Which side will Bangladesh opt for in the India-Pakistan conflict?

SALEEM SAMAD

After the air strikes in Kashmir, when a full-scale conflict erupts between Pakistan and India, what should be the official stance of Bangladesh?

In 53 years, Bangladesh has not waged any war with its neighbors, Myanmar and India. Other South Asian countries are hundreds of kilometers away. Therefore, there has not been any issue with these countries.

No denying, Bangladesh-India, Bangladesh-Myanmar had engaged in border skirmishes and were quickly resolved at the border guards force level.

Bangladesh’s military is not a fighting force. Accordingly they are trained as a defensive force. The military is being prepared for peace-keeping missions under the United Nations deployment in countries troubled by militancy and rogue warlords.

Bangladesh, India, and Pakistan are significant troop contributors to UN peacekeeping missions, with Bangladesh and India consistently ranking among the top three globally.

Bangladesh has a strong history of contributing to UN peacekeeping, with 6,772 peacekeepers deployed in 58 missions across 40 countries since 1988. They are currently among the top troop-contributing nations.

A few days ago, The Economic Times, an Indian publication picked up an irrelevant content, from a social media post by a former Bangladesh military officer and close aide of Chief Adviser Muhammad Yunus has suggested that Dhaka should collaborate with China to occupy India’s northeastern states if it attacks Pakistan in response to the Pahalgam terror attack.

Moments later, the Interim Government distanced itself from Major General (R) ALM Fazlur Rahman's remarks on his social media account.

Distancing itself from the former army officer’s remarks, Bangladesh’s Ministry of Foreign Affairs in a media release said, “The comments do not reflect the position or policies of the government of Bangladesh, and as such, the government neither endorses nor supports such rhetoric in any form or manner.”

By the way, China has never fought a war except for border clashes with 14 neighbors that it shares a border with, including India. China has border disputes with Nepal, Bhutan and Pakistan in South Asia.

Abhijeet Sen wrote for Godi Media, india.com, that in the case of a conflict, it will be interesting to see how the neighboring countries of India, such as China, Sri Lanka, Nepal, Maldives, Bangladesh, and Bhutan, will react and choose sides.

Sen believe that Bangladesh would fish in murky water during the Indo-Pak conflict and will take an opportunity to invade North East India with the military support of mighty China. He is forgetting that the Seven Sisters have recently ended their decades-old separatist insurgency by several ethnic groups.

Bangladesh is literally a homogeneous nation having language nationalism as a binding factor. They possess a unique culture, tradition, heritage, and history. Most importantly, the majoritarian are Muslims.

The North East Indian states have hundreds of languages spoken by ethnic communities and are divided among Hindu, Christian, Buddhist, animist identity and a negligible Muslim population.

Bangladesh military adventurism in the Northeast would be suicidal in an unknown hill-forest terrain, which would jeopardize the geopolitical landscape of the region.

Nevertheless, the former ethnic combatants trained in military-grade weapons would violently resist the occupation.

The nation has witnessed brutality during the nine-month independence war in 1971. An estimated 3 million were martyred, one million became war refugees, 500,000 were victims of rape as weapon of war and another 3.5 million were internally displaced.

The social media are flooded with nationalistic rhetoric, which goes against the spirit of the liberation war of 1971. The post reminds the audience that Bangladesh is a pacifist nation and pursues a ‘no war’ policy.

Afroja Shoma, a teacher of Media Studies at a private university, posted on Facebook: We are tomatoes, not India/Pakistan lovers or haters.

Political activist Hasnat Quaiyum, a member of Rastra Songskar Andolon (Movement for Reforms of the Country), urged that Bangladesh, under any excuse, should get involved in the Indo-Pak war.

Nevertheless, the Bangladesh constitution outlines specific provisions regarding war and peace, emphasizing the renunciation of force in international relations and prioritizing peaceful resolutions.

Article 63 states that war cannot be declared or the country participate in war without the Parliament’s assent. Furthermore, Article 25 mandates that the state’s foreign policy be based on the principles of renouncing force, supporting the right of self-determination, and upholding the right of oppressed people to struggle against imperialism and colonialism.

However, Article 25 also supports international solidarity with oppressed peoples in their struggle against imperialism and colonialism.

Finally, the constitution implicitly prioritizes peaceful resolutions to conflicts, as evidenced by the renunciation of force and the emphasis on international solidarity and support for self-determination.

Bangladesh must prepare carefully for all possible scenarios while remaining steadfastly neutral and committed to peace. At the same time, it is in the collective interest of the region that India and Pakistan recognize the futility of further escalation and work toward resolving their differences through peaceful means. The future prosperity and stability of South Asia depend on it, writes Mir Mostafizur Rahaman in the Financial Express, published from Dhaka.

Bangladesh authorities, before speaking their mind, are feeling the pinch in their shoes. The Dhaka stock market witnessed a major decline this morning (7 May) due to the India-Pakistan war. The main index fell by more than 70 points in the first 10 minutes of trading. The index fell by more than 50 points in the first five minutes. The downward trend continues.

Ramisa Rob is the Geopolitical Insights Editor at The Daily Star, writes: Needless to say, both nations must urgently engage in de-escalation. But the political reality of de-escalating the current volatile situation between India and Pakistan is much easier said than done. There’s little precedent that the nuclear-armed nations would spike a hot war; however, the short- and long-term stability in South Asia after the deadly Pahalgam attacks appears bleaker than ever before.

First published in the Stratheia Policy Journal, Islamabad, Pakistan, on 8 May 2025

Saleem Samad is an award-winning independent journalist based in Bangladesh. A media rights defender with the Reporters Without Borders (@RSF_inter). Recipient of Ashoka Fellowship and Hellman-Hammett Award. He could be reached at saleemsamad@hotmail.com; Twitter (X): @saleemsamad

Bangladesh’s sudden claim of pre-1971 assets jolts Pakistan

SALEEM SAMAD

On the eve of Pakistan Foreign Secretary Amna Baloch’s official visit to the Foreign Office Consultation (FOC) in the capital, Dhaka, the Interim Government of Prof Muhammad Yunus has prepared US $4.52 billion in financial claims from Pakistan authorities, comprising its fair share of undivided Pakistan’s pre-1971 assets, including aid money, provident funds, and savings instruments.

The FOC meeting of diplomatic engagement, held after 15 years of hiatus, between Dhaka and Islamabad, seeks to normalize bilateral relations.

The relations between the two South Asian countries have never been warm since the independence of Bangladesh in 1971. Pakistan President Zulfiqar Ali Bhutto visited Bangladesh in 1974 with a promise to restore the tattered relations. In 1985, President Muhammad Zia-ul-Haq visited Bangladesh, Prime Minister Benazir Bhutto (1989) and President Pervez Musharraf (2002).

