Jaideep Saikia
(Jaideep Saikia is a universally acclaimed conflict theorist and
bestselling author. He can be reached at jdpsaikia@gmail.com.)
Md. Yunus, the once illegitimate head of an ille-gal regime in Bangladesh, might have “stepped down” from power after Tarique Rahman took over as the erstwhile East Pakistan’s chief executive. But the former’s long shadow will continue to define the India-Bangladesh relationship for a long time. In the last 18 odd months, the man whom the United States had propped up to systematically subvert South Asia’s geopolitics has once again made an obnoxious reference to the Northeast.
The imposter’s “farewell speech” clearly showcases that not only was he “leaving behind” a bitter legacy that had been a refrain in him ever since he took over the unconsecrated reins of power in Dhaka, but also that he has intentionally muddied the waters that, many felt, would have been an opportunity for a new beginning in Dhaka-Delhi relations. It was Yunus at his sinister best, albeit orchestrated by his western masters whose sole motivation is to keep the region destabilised. It will be interesting to watch how Tarique Rahman reacts to Yunus’ most disgusting remark about a region which is an integral part of India.
The reference to the “Seven Sisters” in isolation, and alongside sovereign states such as Bhutan and Nepal, is repulsive. The former Indian Foreign Secretary, Kanwal Sibal’s characterisation of the highly offensive comment by Yunus that “Bangladesh can provide economic opportunity to India’s Northeast through its ‘open sea’” as a “dangerous mindset” is correct. Was Yunus once again attempting to court the very few detractors of India still hiding in and around the Northeast into some sort of adventurism against Delhi? Indeed, the response—which Sibal appropriately made—should have ideally been articulated in curt official language by Delhi. As aforesaid, it would be interesting to observe how the new dispensation in Dhaka views the reference to India’s Northeast. It is only hoped that the revolting remark by Yunus will not come up against an embittered wall right at the opening of what some among many are hoping would offset an acrimonious recent past.
Certain observers of Bangladesh have once again counselled me to exercise “strategic patience”. I was told that Tarique Rahman has not only convincingly defeated a radical Islamist conglomeration but has also spoken about “Bangladesh First” as he seeks to equidistance his government from both Delhi and Rawalpindi. Worthy words from the scion of an inheritance that has witnessed the worst possible period in India-Bangladesh relations! It was, after all, during his late mother’s leadership that Indian insurgents held bold forts in Bangladesh and anti-Indianism took portentous shape.
The Indian observation that Tarique Rahman has turned a new leaf and is going to concentrate on his three top priorities, namely ensuring the “Rule of Law” and restoring stability, economic reform and financial discipline and national unity and healing divisions, is all very well, but it overlooks certain obvious aspects.
It is my contention that an Islamist party such as the Jamaat-e-Islami (JeI) is far more responsible when it is inextricably entrenched inside a government. Today, its mere 68 seats inside the Jatiyo Sangsod make it more yielding and acquiescent to the puppeteering of both the United States’ and Pakistan’s anti-India agenda. Indeed, even in 2005, when the JeI was a coalition partner of the ruling Bangladesh Nationalist Party (BNP) with Tarique Rahman’s mother, the late Khaleda Zia, as the Prime Minister, there was systematic Islamisation of Bangladesh. One has to only recall the terror that shook the country when 500 bombs were detonated in 63 out of the 64 districts of Bangladesh within the span of 30 minutes. It was the handiwork of the Jamaat-ul-Mujahideen Bangladesh and its key “spiritual leader”, Sheikh Abdur Rahman, alias “Bangla Bhai”. Khaleda Zia had brushed off the Islamist angle by stating on 9 September 2005 that those who want to brand Bangladesh as a “religious extremist nation” and cannot accept it as a “Muslim-majority liberal democracy” had staged the serial bomb blasts wearing the veil of Islam. She also alleged, “Those who are envious of Bangladesh’s economic progress have committed this heinous act at a time when I was on a state visit to China.” (Haroon Habib, 17 August 2005: Milestone of Terror in Bangladesh: Treading the Taliban Trail, Vision Books, 2006, Jaideep Saikia (Ed.).
