied with Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi, and a business deal that favours Adani would ultimately bring political favour from Modi to [the] AL government,” Saimum Parvez, research fellow of the department of political science of Vrije University in Brussels, told Al Jazeera in 2023.”
“What does Sheikh Hasina’s resignation mean for India-Bangladesh relations? Al Jazeera 16.08.24,

The deal is severely criticised for being “lop-sided”:

“Built by Adani Power Ltd – India’s largest private power company founded by Gautam Adani – the $1.7bn Godda plant in India’s Jharkhand state has drawn flak in Dhaka for the “lopsided nature” of the power purchase agreement (PPA) that a number of experts say has favoured the Indian multibillionaire on several fronts…
Under the agreement, Dhaka will pay significantly higher prices – in comparison to what it pays for its other coal-based power – for lower-grade coal. That coal will be supplied from an Adani-owned mine in Australia to an Adani-owned port in India from where it will get shipped to the Godda plant, which is in a coal-mining state. Apart from that, experts also point out that Bangladesh is not getting the benefit of the tax exemption which Adani Power Ltd got when its Godda plant was declared a Special Economic Zone (SEZ) – the exemption should have been passed on to Bangladesh.
In New Delhi, critics have questioned the whole point of the Modi government going the extra mile to ensure “multiple tax benefits” for a private coal plant that will supply electricity to another country at the cost of its own environment and people.
B D Rahmatullah, a former director general of Bangladesh’s power regulator put it bluntly.
“There are four stakeholders of this plant – people of these two countries, the Bangladesh government and Adani Power,” he told Al Jazeera, “From what I see, only one will be benefitted from it: Adani.”
Faisal Mahmud, Bangladesh in hot seat over Adani’s power deal”: 30 March 2024; Al-Jazeera;

“The only power plant in India contracted to export its entire output to Bangladesh, but now allowed to sell in India, accounts for a bulk of $ 1 billion of power exports in 2023-24. With electricity exports surging, power accounted for 9.3 per cent or over $1 billion of India’s total exports ($11 billion) to Bangladesh in 2023-24, up from a little over 3 per cent two years ago ($498 million). Following uncertainty in Bangladesh after Prime Minister Sheikh Hasina fled Dhaka to India, a new interim government is in place. But New Delhi recently amended its power export rules to derisk the only plant, belonging to the Adani Group, in India that is currently contracted to export its entire output from its 1,600 MW (mega watt) plant in Jharkhand to Bangladesh.”
Hariskishan Sharma; “In $1-billion exports to Bangladesh, Adani power unit contributed most”; Indian Express August 17, 2024.

The 2024 Elections

All these elements described up to now in this section came together. Together they culminated in the tumultuous exit Sheikh Hasina’s flight from the Bangladeshi capital. Already the USA pressure was mounting by May 2023:

“By May 2023, the U.S. had imposed visa restrictions on several Bangladeshi individuals, including members of the ruling Awami League, signalling discontent with Hasina’s government. This was followed by a series of diplomatic engagements throughout the year, further intensifying the pressure on Dhaka.”
Geeta Mohan “India Today; 14th August 2024

But now an even greater intensity of diplomatic battling took place.

First – before the election – there were furious background battles where the USA was insisting that Hsina should either hold “fair elections“ or be dismissed from power. Against them stood both India and China – defending Shaik Hasina and refusing to back down:

“The Bangladesh government’s decision to request a $5 billion soft loan from China for budget support to replenish foreign currency reserves and pay import bills… should not come as a surprise considering the country’s ongoing economic crisis. … Loans and investments from China, particularly the former, come with a political agenda of increasing its sphere of influence. China’s assertive policy toward South Asia, using soft power in the past decade, is easily discernable. Bangladesh’s decision to lean on China shows that Beijing is making further inroads in the country and the region.
It is worth noting that the decision came within months of the 2024 election. In the run-up to the election, there were discussions about a geopolitical tug-of-war between China and the United States. China extended unwavering support to the Sheikh Hasina government, while the U.S. insisted on a free, fair, and inclusive election. Some analysts argued that the U.S. policy supporting democracy in Bangladesh would backfire as it would prompt Hasina to move closer to China.
India, which has provided unqualified support to Prime Minister Hasina since 2009, insisted that the U.S. should back off to prevent Hasina’s potential slide to China. The United States, in the wake of the engineered election of January 7, 2024, apparently stepped back. Ostensibly, the Indian argument was that it would be able to contain the Chinese influence on the Hasina regime although the record of the past decade was not indicating any success.
China’s influence on Bangladesh increased remarkably after 2009 when the relationship between India and Bangladesh has been described as a “golden era.” This development juxtaposed with the upcoming joint military exercise of Bangladesh and China, and the possibility of Chinese involvement in the Teesta project, indicates that the geopolitical great game in Bangladesh will be more intense.
Ali Riaz, “Why Is Bangladesh Seeking a $5 Billion Soft Loan From China?
“The Diplomat May 9, 2024