On the other hand, Bangladesh’s first President, Sheikh Mujibur Rahman, attended the Lahore OIC Summit in 1974. Later, President H.M. Ershad visited Islamabad (1986), and Prime Minister Sheikh Hasina visited Pakistan (1998). The relationship failed to attain heights. Instead, the ties got entangled in a stalemate, caused by mistrust, suspicion, and a lack of diplomatic understanding.

However, relations slightly normalized under the military regimes of General Ziaur Rahman (1976-1992) and General Hussain Muhammad Ershad (1993-1990) with Pakistan. Both the Generals graduated from Kakul Pakistan Military Academy and had several course mates who were at the helms of affairs in Rawalpindi military headquarters.

At the FOC meeting, Bangladesh formally demanded $4.52 billion from Pakistan as its share of pre-1971 assets, along with a formal apology for war crimes committed against Bangladeshis by the marauding Pakistan military, said Foreign Secretary Jashim Uddin.

Pakistan’s delegation, led by its Foreign Secretary, Amna Baloch, assured Bangladesh officials of “remaining engaged” on the issues of settling $4.52 billion owed to Bangladesh and making an apology for the Pakistani war crimes committed in 1971.

However, after the collapse of the autocrat Sheikh Hasina’s regime last August, Pakistani Prime Minister Shehbaz Sharif and Chief Adviser Prof Muhammad Yunus have twice had parleys – on the sidelines of the UN General Assembly in New York in September last year and at the D-8 summit in Cairo in December.

Since then, Bangladesh and Pakistan have eased the visa regime for both nationals of Pakistan and Bangladesh.

Both countries are showing keen interest in boosting trade, said an official who is privy to the FOC, adding that Pakistan also wants to enhance cultural exchanges and establish direct air connectivity.

Bangladesh High Commissioner to Pakistan Iqbal Hussain Khan told journalists in Dhaka that a Pakistani airline – Fly Jinnah has secured approval for direct flights between Dhaka and Karachi, while Air Sial, another private one, has applied for permission to operate flights. No official and private Bangladesh airlines expressed their desire to fly Dhaka-Karachi flights.

Pakistan exported products like cotton, sugar, rice, and wheat in FY 2023–24. Bangladesh exported $61.98 million to Pakistan and imported goods worth $627.8 million.

As Pakistan serves as a gateway for goods to Afghanistan, Dhaka can explore the potentiality of trading premium quality goods to and from the landlocked country through Pakistan.

The last FOC in 2015 covered sensitive issues, which remain unresolved. However, officials stress these should not hinder current engagement.

Meanwhile, Indian Modi Media writes that the Bangladesh-Pakistan FOC meeting is a big threat for India as Pakistan and Bangladesh decide to come closer.

Nivedita Dash writes on India.com that after the fall of Sheikh Hasina, relations between Bangladesh and Pakistan are continuously deepening. Yunus government supported by pro-Pakistan fundamentalists has completely opened the doors of Dhaka to Islamabad.

There is a threat to regional stability and security issues will be jeopardized, with the two South Asian countries coming close and closer.

Her article dipped in a sauce of lies and more lies, further claims that “During the 15-year rule of Sheikh Hasina in Bangladesh, Dhaka had completely cut off ties with Pakistan, but the interim government led by Mohammad Yunus has rolled out the red carpet for Pakistan. Since then, Islamabad has completely intensified its activities in Dhaka.”

Like India, Hasina has never cut ties with Pakistan nor intended to sever relations. Well, both Dhaka and Islamabad lowered their diplomatic status and there were no High Commissioner in each other’s capitals for quite some time.

Two diplomats, one each from Dhaka and Islamabad were declared persona non grata.

On the diplomatic front, Hasina had announced a moratorium on visas for Pakistan nationals, except for official visits to Bangladesh. Pakistan also reciprocated. This impacted on direct flights from Karachi-Dhaka route and PIA flights were stalled until now for lack of passengers.

The row over lowering diplomatic ties sparked after Pakistan’s parliament adopted a resolution condemning Bangladesh for the trials of those Islamist leaders, who were henchmen of Pakistan occupation forces and had raised armed militia and committed crimes against humanity in Bangladesh.

The parliament resolution read that those war criminals hanged in Bangladesh had sacrificed their lives for the sake of the unity of Pakistan and were regarded as martyrs.

Nivedita Dash is also worried that Pakistan’s army and its spy agency ISI (Inter-Service Intelligence) have become active in Bangladesh. Along with this, Pakistan is now also trying to increase its trade presence with Bangladesh.

The claim includes $200m foreign aid sent to East Pakistan (now Bangladesh) after the 1970 Bhola Cyclone, which was deliberately diverted to Lahore during independence war in 1971.

The Bhola Cyclone was a catastrophic tropical cyclone that struck a coastal region in November 1970. It is considered the deadliest tropical cyclone ever recorded, with an estimated 300,000 to 500,000 deaths.

The foreign aid deposited with the Dhaka branch of the State Bank of Pakistan was siphoned in 1971 to its bank’s Lahore branch, Ministry of Foreign Affairs officials stated.

Bangladesh officials argued at the FOC that comprising its fair share of undivided Pakistan’s pre-1971 assets, including aid money, provident funds, and savings instruments.

The financial claims do not include reparation for an untold humanitarian crisis caused by war crimes, when ten million war refugees who took shelter in neighboring India and rape as a weapon of war was employed during the brutal birth of Bangladesh in 1971.

Some categories of those affected in the war are still being compensated through modest monthly doles.

Similarly, hundreds of Bangla-speaking government employees who had been stationed in West Pakistan were later repatriated home in 1973-74. On their return, they discovered that their provident fund balances and savings instruments accrued were never refunded by Pakistan. These financial losses are part of the broader US $4.52 billion claim.

The Foreign Ministry officials said Bangladesh has consistently sought its rightful share for the return of the US $200 million in cyclone aid that was illegally misappropriated at the peak of the liberation war in 1971.

According to foreign ministry records, based on population alone, Bangladesh was entitled to 56 per cent of those assets. If contributions to foreign exchange earnings are considered, the share stands at 54 per cent, and by any parity principle, Bangladesh should be entitled to at least 50 per cent.

A post-war assessment prepared by the Bangladesh Planning Commission on 16 December 1971 estimated that West Pakistan had withheld Bangladesh Taka (BDT) 9 million (Pakistan Rupees 20.76 million) in provident fund deposits belonging to East Pakistani civil servants.

Similarly, BDT 15.7 million (Rupees 36.26 million) held in the Rupali Bank’s (formerly Muslim Commercial Bank) Karachi branch during the war was never returned. Pakistan later converted this amount into shares and informed Muslim Commercial Bank – unfortunately, the bank never responded and money was never transferred.

Adding to the grievance, the Bangladesh government honored the obligations of various pre-independence instruments sold by the Pakistani government – including defense savings certificates and income tax bonds – effectively paying debts that it believes Pakistan should have settled.

