The narrative of an ‘American hand’ in political unrest in South Asia sells, even as the root cause of instability often lie with its own politicians
The United States of America did not have a significant role in the run-up to the independence of the Indian subcontinent from the British Raj. Indeed, the Gadar Party started as a San Francisco-based anti-colonial organization, as did the New York-based India Home Rule League founded by Lala Lajpat Rai, but the Government of the USA had remained largely oblivious of the subcontinental developments. It was only in the post-World War 2 tensions between the competing ‘blocs’, when the Cold War started in earnest, that the USA went into overdrive to control the subcontinental narrative.To further its interest, the USA had backed military dictators in Pakistan, and undemocratic monarchies in Afghanistan and Nepal, while remaining decidedly hostile towards India.
Washington DC tellingly overlooked the genocidal conduct of the Pakistani Generals in what later became, Bangladesh. Americans were instrumental in harnessing toxic religiosity by creating the Afghan mujahedeen, the curse of which continues to this date. Pakistan was a ‘Major Non-NATO Ally’ and did most of its bidding in the region. The end of the Cold War with the implosion of the Soviet Union in the early 90s coincided with the rise of China as the new principal enemy. This led to a recalibration of allies and enemies, which eventually warranted a more pro-India outlook from Washington DC, even though an unnatural alliance with Pakistan persisted owing to the necessities of Afghanistan and tackling religio-terror.
For a variety of reasons, including the continuing ‘War on Terror’ in Afghanistan, the Middle East, and Iran, to now the latest Israel-Palestine War, perceptions of America within the Ummah (Islamic World), made it naturally unsavoury. This often makes the USA the prime suspect for anything that went wrong in Tehran, Kabul, Damascus, Islamabad to even Dhaka. Invariably the Americans are seen to be partaking in Samuel P Huntington’s ‘Clash of the Civilisations’, which seemingly pits the Americans as a force against the Ummah. America-bashing is a latent and potent undercurrent that is tapped by various political parties in the Islamic countries of the region like Pakistan, Afghanistan, Maldives or Bangladesh, even if the same is genuinely warranted or not. There is no denying that America has had an amoral past with many missteps and convenient overlooking of events, but it is equally true that many political parties have twisted and even extrapolated the same to suggest outsized agendas for Washington DC because they know that such a spiel feeds into the popular and basic instincts of their citizenry.
In Pakistan, amidst the turf wars between the Military ‘establishment’ and Imran Khan’s Tehreek-e-Insaaf government, the wily Imran Khan dialled up a phoney ‘cypher’ controversy entailing a foreign power i.e., the USA. This move sought to conflate two enemies (one already imagined i.e., USA, and the other requiring some context i.e. Pakistani Military) to apportion a disproportionate role for the Americans, as it was safe and popular to do so. The Americans have historically had a say in Pakistani affairs, but the ouster of Imran Khan had more to do with the Pakistani ‘establishment’ taking the initiative with Americans agreeing to the same, as opposed to the other way round.
Today, realising his folly of having overplayed the America-hand storyline, Imran Khan has deftly redirected the attack onto his local political rivals as opposed to the Americans or even the Pakistani ‘establishment’, as done earlier. Now, after the self-created tinderbox-like situation and the subsequent implosion, Bangladesh’s former Prime Minister Sheikh Hasina is believed to have drummed up the US hand in the recent coup. While it is true that Dhaka under Hasina had adopted a belligerent stance and even cosied up to its nemesis i.e., China, by accepting Beijing’s overtures – Bangladesh was not China’s bunny in the same way as Pakistan is, nor was it poised to go that way, either. It is true Hasina had declined the American request for a Military base in its Saint Martin Islands, but that was more out of good sense given the societal sentiments that prevailed and good local politics.
The only thing that riled out Hasina was the routine concerns expressed by the USA that Hasina was increasingly undemocratic, intolerant and authoritarian (which she was) – but other than these concerns, both Hasina and the Americans had a common enemy in religious-extremist forces that threatened the interests of both sides. Hasina also amplified her American rhetoric as it was without any accompanying risks and could endear her to Bangladeshi society, as the Ummah has been wounded by emotions of the Palestine war, and the tacit role of the USA. Hasina’s purported accusation of the USA plotting regime change in Bangladesh (in her undelivered speech) needs to be read contextually. His supposed stance that she’d be in power if she had given away, “Saint Martin and Bay of Bengal”, is more theatrical than factual as Bangladeshis (especially youth) had genuinely tired of her rule.
If anything, the forces that have come to power reflect the sort of spirit and religious tenor that militates against American preferences. Hasina’s exit has more to do with her hubris and excesses than with America working overtime to dislodge her. America is just a convenient (though often justified) enemy in Islamic countries and those who are inelegantly bumped out resort to blaming the USA hand on the rebound e.g., Pakistan earlier, Bangladesh now.
(The writer, a military veteran, is a former Lt Governor of Andaman & Nicobar Islands and Puducherry. The views expressed are personal)