USA and European Union pressure was repeatedly put on the AL by the USA to ensure “fair elections”. But this did not happen, and a “farce” of an election gave Hasina the victory on 7 January 2024 – with the BNP having boycotted:

“On 7 January, Bangladesh’s prime minister, Sheikh Hasina, is set to claim re-election in what some observers have called “staged polling”, the opposition Bangladesh Nationalist Party (BNP) has termed a “dummy election” and The Economist has described as a “farce”. Desperate to avoid a genuine democratic exercise, Hasina’s government has preemptively removed its only real challenger from the field. More than twenty thousand BNP activists are behind bars, as are key BNP leaders, and the opposition party has decided to boycott the election rather than contest an unfair vote.
The farce is best explained with the facts. For the 300 directly elected seats in Bangladesh’s parliament, the ruling Awami League has official nominees in 263 constituencies. In addition, it also has 269 party members standing as “independent” candidates, meaning there are two or sometimes even more Awami League candidates in many places – and that’s not counting the candidates of other parties allied to the Awami League under the Moha-joth, or Grand Alliance.”
Kamal Ahmed; “In Bangladesh’s sham election, the only real contest is geopolitical”; Himal South Asian 28 Dec 2023

Secondly the USA demanded concessions from Hasina to secure a base in the Bay of Bengal to counter China. The site was to be St. Martin’s island – but Hasian refused to allow this.

“Bangladesh’s strategic position between India and China has always been a delicate balancing act. Hasina’s growing ties with China, particularly through the Belt and Road Initiative, raised concerns in Washington. Her refusal to entertain the idea of a U.S. naval base on St. Martin’s Island further strained relations with the U.S., leading to accusations of political manipulation by external forces.”
Geeta Mohan “India Today; 14th August 2024

“This unrest ultimately became the catalyst for her downfall. At the centre of this political storm is St. Martin’s Island, a small but strategically significant landmass in the Bay of Bengal. This three-square-kilometre stretch has long been a point of interest, particularly for the United States. Hasina had previously accused the U.S. of pressuring Bangladesh to allow the establishment of a naval base on the island. The significance of this island cannot be understated, as it could provide a crucial foothold in the region, countering Chinese influence.”
Geeta Mohan “Did the US bring down Sheikh Hasina’s govt in Bangladesh?“ India Today; 14th August 2024

“Former Prime Minister of Bangladesh Sheikh Hasina who is currently in India has accused the USA of ousting her from power for not handing over of Saint Martin Island that would have enabled them to have “sway over the Bay of Bengal” and cautioned Bangladeshi nationals not to get manipulated by radicals.”
Dipanjan Roy Chaudhury; “Sheikh Hasina alleges US role in ouster, says could’ve remained in power if she surrendered sovereignty of Saint Martin Island”; August 11 2024 Economic Times;

See Map 2  : Location of St Martin’s Island in Bay of Bengal

“Former Prime Minister of Bangladesh Sheikh Hasina who is currently in India has accused the USA of ousting her from power for not handing over of Saint Martin Island that would have enabled them to have “sway over the Bay of Bengal” and cautioned Bangladeshi nationals not to get manipulated by radicals.”
Dipanjan Roy Chaudhury; “Sheikh Hasina alleges US role in ouster, says could’ve remained in power if she surrendered sovereignty of Saint Martin Island”; August 11 2024 Economic Times;

By “radicals” Hasina appears to have meant the BNP – who were being by now US Ambassador to Bangladesh Peter Haas .