A report titled “Statement of Bangladesh Bank Claims Receivable from State Bank of Pakistan and Government of Pakistan” lays out a detailed breakdown.

As of 16 December 1971, the total value of the currency in circulation was Rupees 8.71 million, at least half of which Bangladesh owes. Pakistan’s bank sectors alone owe Bangladesh, Rupees 56 million.

The Bangladesh government also accepted liability of BDT 213.8 million (Rupees 493.50 million) of some of Pakistan’s central government and provincial government debt securities, claims which Dhaka has lodged.

These include BDT 140.7 million (Rupee 324.77 million) in central government loans, BDT 27.7 million (Rupee 63.94 million) in East Pakistan government loans, BDT 11.5 million (Rupee 26.55 million) in West Pakistan government loans, BDT 24.6 million (Rupee 56.79 million) in savings certificates issued against international trading unit investments, and BDT 0.65 million (Rupee 1,500 million) in Savings Certificates linked to Pakistani Prize Bonds.

It is understood that Islamabad will review the claim of Bangladesh US$4.52 and hold further parleys to resolve the debt issue. Bangladesh had waited for 54 years to speak up, it will take another several years for Pakistan to make up its mind and relay its decision on the financial claims.

Meanwhile, according to data from the State Bank of Pakistan, Pakistan’s reserves stood at $15.75 billion, reports BBC news portal.

That is, Pakistan will have to spend more than a quarter of its reserves to meet Bangladesh’s demands, BBC concluded.

First published in the Stratheia Policy Journal, Islamabad, Pakistan on 18 April 2025 

Saleem Samad is an award-winning independent journalist based in Bangladesh. A media rights defender with Reporters Without Borders (@RSF_inter). Recipient of Ashoka Fellowship and Hellman-Hammett Award. He could be reached at saleemsamad@hotmail.com; Twitter (X): @saleemsamad

https://stratheia.com/bangladeshs-sudden-claim-of-pre-1971-assets-jolts-pakistan/

Was Bangladesh Discussed at the ‘2+2’ Dialogue in Delhi?

The fifth edition of 2+2 dialogue between India and the US has concluded on Friday.

SALEEM SAMAD

The entire media and foreign offices of South Asian countries are eagerly watching as the development unfolds in New Delhi.

The Southeast Asian countries are also waiting for the outcome of the 2+2 ministerial dialogue from the visit of a high-profile American delegation led by United States Secretary of State Antony Blinken and US Defence Secretary Lloyd Austin while External Affairs Minister Subrahmanyam Jaishankar and Defence Minister Rajnath Singh headed the Indian side.

The agenda for the dialogue on Friday (10 November), on the eve of a weekend, would not discuss the wars in Gaza and Ukraine but would focus on security challenges in the Indo-Pacific and concerns over China.

China has kept all its eyes and ears of the red dragon focused on Delhi to understand what resolutions have been adopted at the so-called 2+2 talks against the giant of Asia.

The 61-year-old Foreign Secretary Vinay Mohan Kwatra, responding to a query by journalist Yeshi Seli of the New Indian Express about whether Bangladesh was on the menu, the veteran diplomat said “As I mentioned, extensive discussions took place on different regional developments in South Asia and other parts of the world also. And so far as Bangladesh is concerned we shared our perspective very, very clearly.

“It is not our space to comment on the policy of a third country. I think when it comes to developments in Bangladesh, elections in Bangladesh, it is their domestic matter. It is for the people of Bangladesh to decide their future.

“We as a close friend and partner of Bangladesh respect the democratic processes in Bangladesh and will continue to support that country’s vision of a stable, peaceful and progressive nation that the people of that country seek for themselves.

“We were very clear in sharing our perspective on how we look at situations in different parts of the world and that includes Bangladesh with the US side during these discussions,” the veteran diplomat said softly.

Meanwhile, the United States Ambassador Peter Haas to Bangladesh has flown to New Delhi ahead of Blinken’s arrival.

Sources said, Haas is likely to update the Indian and US sides on where things stand for them in Bangladesh. It could not be ascertained what has transpired from the official briefing by the US envoy, who has been recently threatened to be beaten up black and blue by a ‘golden boy’ from the governing Awami League for Haas, allegedly hobnobbing with the opposition Bangladesh Nationalist Party (BNP). The governing party did not take action against the henchman.

The US has been reiterating that there should be free, fair and inclusive elections in Bangladesh. The upcoming national election is expected in early January 2024.

Both India and the USA are concerned about Bangladesh that it should not be allowed to slip into the fold of the Red Dragon. Understanding that the country is in debt due to loans it needs to repay to China under its so-called Belt and Road Initiative. Many define the Chinese motive behind the mega projects are debt trap for a poor country.

The United States, India, Japan and Korea do not want to see a pro-Chinese regime come to power. China is deep down in Bangladesh’s politics and so-called economic development partner.

The United States, India and Japan see China as a threat to regional security having its visible footprint in Bangladesh.

These countries have time and again expressed doubt about the strong pro-Chinese lobbies in the country, which besides the political parties and their leaders, includes the media and the business community remains an influential force.

That is why India and the United States cannot trust the principal opposition BNP, for not only being anti-Indian but also a die-hard pro-Chinese.

China first made inroads into Bangladesh during General Ziaur Rahman’s era when the military dictator made his first official visit to Beijing in 1977.

China recognised Bangladesh after the assassination of Bangabandhu Sheikh Mujibur Rahman, the independence hero.

The military dictator sought China’s political and military blessings to counter Indian influence, which was suddenly disrupted on 15 August 1975 after the death of Sheikh Mujib. Its a long history in short.

India surely does not wish Bangladesh to go away and envisages that Bangladesh should continue to remain a good neighbour.

Delhi is nervous after China’s increasing influence in South Asia and meddling with politics. After Mohammed Muizzu won the elections in Maldives. India, lost its political clout in the island nation located in the Indian Ocean as the country slid into the Chinese lap.

China does not care about free and fair elections, as they do not practice democracy in an authoritarian rule and have rebuked the West without naming any country for “interfering in domestic affairs”.

First published in Northeast News, 10 November 2023

Saleem Samad is an award-winning independent journalist based in Bangladesh. A media rights defender with the Reporters Without Borders (@RSF_inter). Recipient of Ashoka Fellowship and Hellman-Hammett Award. He could be reached at saleemsamad@hotmail.com; Twitter: @saleemsamad

Fears of an American base at Saint Martin’s Island kicks fresh row in Bangladesh politics

SALEEM SAMAD

In the mid-60s the radical students of the East Pakistan Chattra (Student) League and also a few leftist elements to arouse dissent against the regime of a military dictator General Ayub Khan of Pakistan said that he has leased Saint Martin’s island in the southeast tip of the country to the United States to build a military base to counter India.