Indeed, JeI’s Emir at the time, Motiur Rahman Nizami, had accused the Israeli intelligence service, Mossad, and the Indian Research & Analysis Wing of engineering the explosions. Interestingly, Nizami, who was also the Minister of Agriculture (and later Industries) in the Khaleda Zia cabinet in 2005, was implicated in arms trafficking to Assam (Paresh Baruah was one of the main consignees) and sentenced to death. However, he was acquitted in the arms smuggling case that had created a sensation when 10 truckloads of arms were caught on 1 April 2004 in Chittagong but was later hanged on 11 May 2016 for his masterminding of the Demra massacre of 13 May 1971, in which 800–900 innocent Hindu women and men were raped and killed.
Shafiqur Rahman, the present Emir of the JeI in Bangladesh, may have, following his party’s defeat to the BNP in the 13th Bangladesh national elections, said that his party will act as a “vigilant, principled and peaceful opposition.” But the fact of the matter is that his party’s founding ideology cannot change overnight. It was Pakistan’s most trusted ally in the pre-1971 years, and it will remain so, even, perhaps, a trifle more emboldened, as it has risen to be the only sprout of the Jamaat-e-Islami in the Indian subcontinent to have a good-sized number of legislators in the Bangladesh Parliament. Indeed, it would have fared better had it not tom-tommed its gender bias and predilection for Sharia Law, which was one of the important founding ideologies of the JeI progenitor, Abul A’la Maududi. A disorganised electorate, especially one that had suddenly lost its secular moorings in a banned Awami League, shuffled to the BNP. In any event, a “leopard cannot change its spots”, and the JeI will continue to push its agenda with greater vigour.
It would have been South Asia’s finest hour if Tarique Rahman actually became equidistant from the power centres that have a stake in his country. It is also important to understand that Rahman is seized of the importance of India for his country’s economy and outlet to the outside world. Some conceited Bangladeshi commentators might have termed the Northeast “Bangladesh-locked.” But the reality is that it is Bangladesh that is India-locked, and on three sides! Therefore, however much Rahman might wish to distance himself from India, the call that he would have to take is to be “seen-to-be-amiable” with India. But as much as the JeI’s primal identity and its feline spots cannot undergo overnight change, so would Rahman’s extreme innards continue to harbour hidden anti-India sentiments. Indeed, the last 18 months have already laid a robust foundation for such an onwards venture. Besides, there would be immense pressure on Rahman—indeed, he himself might want it—to bring back Sheikh Hasina to Bangladesh to face “justice”. After all, it was Hasina who was responsible for his exile as well as for his mother’s long incarceration. Retribution might pale before reconciliation, as some observers are saying. But, I ask, reconciliation with whom? Tarique Rahman has won an absolute majority in the elections. The majority that he enjoys is enough for him to act as he pleases, and one which will pander to his once hurt ego. As for India, I recommend that even as it waits and watches, it needs to keep its powder dry.
Two important signs would make Tarique Rahman’s stance clear in the coming days. To the student of subcontinental politics, the first, or the second, would be signalled by his first port of call. Would it be Delhi or would it be Beijing, Rawalpindi or even Washington DC? Much of the next five years would be determined by the flight plan of the Biman Bangladesh Airlines that he first boards. However, it should not go unheeded that Rahman’s 17-year exile in London was not only full of regular consultative meetings with the ISI but also an interesting meeting between Yunus and Rahman on 13 June 2025. No one really knows what transpired, but I have always felt that a quid pro quo might have been worked out in the private meeting in The Dorchester, which BNP sources termed as a “turning point”.
That brings me to the second of my signs. On being queried about the future of Yunus, Humayun Kabir, Adviser to Tarique Rahman, stated that “in politics, nothing is impossible.” The next few days or weeks could witness Yunus as the President of Bangladesh continuing to “overwhelm” the country with his guiles, including kowtowing to anti-India powers and crossing India’s tenuous security red lines. I, for the life of me, cannot visualise Yunus fading away into the Kuasha (Mist) of the surging Bay that has already engulfed South Asia’s geopolitics.