He “favoured the Bangladesh Nationalist Party (BNP), one of the Awami leaders alleged”. Jannatul Naym Pieal, “The Bad Blood Between Sheikh Hasina and the US“;
The Diplomat’; August 13, 2024

Simultaneously India had been flooding diplomatic channels warning against the BNP:

“In the months leading up to the January election, divisions emerged within the U.S. government over how to handle Bangladesh. Some in the U.S. State Department, including then-Ambassador Peter Haas and other embassy officials, argued for a tougher stance against Hasina,… “The U.S. has built its relationship with India and has this tendency to defer to its wishes in the region, and probably nowhere was that more evident than Bangladesh,” said Jon Danilowicz, a retired U.S. diplomat who served as deputy chief of mission in Dhaka. .. Aside from the United States, India had simultaneously warned other Western governments about the dangers of the opposition Bangladeshi Nationalist Party (BNP) returning to power. “It was intense,” recalled an official from a Western country allied with the United States. “They started briefing Western governments that Bangladesh could become the next Afghanistan, that the BNP could lead to instability, violence and terror.”
Gerry Shih, Ellen Nakashima, John Hudson, “India pressed U.S. to go easy on Bangladeshi leader before her ouster, officials say” Washington Post August 15 2024

Of course the USA has denied having ambitions in St Martin’s Island:

“The conversation surrounding Saint Martin’s Island, located in the northeastern part of Bay of Bengal, is also nothing new.
In a press conference at Ganabhaban in January last year, Hasina claimed that her party, the Awami League, did not seek to come to power by selling any national resources. In contrast, she alleged that the opposition BNP wanted to gain power by promising to sell Saint Martin’s Island.
“The BNP came to power in 2001 by giving an undertaking to sell gas. Now they want to sell the country. They want to come to power by selling Saint Martin’s Island,” Hasina said.
The United States, however, has always declined such claims. Miller, the State Department spokesperson, asserted in June last year that the United States has never engaged in any discussions regarding taking control of the island, nor had any intention to do so.
It was also widely speculated that the United States sought Saint Martin’s Island to build an air base and that Bangladesh’s potential participation in the Quadrilateral Security Dialogue (Quad) – a strategic Indo-Pacific alliance consisting of Australia, India, Japan, and the United States – was a factor in this interest.
Michael Kugelman, the deputy director and senior associate for South Asia at the Washington-based Wilson Center, claimed otherwise in an interview with the Bangladeshi daily The Daily Star in March 2022.”
Jannatul Naym Pieal, “The Bad Blood Between Sheikh Hasina and the US“; Ibid.

Hasina claimed that threats of assassination were being orchestrated by the USA against her;

“Interestingly, Hasina, only two months ago, had claimed that “conspiracies” were being hatched to topple her government and that she may be assassinated just like her father and independence hero Sheikh Mujibur Rahman.”
“The US Connection To Sheikh Hasina’s Ouster From Bangladesh”; Times Now Digital; 13th August 2024

Thirdly Concrete steps as further warning shots against Bangladesh were fired. The withdrawal of visa access to the USA affected Bangladesh business. Hasina began to be even more vocal about USA interference than she had been till then:

“Led by the United States, some Western nations have been insisting that Bangladesh hold an inclusive and democratic election. In September, the US government announced that it was imposing visa restrictions on “Bangladeshi individuals responsible for, or complicit in, undermining the democratic election process in Bangladesh” – and there are fears of stronger sanctions to follow. The reason for such pressure was to avoid a repetition of Bangladesh’s two last elections, both widely criticised as neither free nor fair.“
Kamal Ahmed; “In Bangladesh’s sham election, the only real contest is geopolitical”; Himal South Asian 28 Dec 2023

“Businesses in Bangladesh and companies abroad that deal with the country have already raised the alarm about possible post-election economic sanctions similar to what the United States has imposed on Zimbabwe. Hasina herself has warned of an alleged plot by the BNP and some foreign powers to engineer a famine. “
Kamal Ahmed; “In Bangladesh’s sham election, the only real contest is geopolitical”; Himal South Asian 28 Dec 2023

Fourthly the USA finally decided that Hasina simply had to be removed forcibly. They made the appririate manoevers therefore.

This was predicted not only by Hasina, but also by other forces hostile to the USA:

“U.S. rivals have taken careful note of the accusations emanating from Bangladesh. On December 15, 2023, Russian Foreign Ministry spokeswoman Maria Zakharova predicted at a press briefing that if Sheikh Hasina were to come to power in the upcoming election, the United States would use all its resources to overthrow her government.
“Key industries may come under attack, as well as a number of officials who will be accused without evidence of obstructing the democratic will of citizens in the upcoming parliamentary elections on January 7, 2024,” Zakharova said.
“If the results of the people’s will are not satisfactory to the United States, attempts to further destabilize the situation in Bangladesh along the lines of the ‘Arab Spring’ are likely,” she added.”
Jannatul Naym Pieal, “The Bad Blood Between Sheikh Hasina and the US“;
The Diplomat’; August 13, 2024