After the independence of Bangladesh, the myth loaded with political jargon melted away. A similar story of St. Martin’s being given away to America popped up several times since its independence in 1971. A couple of times during the military juntas of a liberation war hero, General Ziaur Rahman (1977-1981) and founder of Bangladesh Nationalist Party (BNP), and General Hussain Muhammad Ershad (1982-1990), founder of Jatiya Party were in power. They were deliberately blamed for facilitating inroads for America to counter the regional influence of India.

Once again, Bangladesh’s only coral island, Saint Martin’s is in fresh controversy for being given away to the Americans, this time not to counter India, but China’s hegemony in the South Asia region.

This time, Prime Minister Sheikh Hasina herself exploded a bomb, when she asked “How did BNP come to power in 2001?” at the press conference at her official residence Ganabhaban on 21 June.

“They came to power by pledging to sell gas [to India]. Now do they want to sell the country [to the United States] or come to power by pledging to sell Saint Martin’s island,” she told.

Well, she did not mention the name of any country, but it is understood by political analysts, that she pointed her fingers towards two countries. The export of natural gas through a pipeline to energy-starved West Bengal, India and the coral island to the American for a military base.

She was upbeat to politically admonish BNP that the ‘Kings party’ had negotiated with India, which helped the rightist party leader Khaleda Zia to return to power in the 2001 October elections.

She blames BNP negotiated with Washington DC to give away the ‘critically endangered’ coral island to America for a military establishment to watch over a huge swatch of the Bay of Bengal, which merge with the Indian Ocean in the far south.

Promptly, BNP secretary general Mirza Fakhrul Islam alleged that prime minister Sheikh Hasina, as of her political strategy, provided false information about BNP’s stance on St. Martin’s Island.

“The remark on St. Martin’s island is part of her political strategy. They want to gain an advantage through such statements. No country signs a deal with the opposition, it is signed with the government,” he remarked.

The United States State Department spokesperson Matthew Miller scoffed off the rumour centring on the island and the USA.

In a press briefing in Washington last week, he said that the ruling Awami League and its [political] allies have been alleging for the last few days that the US wants to take over Saint Martin’s island and the opposition Bangladesh Nationalist Party (BNP) wants to come to power by “making a pledge to lease it out”.

The US had no intentions to acquire Saint Martin’s Island. “We have never engaged in any conversations about taking over Saint Martin’s Island,” he remarked.

The spokesperson, putting away his diplomatic niceties did not hesitate to comment that in the “last 15 years, she [Sheikh Hasina] is in power without reflection of the will of the people of Bangladesh, though.”

The issue was first raised in the Jatiya Sangsad (parliament) on 14 June by a left leader, Rashed Khan Menon, president of Bangladesh Workers’ Party and an alliance of governing Awami League said the countries that “have the US as a friend, do not need any enemies”.

He stressed that the US sought Saint Martin’s and Bangladesh’s participation in the Quadrilateral Security Dialogue (Quad), a strategic Indo-Pacific alliance, where Australia, India, Japan and the United States are primary members.

Six days later, another radical politician Hasanul Haq Inu, president of Jatiya Samajtantrik Dal (JSD), also an ally of Awami League in his speech in parliament said, “The time has come for us to think about the reason for this over-enthusiasm of the US. Is it democracy or Saint Martin’s Island?”

A British team of surveyors’ in 1900 included Saint Martin’s island as part of the British Raj in India and named it after a Christian priest Saint Martin.

The Department of Environment (DoE) in 1999 declared the 8 Sq. Km island an Ecologically Critical Area (ECA). As per section 19 of the ECA Management Rules 2016, notwithstanding anything contained in any other law, the class of land of any ECA cannot be changed without permission of the DoE. Thus, any construction of establishments on the island is illegal and dangerous for saving the coral reef at Cox’s Bazar-Teknaf peninsula.

Despite several official notices and high court orders, the island has more than 230 hotels, resorts, cottages and restaurants, either one-storey or multi-storied.

Green activists and researchers say the island is home to several globally endangered marine turtles and birds, including rare Pacific reef-egret, red crab, dolphin and vulnerable olive Ridley sea turtles, which are also on the verge of disappearance.

Professor Kawser Ahmed, dean of the Earth and Environmental Sciences Faculty of Dhaka University in his article published in Ocean Science Journal in 2020 predicts that coral species would completely disappear by 2045.

Bangladesh Environmental Lawyers Association’s (BELA) chief executive Syeda Rizwana Hasan doubts whether an ecologically threatened island would be suitable for any military purpose.

The longstanding political debate over the island could be understood from a news report on 18 December 1980. The defunct Dainik Bangla published a report under the heading “None will be allowed to establish a naval base at Saint Martin’s”.

A stern warning was issued in a statement by the Bangladesh Ministry of Foreign Affairs. The statement alleged that several political parties claimed that a country [United States] has been allowed to set up its naval base at Saint Martin’s island is completely baseless.

However, political historian and researcher Mohiuddin Ahmad quoted in a reputed Bangla-vernacular newspaper Prothom Alo that he first heard in February 1971 about leasing Bhola’s Monpura island out to the USA.

The rumour had spread, soon after Bangabandhu Sheikh Mujibur Rahman held a parley with the US Ambassador to Pakistan, Joseph Simpson Farland, on 28 February 1971 – a month before the genocidal campaign ‘Operation Searchlight’ launched by Pakistan military, which sparked the liberation war.

The pro-Chinese left Maoist parties and their affiliated youth organisations printed a propaganda leaflet that Monpura Island will be given away to America, in exchange for US support for the independence of Bangladesh.

The disinformation against Sheikh Mujib died when the United States tilted towards Pakistan’s military junta during the bloody war of Bangladesh’s independence in 1971.

The blame game by political opponents in Bangladesh is a dilemma alleging the ruling elites are going to lease out Monpura or Saint Martin’s Island to the US or going to provide benefit to India are age-old political bashing, said writer Ahmad.

Some political observers believe that the imposition of sanctions by the USA against the anti-crime special unit Rapid Action Battalion’s (RABs) seven current and former senior officers were accused of violating human rights including extra-judicial killings and enforced disappearances – recent US visa restrictions for officials, the ruling party and opposition, whoever undermines democracy and cause hindrance to a free and fair parliament elections in January 2024, have raised eyebrows among political leaders and government officials.

They did not hesitate to slam the United States’ foreign policy and deemed the announcement as interference in the internal affairs of a sovereign country.

Meanwhile, Bangladesh Foreign Minister Dr AK Abdul Momen said this week “We welcome the continuous engagement with the US to wipe off misunderstanding between Dhaka and Washington if there was any.” He told reporters when he was asked to comment on the upcoming high-level official visit from the United States.