The USA now met with the leading factions in the army who would be turn-coats:

“The chronology of events leading up to Hasina’s ouster suggests a pattern of escalating U.S. involvement in Bangladesh’s internal affairs. In January 2023, Donald Lu, then U.S. Assistant Secretary of State for South and Central Asian Affairs, visited Dhaka, meeting with various human rights advocates and officials. Notably, his meeting with Bangladesh’s Chief of General Staff, Lt Gen Waqar Uz Zaman, raised eyebrows, particularly given the role of the military in Hasina’s eventual ouster.”
Geeta Mohan “India Today; 14th August 2024

The USA and the BNP began to ensure a “well crafted strategy” to mobilise youth. An electronic campian was run to flood media with anti-Hasina messaging:

“The protests in Bangladesh that ended 15-year rule of Sheikh Hasina were part of a well-crafted strategy run by “foreign powers”, Times Now has learnt. Interestingly, Hasina, only two months ago, had claimed that “conspiracies” were being hatched to topple her government and that she may be assassinated just like her father and independence hero Sheikh Mujibur Rahman.”
“The US Connection To Sheikh Hasina’s Ouster From Bangladesh”; Times Now Digital; 13th August 2024

“It has now emerged that social media accounts of opposition parties were being used from abroad to fuel public anger against her government. These included the Bangladeshi National Party (BNP), the main rival of Sheikh Hasina’s Awami League party, whose various social media accounts of BNP – including the party’s student wing and media cell accounts – were operated from the US and Malaysia.
Several posts related to the protests by BNP’s student wing put out in the past were amplified from the US and made viral worldwide.
According to a report accessed by Times Now, BNP’s main Facebook account is being operated by 62 admins from Bangladesh, as well as from countries like the US (02), England (02), Australia, Malaysia, and the UAE.
On the other hand, all 15 admins of Sheikh Hasina’s Awami League party’s Facebook account operate from Bangladesh.”
“The US Connection To Sheikh Hasina’s Ouster From Bangladesh”; Times Now Digital; 13th August 2024

By August 25, a coalition of “left-wing” political parties in the “Left Democratic Alliance (LDA)” – led by the BNP – had called for strikes across Bangladesh over increased essential commodity prices, including fuel and fertilizers.

“Sheikh Hasina fled to India in a C-130 military transport aircraft of the Bangladesh Air Force as thousands of protesters marched towards her official residence on Monday. She is currently in a safehouse under the protection of Indian intelligence agencies. She is accompanied by her sister Sheikh Rehana.
In a video interview with German broadcaster Deutsche Welle, her son Sajeeb Wazed Joy said his mother is going to stay in Delhi “for a little while”.
Hasina’s daughter Saima Wazed is World Health Organisation’s Regional Director for the South-East Asia Region, which has its headquarters in New Delhi.
Hasina’s plan to seek asylum in UK has hit a roadblock following the UK’s hesitation to provide her refuge. Rehana’s daughter Tulip Siddiq is a member of the British Parliament.Hasina is now known to be considering several options including the United Arab Emirates, Belarus, Qatar, Saudi Arabia and Finland.”
“The US Connection To Sheikh Hasina’s Ouster From Bangladesh”; Times Now Digital; 13th August 2024

Fifthly:

With the increasing mass nature of the demonstrations, the army told Hasina they would not portect her or the government. Hasina was told to fly out using an army heloicopter, and flee to India. She finally did that. The message was delivered by the USA ‘nobbled’ Gen Waker-Uz-Zaman:

“Gen. Waker-Uz-Zaman then reached out to Hasina’s office, conveying to the prime minister that his soldiers would be unable to implement the lockdown she had called for, according to an Indian official briefed on the matter…
Tens of thousands of people had answered protest leaders’ call for a march to oust the leader, streaming into the heart of the city.
Hasina, who has ruled Bangladesh for 20 of the last 30 years, was elected to a fourth term leading the country of 170 million in January, after arresting thousands of opposition leaders and workers. That election was boycotted by her main rivals. Her iron-fisted grasp on power has been challenged since summer by protests triggered by a court ruling to reserve government jobs – heavily coveted amid high youth unemployment – for certain segments of the population. The decision was overturned but the demonstrations had quickly morphed into a movement to oust Hasina.”
“Bangladesh Army refused to suppress protest hours before Sheikh Hasina fled to India” Hindustan Times16/08/2024,