Dhaka would welcome if the US delegation led by US Under Secretary for Political Affairs Victoria Nuland and US Assistant Secretary of State for the Bureau of South and Central Asian Affairs Donald Lu scheduled in early July came up with a “bright idea” as Bangladesh is committed to hold free, fair and violence-free elections, said Dr Momen.

First published in the India Narrative, 9 July 2023

(Saleem Samad is an award-winning independent journalist based in Bangladesh. Views expressed are personal. Twitter: @saleemsamad)

What will President Joe Biden’s strategy be for South Asia?

President Joe Biden signs executive orders in the Oval Office of the White House in Washington/ Photo REUTERS

SALEEM SAMAD

Hours after President Joe Biden took oath in Washington DC, the leaders of South Asia showered tribute to the new leadership of the United States.

Months before the formal swearing-in on January 20, there were frantic exchanges of diplomatic cables from the capitals of South Asian countries to the United States capital, eager to know the 46th US president’s strategy for South Asia.

Most South Asian think-tanks were of the opinion that the policy would be different from the outgoing president, Donald Trump. The regional leaders and think-tanks have mixed feelings on Trump’s policy on South Asia, which was dubbed as “out of focus.” Most of the think-tanks on South Asian affairs were confident that Biden’s foreign policy would be far more pro-active and pragmatic.

The new US president is likely to engineer a full-scale foreign policy plan to augment cooperation with the 8-member South Asian Association for Regional Cooperation (SAARC), 11-country Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN), 55 member states of the African Union, 21-member state Organization of American States (OAS), 22-member Arab League, 6-member Gulf Cooperation Council (GCC), and so on and so forth.

Michael Kugelman, deputy director for the Asia Program at the Woodrow Wilson International Centre for Scholars in Washington, DC, believes that Biden will fully back a rapidly growing US–India partnership that enjoyed much forward movement during the Trump years -- just as it had throughout every previous administration back to the Bill Clinton era.

Incidentally, Biden is a long-time friend of India’s, who once described the US–India partnership as the defining relationship of the 21st century.

On the other hand, thousands of bipartisan Indian expats in America, who are effectively influential in American politics and administration, were able to churn hard facts into a pro-active foreign policy towards India in South Asia.

The two countries have a shared concern over combating terrorism and the challenges that the emerging Chinese hegemony pose -- these will have Biden’s full-throated support. He will also increase pressure on Pakistan to shut down the India-focused terror networks on its soil, especially with the receding US footprint in Afghanistan.

Nevertheless, Washington’s delicate relationship with Pakistan won’t be upended by abrupt moves, such as a sudden decision to cut security aid. Like Trump, however, Biden strongly supports total withdrawal from Afghanistan.

However, when he was vice president of Barack Obama’s administration, he was a vocal opponent of his policy regarding additional troop deployment to battle the Taliban and the remnants of Al-Qaeda and the Islamic State.

He is expected to toe the line of Trump for a workable relationship with Pakistan that revolves around securing Islamabad’s diplomatic support in advancing a fragile peace process in Afghanistan with the jihadist Taliban.

Meanwhile, the rest of South Asia will receive strategic focus, as it did during Trump’s era. The attention will be largely framed through the lens of the US-China rivalry and, increasingly, the India–China rivalry amid Beijing’s deepening footprint across the region, fuelled by its controversial Belt and Road Initiative (BRI), says Kugelman at the Woodrow Wilson International Centre.

Washington’s radar will once again lay emphasis on democracy and human rights issues in South Asian states, an emphasis which was often overlooked by the previous administration.

Biden is likely to go relatively easy on India for strategic reasons, but Pakistan, Bangladesh, and Sri Lanka could find themselves subjected to sharp and frequent criticism.

Fortunately, climate change is another priority for Biden, which is a major threat to South Asia, especially Bangladesh, Maldives, India, and Sri Lanka, and this offers an opportunity for less tense US engagement in the region.

In short, the South Asian policy under President Joe Biden will be a rare case of a continuity program. It will definitely have an impact upon the incoming administration and will reset the US foreign policy, presenting both new opportunities and fresh challenges for the region.

First published in the Dhaka Tribune, 26 January 2021

Saleem Samad is an independent journalist, media rights defender, and recipient of Ashoka Fellowship and Hellman-Hammett Award. He can be reached at saleemsamad@hotmail.com; Twitter @saleemsamad

"How long can Pakistan hold out in the east (Bangladesh)”

SALEEM SAMAD

A conversation between Henry Kissinger and General Westmoreland about the birth of Bangladesh

Three days after a full-scale war between India and Pakistan in the eastern frontier and Bangladesh-India jointly against Pakistan in the eastern theatre, Henry Kissinger asked how long could the Pakistan troops hold in Bangladesh.

The meeting held in Washington DC, in the morning of December 6, 1971, was attended by senior officials of departments of state, defence, joint chief of staffs, CIA, USAID, and others.

US Secretary of State, Henry Kissinger, at the onset of the meeting asked Gen Westmoreland: “What is your military assessment? How long can Pakistan hold out in the east” (Bangladesh war zone)?

Gen Westmoreland candidly said up to three weeks. Once the Pakistan Army runs out of supplies, all the troops in East Pakistan [Bangladesh] will become hostage. The officials discussed whether there were any possibilities of Pakistan troop's evacuation. Gen Westmoreland responded in negative.

A senior official of the State Department asked Gen Westmoreland that assuming the Indians took over Bangladesh, how did he think it would happen?

Gen Westmoreland replied, “I think their primary thrust will be to cut off the seaport of Chittagong. This will virtually cut off any possibility of resupply. Then they will move to destroy the Pakistan regular forces, in cooperation with the Mukti Bahini. They will then be faced with the major job of restoring some order to the country. I think there will be a revenge massacre — possibly the greatest in the twentieth century.”

Kissinger asked whether the Indians would withdraw their army once the Pakistan forces were disarmed.

Gen Westmoreland replied that he thought they [Indian] would leave three or four divisions to work with the Mukti Bahini, and pull the remainder back to the West.

The officials expected that the Indians would pull out as quickly as they could. Once the Pakistan forces were disarmed, the Indians would have a friendly population. They could afford to move back to the border areas quickly.

Another official predicted that after the Indian Army had been in Bangladesh for two or three weeks, they would be accepted as a “Hindu army of occupation.”

Kissinger asked: “What will India do with Bangladesh? Will they see it as an independent state or have them negotiate with Islamabad?”

An official responded that India had already recognized Bangladesh as an independent country. Kissinger said then that there was no hope for Pakistan to negotiate with Bangladesh. The objective of the Indian Prime Minister Indira Gandhi’s government was to force a surrender of the Pakistani troops in Bangladesh within 10 days.

In a telegram from New Delhi on December 6, US Ambassador Kenneth Barnard Keating reported that Indian Foreign Secretary Triloki Nath Kaul had expressed “disappointment, shock and surprise” that the United States had tabled the resolution it did in the UNSC.