“When Hasina landed at an air force base near New Delhi, she was received by none other than Ajit Doval, the head of the Indian security establishment who oversees the external intelligence agency, the Research and Analysis Wing (RAW), which has been accused of meddling in the internal affairs of Bangladesh and other neighbouring countries…
There are already signs of frostiness between the two neighbours in the wake of Hasina’s resignation. Following her departure, non-essential staff from India’s high commission have been withdrawn from Bangladesh, according to local Indian media… The events that led to Hasina’s overthrow are perceived as a major setback for India, which shared strong diplomatic and trade relations with Dhaka under Hasina, and in whom India had invested a lot in recent years. Hasina had been a valuable ally that helped undo – to some extent – the security, logistical and political nightmare created by the 1947 partition of India and Pakistan.”
What does Sheikh Hasina’s resignation mean for India-Bangladesh relations? Al Jazeera 16.08.24,

Trade across the Indian-Bangladeshi border has been severely disrupted:

“Bangladesh is hugely dependent on India for raw cotton to supply its $47bn (exports) garment industry and Indian traders have said they expect to meet their export targets.
“We are aiming to export around [2.8 million] bales of cotton globally, out of which [2 million] bales will be sent to Bangladesh alone” in the 12 months ending in September, Atul Ganatra, president of the Cotton Association of India told Al Jazeera. One bale is 170kg (375 pounds).
Ajay Sahai, director general of the Federation of Indian Exports Organisations, told Al Jazeera that things are returning to normal across the border.
“The movement of trucks has resumed in some of the border areas and the situation is expected to turn normal soon. They [Bangladesh] are hugely dependent on us for daily food items and will start the imports soon as bringing the similar products from elsewhere will cost them dearly,” he pointed out.
Gurvinder Singh, “Indian exports, small businesses hit by Bangladesh unrest”; Al Jazeera 9 Aug 2024

Sixthly:

Almost simultaneously, the USA had its stooge ready to take over the government. It was to be Dr. Mohammed Yunus – an economist who had been a prior enemy of Hasina’s. He was flown in from his birth in an American university. Hasina had previously:

“repeatedly targeted Nobel laureate Dr. Mohammed Yunus who had to face several corruption cases at home. Ms Hasina has been on record accusing Mr Yunus of using his (western) elite connections to torpedo World Bank loan for the landmark bridge on the Padma which she has described among her government’s biggest achievements. It is well known that Prof. Yunus is a friend of former U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton and has well wishers in the western capitals. He had also debuted in politics in 2007 when the military had taken over till elections were held in 2008 that led to the return of Ms. Hasina to power.”
“Strained U.S.-Hasina ties in focus, as opposition calls for “long march” on Dhaka”; The Hindu 5 August 2024

“The involvement of Muhammad Yunus, a prominent figure with deep international connections, adds another layer to this complex situation. Leaked documents reveal Yunus’s discussions with various U.S. and international figures, highlighting his dissatisfaction with Hasina’s administration and his ongoing efforts to seek external support.”
Geeta Mohan “India Today; 14th August 2024; Ibid.

Many commentators ask the rhetorical question that was posed by Getta Mohan in “India Today” as below:
“

The fall of Sheikh Hasina’s government raises important questions about the future of Bangladesh’s political landscape. With an interim government now in place, led by Professor Yunus, the direction Bangladesh will take remains uncertain. Will the country shift towards a pro-American stance under the Bangladesh Nationalist Party (BNP), or will it maintain its traditional alliances with China and Pakistan? As the dust settles, it is clear that Bangladesh is at the centre of a larger geopolitical struggle, with major powers vying for influence in the region. The full implications of Sheikh Hasina’s ouster are yet to be seen, but one thing is certain: the balance of power in South Asia is in flux, and the coming months will be crucial in determining the future trajectory of the region.”
Geeta Mohan “India Today; 14th August 2024; Ibid.

The answer is clear – yes Bangladesh is now once more safely tied to the USA and its needs in the Bay of Bengal.

Conclusion

Only a Marxist-Leninist party in Bangladesh can resolve the country’s social ills, and properly place the country on a self-sufficient footing for the people by expropriating the bourgeoisie, and ensuring a meaningful industrialisation, and settling the land tenure problem by expropriation of landlords.

The resolution of the country’s ills, will also have to recognise – finally – the question of Bengali national status. That will involve a parallel movement within India’s portion of Bengal.

Again – only a Marxist-Leninist party can navigate these paths successfully with the working classes.