On December 5, the Soviet representative on the United Nations Security Council (UNSC) vetoed an eight-power draft resolution that called for a ceasefire and mutual withdrawal of forces, as well as intensified efforts to create the conditions necessary for the return of refugees to their homes.

The United States sriously wanted to stick with withdrawal and ceasefire, not a surrender of Pakistan troops. Kissinger assured the Pakistan regime that they were doing the best they could do diplomatically.

The resolution, which was tabled by Argentina, Belgium, Burundi, Italy, Japan, Nicaragua, Sierra-Leone, and Somalia, garnered a vote of 11 to 2 with 2 abstentions but was not adopted because of the negative vote of the Soviet Union (USSR). However, the UN Security Council accepted on December 6 that an impasse had been reached in its deliberations on the conflict in South Asia, and referred the issue to the General Assembly.

An estimated 93,000 Pakistan troops and civilians made an unconditional public surrender in Dhaka on December 16, 1971, which is observed as Victory Day each year.

First published in the Dhaka Tribune, 22 December 2020

Saleem Samad, is an independent journalist, media rights defender, recipient of Ashoka Fellowship and Hellman-Hammett Award. He could be reached at <saleemsamad@hotmail.com>; Twitter @saleemsamad

Should China apologize to Bangladesh?

SALEEM SAMAD

Chinese wolf-warrior diplomacy was on the lookout for ‘friends’ in South Asia to create political pressure on India. China brought together their all-weather friend Pakistan, new ally Nepal, debt-trap Sri Lanka under its folds, except Bangladesh, Afghanistan, and Bhutan.

China seems desperate to take diplomatic and economic ties with Bangladesh to a new height.

Since 1991 after a democratic government took power the China-Bangladesh relationship was intertwined for the partnership for economic development.

The new pro-Islamist regime of Khaleda Zia reached out to China to shrug off Indian influence which was an extended strategic gain for both countries.

China and Pakistan was the major military hardware supplier to Bangladesh military forces, which was also needed for United Nations Peacekeeping operations. The weighing scale plummeted under the growing influence of the China-Pakistan axis and penetrated deep into politics, bureaucracy, and economic development of the country.

In subsequent years, China emerged as the major economic partner in mega infrastructure development in Bangladesh and the cheering politicians began to beat their chest like King Kong.

Sheikh Hasina, a woman prime minister for successive fourth term has told her government officials that Bangladesh will give second-thought regarding multi-billion dollar development projects with China.

The world media reports have caught the attention of the Bangladesh leaders regarding several third-world countries were caught in debt-trap in South Asia, Africa, and the Pacific Ocean Islands. What happened was the country’s national exchequer failed to repay the huge loan invested in mega projects. China in a bid to salvage the debt-trap government took a 99-years lease of maritime ports and other facilities. End of the story!

Not very long Sheikh Hasina, the daughter of assassinated Bangabandhu Sheikh Mujibur Rahman, the founder of Bangladesh has reassured the Indian journalists that India is an ‘organic’ friend of Bangladesh and have jointly shed blood during the brutal independence in 1971.

She also said that China is a development partner and there is no conflict of interest. In 1971, the marauding Pakistan troops in eastern war theatre in desperate attempted to keep the two wings of Pakistan united. Pakistan troops and their Islamic militia continued to commit genocide and rape as a weapon of war.

Pakistan troops were in a quagmire. In the monsoon rain in floodplain delta coupled with Mukti Bahini guerilla’s hit and run operations gave the soldiers a hard time. Fortunately, Pakistan an ally of the Chinese Communist Party (CCP) received unlimited military supply and political support for the war to suppress the people.

Like the Pakistan media, Chinese media were tight-lipped of the genocide committed by marauding soldiers. China should admit the responsibility for the genocide perpetrated by Pakistan’s military hawks in Bangladesh.

For each victim of genocide, China delivered gifts via the Rawalpindi hawks which were “Made in China” bullets in brass that were pumped into the martyrs who wanted an independent Bangladesh.

China ignored world opinion on the Bangladesh liberation war in 1971. CCP closed their ears not to hear the cries and agonies of 10 million refugees who fled to neighboring India. Many countries in the world do not have 10 million populations!

On the other hand, on request of the Bangladesh government in exile, Maulana Abdul Hamid Khan Bhashani, chairman of the pro-China left-leaning National Awami Party’s appeal to the CCP for political support for Bangladesh went unanswered. Instead, China increased the supply of arms and ammunition.

After independence, China continued to politically and diplomatically harass the newly emerged independent nation.

The architect of Bangladesh’s independence, Sheikh Mujib after three weeks of the historic surrender of 93,000 Pakistan armed forces and para-military forces in Dhaka, had returned from the prison of Pakistan.

He took charge of a war-ravaged nation with a promise to feed the hungry people and task to rehabilitate the millions of refugees slowly trickled back home from camps in India. This phenomenon created a challenge for the new government. By April 1972, one after another, including the United States, Canada, Great Britain, European countries, allies of the Soviet Union, Japan, Australia, and scores of countries recognized the war-torn nation of 75 million. The trouble started when Bangladesh applied for membership to the United Nations in 1972. China spontaneously twice vetoed Bangladesh membership in the United Nations as the country desperately needed international food aid and budget for rehabilitation of the returnees from Indian refugee camps. China deliberately vetoed the application because two United Nations resolutions regarding the repatriation of Pakistani prisoners of war (POWs) and civilians held in India had not yet been implemented. Chinese move was certainly to keep Pakistan in good humor.

To withstand Asian-giant China, Sheikh Mujib to add diplomatic clouts joined the Non-Aligned Movement (NAM), The Commonwealth, and the Organisation of Islamic Conference (OIC), which indeed strengthened Bangladesh foothold in the global arena.

However, Pakistan recognized Bangladesh in 1974 under duress of the leaders of Islamic nations weeks before the OIC conference.

Even after diplomatic recognition by Pakistan, China continued to intimidate the government of Sheikh Mujib.

Overtly the pro-Beijing communist parties in the country received political blessings from CCP. The left parties despite divided into several factions opposed the liberation war, rejected independent Bangladesh, and expressed dissent on the government of Sheikh Mujib, blaming him a stooge of India.

The pro-Chinese extremist groups remained underground and their parties deliberately had prefix “East Pakistan (Purbo Pakistan)” or” East Bengal (Purbo Bangla)”.

Not to anybody’s surprise, the left extremist raised their heads above the ground and made the unconditional suspension of armed struggle during the military junta on the behest of the CCP’s.

Mujib in his book ‘Amar Dekha Nayachin’ (New China As I Saw) had visited China twice. First in 1952 and second in 1957. During his visit, he met both Mao Zedong, Zhou Enlai, and other CCP’s key leaders. He was confident that the Chinese leaders would listen to his request to recognize Bangladesh.

Stubborn Mujib opened diplomatic channels to win the heart of CCP. Pakistan’s veteran envoy to Beijing (1969-1972), Ambassador Khwaja Mohammad Kaiser, a member of Nawab clan in old Dhaka after his tenure in Beijing opted to return home.

Chinese Prime Minister Zhou Enlai confided to Ambassador Kaiser that he understood his difficulties. Well, Kaiser returned to Beijing, as Bangladesh Ambassador in 1984 for two years.

Mujib had also despatched a journalist and poet Faiz Ahmed to China. Faiz had friends in high places among CCP leadership when he was working in Radio Peking (now Beijing) Bangla Service in the 1960s. Faiz was Mujib’s play card game partner in Dhaka prison during 1966-1969. There he heard of Faiz’s relationship with the Chinese political leaders.

He traveled to Beijing via Hong Kong and met the CCP senior leaders. Unfortunately, he returned home with an empty hand. Despite the missions reached a dead end, Mujib did not lose hope.

Finally, China recognized Bangladesh, but not an elected government of Sheikh Mujib, but after his brutal assassination on 15 August 1975. China recognized the regime governed by coup leaders.

China was among the last countries to recognize independent Bangladesh on 31 August 1975.

The ‘dirty dozen’ army officers, mostly liberation war veterans who spearheaded the mutiny remained in power for 84 days. Expect for few fugitives most of the leaders were captured and rewarded the death penalty.

CCP’s anti-people policy during the bloody birth of Bangladesh, overtly providing military aid to Pakistan which augmented genocide with Chinese bullets should apologize. CCP should also apologize for harassing Bangabandhu Sheikh Mujibur Rahman.

First published in The South Asian Digest, Montreal, Canada on 12 August 2020

Author is an independent journalist, media rights defender in Bangladesh. Recipient of Ashoka Fellowship and Hellman-Hammett Award. He could be reached at saleemsamad@hotmail.com; Twitter: @saleemsamad

Victims of abduction in Bangladesh, Pakistan, Kashmir, Sri Lanka, Nepal & Ugyhur

Women shout slogans during a protest following restrictions after the government scrapped the special constitutional status for Kashmir, in Srinagar August 14, 2019. Photo: REUTERS

SALEEM SAMAD

As the world observes the International Day of the Victims of Enforced Disappearances on Aug 30, another hundred or more people will be abducted silently by state security agencies globally.

Their relatives will hold portraits of disappeared family members and call upon governments to stop such abductions, and seek accountability for the enforced disappearances, killings, and abductions, in Bangladesh, Pakistan, Kashmir, Sri Lanka, Palestine and elsewhere.

Families cry for answers on International Day of the Victims of Enforced Disappearances on August 30, a day declared by the United Nations.

Since its inception in 1980, the UN Working Group on Enforced or Involuntary Disappearances has registered 56,363 cases across 112 countries — but thousands of other cases were simply not reported!

Unfortunately, governments are often reluctant to respond. Besides, security agencies engaged in enforced disappearances, while non-state actors also settle their scores in muddy waters. They enjoy their impunity as they rub shoulders with the mighty in the corridors of power.

The impunity is extended to these forces, often because their crimes against humanity may have had government sanction.

The legal explanation does not, however, convey the horror families endure as they try and grapple with the enforced disappearance of a loved one.

Meenakshi Ganguly, South Asia director of Human Rights Watch says, under international human rights law, an enforced disappearance occurs when a person is taken into custody by government officials or their agents and the state refuses to acknowledge the person’s fate or whereabouts, placing the victim outside the protection of the law.

In South Asia, the recent history of violent conflicts ------ whether the war in Afghanistan; insurgencies in Balochistan, Pakistan or Kashmir, India; the civil war in Sri Lanka and Nepal; or political violence in Bangladesh and the Maldives------ has witnessed serious human rights violations including secret detentions and enforced disappearance, states the New York-based Human Rights Watch.

Bangladesh authorities have traditionally trashed allegations of the disappearances even after the security forces have taken someone away in front of witnesses. Instead, the agencies claim that the ‘disappeared’ are hiding to evade banks loans or are felons dodging arrest.

In Indian administered Kashmir, they use the shocking word ‘half widow,’ for women whose husbands are missing.

In Kashmir, hundreds of unidentified foreign jihadists are buried in unmarked graves, but the government is yet to order forensic tests to determine whether the remains of "disappeared" Kashmiris also lie buried in those graveyards.

In Sri Lanka, families of the tens of thousands of people who disappeared during the three-decade-long bitter ethnic civil war are camped in street corner protests. The war ended in 2009, and these families are still hoping that their loved ones will be found.

In Nepal, a Commission of Investigation on Enforced Disappeared Persons received nearly 3,100 complaints but failed to explain the causes and origin of the scary social phenomenon experienced so widely during the country’s ten-year civil war.

The victims experience egregious form of human rights violation, removed from legal protections, remaining at the mercy of their captors, at severe risk of torture or inhumane treatment, and of extrajudicial killings, says Meenakshi Ganguly.

"The families of missing ones spend the rest of their lives waiting for their loved ones to return home, or at least be told where they are buried. This is a severe form of psychological torture," said Leonce Byimana, a psychologist and Executive Director of TASSC, a US-based Torture Abolition and Survivors Support Coalition.

On this International Day of the Victims of Enforced Disappearances, human rights leaders will be speaking on behalf of missing loved ones---- for the Sindhis in Pakistan, the Kurds in the Middle East, the Tamils in Sri Lanka and Uyghur Muslims in China at the National Press Club in Washington DC.

Sufi Laghari, Executive Director of the Washington DC-based Sindhi Foundation also coordinating the Washington Press Club event, said: "We want people to understand how governments carry out enforced disappearances to silence their dissidents."

Until their whereabouts are determined, families of the disappeared should have access to effective remedies and reparations, including regular updates on the status of the investigations. This cruelty needs to stop.

First published in the Bangla Tribune, 30 August 2019

Saleem Samad, is a journalist, media rights defender, also recipient of Ashoka Fellow (USA) and Hellman-Hammett Award. Twitter @saleemsamad; Email: saleemsamad@hotmail.com

Will Bangladesh Ever Have a Future?

PANKAJ MISHRA

To an Indian who grew up in the 1970s and ‘80s, the sights of Dhaka, Bangladesh, seem to belong to a past that Indian metropolises have mostly outgrown: exuberantly battered buses, unpainted buildings, pavement book vendors with faded posters of Rabindranath Tagore and Karl Marx as well as the Rolling Stones, and pitch darkness on the unlit streets and squares where rural migrants congregate in the evenings. The countryside still feels closer here than in Kolkata or Mumbai.

In recent years, Bangladeshis have suffered the brutality of security forces and massive environmental destruction. For months now, the news from the world’s seventh-most-populous country has been dominated by the fractiousness of the country’s main leaders, the trial of men suspected of war crimes during Bangladesh’s war of liberation in 1971, and the slavery-like conditions of the country’s garment industry.

I arrived in Dhaka during one of the many recent strikes called by the opposition party, the Bangladesh Nationalist Party, against the ruling Awami League. The shutdowns, imposed through force, seemed economically ruinous, damaging small businesses the most; they resolved nothing. At first glance, Bangladesh seemed, like many countries in its neighborhood, to be struggling to find a way forward.

Irreconcilable Differences

Shackled by irreconcilable differences between political personalities, the country offers yet another instance of a fledgling democracy undermined by an undemocratic winner-takes-all attitude among its leaders. Bangladesh does have its innovators, such as Muhammed Yunus, the pioneer of microcredit. The banking system seems more responsive to the poor majority than in it does India. Bangladesh also does better than its much richer neighbor in almost all indicators of the United Nations’ Human Development Index.

But the benefits of trade liberalization -- and, in general, Bangladesh’s integration into the global economy -- have been more limited than previously expected. Certainly, the country’s economic modernization, which seems necessary to pull tens of millions out of destitution, seems to be proceeding much too slowly.

India is building a security fence on its border with Bangladesh, ostensibly to keep out Bangladeshi immigrants whose presence provides fodder to Indian demagogues. Meanwhile, a weakened state has ceded, often opportunistically, its responsibility to mitigate poverty and improve social infrastructure to such non-state actors as aid organizations, corporations, security companies, consultants, and various domestic and international non-governmental organizations. Bangladesh is one of the most NGO-ized countries in the world.

What happens next? Can Bangladesh join the modern world with its weakened governance, dysfunctional political system and uneven economic growth? An absorbing new book, “Boundaries Undermined: The Ruins of Progress on the Bangladesh-India Border,” seeks some answers in Bangladesh’s earliest attempt at modernization.

The author, a Bangladesh-born social anthropologist named Delwar Hussain, describes the strange aftermath of the Khonighat Limestone Mining Project. Situated near the Bangladeshi district of Sylhet and the Indian state of Meghalaya, Khonighat was one of the spectacular projects of national modernization that every postcolonial country once boasted of. India, for instance, had the Soviet-built Bhilai township -- designed, as one early resident, the poet and essayist Arvind Krishna Mehrotra, wrote, “by a pencil stub and a six-inch plastic ruler.”

The grids were no accident. They spoke of the rationalization and bureaucratization -- two crucial aspects of modernity -- that were supposed to weaken the hold of religion and custom. The worship of older authorities was to be discarded in a projected future full of plentiful modern goods and pleasures. In the postcolonial imagination of progress, projects such as big dams, factories and roads were expected to bring the backward masses out of the rural hinterlands and propel them into first-world prosperity.

Main Patron

Many of the new citizens of Pakistan, and then Bangladesh after 1971, eagerly participated in these public works, largely because employees were offered, as Hussain writes, “progress, status and prestige” through a range of welfare provisions: skills training, set wages, fixed working hours, health and safety regulations, pensions. The state, in turn, enjoyed its greatest legitimacy as the main patron of economic development.

But state-led projects such as Khonighat mostly helped people who were within its ambit; the majority of the country’s population remained trapped in poverty. Khonighat was closed down in 1993 after it became cheaper to import limestone from an economically liberalized India, and the World Bank and International Monetary Fund put greater pressure on Bangladesh to shut down its state-owned enterprises.

With its rusting machinery, unused cranes and half-torn railway tracks, Khonighat is now a ruin -- of the kind that, in Walter Benjamin’s vision, piles up as the storm of progress blows through the world. Meanwhile, the adjacent village of Borapani, which has become the center of an unorganized and semi-illicit coal mining industry, showcases the new forms of progress in many globalized economies.

Feeding the demands of Bangladesh’s coal-fired factories, the cashiered laborers of Khonighat have transformed themselves into traders. This impromptu and unusual elite is made more diverse by people previously relegated to the margins by Khonighat’s top-down modernization project, such as women and transgender hijras, who have achieved prominence by fulfilling local needs, economic as well as sexual: The cover photo on “Boundaries Undermined,” of a hand with brightly painted nails and a steel bracelet engraved with the word “Nike” grasping a coal sack, hints at the new ideas of work and pleasure that have emerged in the era of liberalization.

Subsidiary Professions

Religious practices suppressed by the secular ethos of Khonighat have also emerged. The coal business has generated some semi-illegal subsidiary professions, such as the trade in SIM cards in an area where both Indian and Bangladeshi governments have banned the use of mobile phones. Many of the older beneficiaries of the welfare and developmental state are now in retreat; they wallow in nostalgia for the good times of state-backed modernization and lament the new culture of greed and selfishness, while entrepreneurs who walk a fine line between criminality and legality flourish.

What does the creation of a new unsupervised social order with its multiple actors portend for Bangladesh? Here, Hussain’s answers are disconcertingly tentative. NGOs have not managed to reduce poverty; they may even have helped the middle class more than the poor and the marginalized. Short-term microfinancing by local and international NGOs has replaced long-term issues of infrastructure. According to Hussain, “there are no public health facilities, sanitation or even electricity” in Borapani. Residents who once had running water and even baths in the old quarters of Khonighat have to make do with rainwater in its abandoned limestone quarries.

There are other, less tangible losses in this brave new world: Garment workers in Dhaka pleading for better work conditions after an April factory collapse killed more than 1,000 people are asking for things that the employees of Khonighat effortlessly possessed.

Hussain’s mood is not all bleak. He points to “creative potentialities and possibilities” in the assertion of formerly excluded communities. Noting their record of religious tolerance, he hails the “disorganized cosmopolitanism” of Borapani. But he seems aware, too, of simmering frustrations among the “floating mass” of workers in unregulated zones. Much of today’s social and religious violence in India, for instance, is caused by the disempowering and degradation of men employed, if at all, in the vast “informal sector.”

Above all, millions of South Asians suffer from a general loss of national direction in an age when every man seems to be out for himself. In Bangladesh, as in India and Pakistan, the collapse of old nation-building projects of modernization has deprived most citizens of the stories and images through which they imagined themselves to be part of a larger whole.

For them, the disenchantment of the world feared by Max Weber has happened even while they await, seemingly forever, the next step into consoling prosperity and leisure. Meanwhile, ethnic and religious sectarians stand ready to channel their rage over being cheated. In that sense, Bangladesh, with its already antique modernity, illuminates South Asia’s troubled present as vividly as it does its past.

First published in Bloomberg.com, December 2, 2013

Pankaj Mishra is the author of “From the Ruins of Empire: The Revolt Against the West and the Remaking of Asia” and a Bloomberg View columnist. For comments: pmashobra@gmail.com