Death of R&AW officer in Dhaka in 1974 linked to Mujib assassination plot, claims book
The mysterious death in 1974 in Dhaka of a senior officer of India's external intelligence agency, who had been serving as a secret emissary of Prime Minister Indira Gandhi, was a precursor to the assassination of Sheikh Mujibur Rahman in August 1975, a new book has revealed.
Veteran journalist Manash Ghosh, in his recently published book Mujib's Blunders: The Power and the Plot Behind His Killing, has written that Phanindra Nath Banerjee, Joint Director of the Research and Analysis Wing (R&AW), was found dead in his room at the Intercontinental Hotel in Dhaka in July 1974. The incident, he noted, was never thoroughly investigated by either India or Bangladesh.
'It was the mysterious death of Phanindra Nath Banerjee [popularly known as Nath Babu or PNB], Calcutta-based Joint Director of Research and Analysis Wing (RAW), that disturbed us, the Dhaka-based Indian correspondents, immensely,' Mr. Ghosh writes. Mr. Banerjee was the direct liaison between Prime Minister Indira Gandhi and Sheikh Mujibur Rahman, the founding leader of Bangladesh.
'For Nath Babu, nurturing his relationship with a leader like Mujib was vital for his professional success. But then Ms. Gandhi had wanted his relationship with Mujib to assume both professional and personal dimensions as he was Bangladesh's man of destiny. He directly reported to Ms. Gandhi and got his instructions straight from her without any intermediary,' the author writes, explaining the R&AW officer's access to the top echelons of power in Dhaka.
Mr. Banerjee had reportedly earned the trust of Sheikh Mujib's family, including Begum Mujib, and maintained a low profile in Dhaka's diplomatic circles while having frequent meetings with senior Bangladeshi leaders such as Tajuddin Ahmed and members of the Mujib household. His closeness to power in Bangladesh and his influential position attracted curiosity and speculation.
Mr. Ghosh claims that serving officers - colonels, majors, and captains - allegedly involved in the conspiracy to assassinate Sheikh Mujibur Rahman were in contact with certain Western embassies in Dhaka and were lobbying for 'regime change.' These conspirators, he suggests, may have viewed Mr. Banerjee as an obstacle.
'They probably suspected that Nath Babu had got wind of the conspiracy that was being hatched against the entire Mujib family and had been officially assigned by his government to protect Mujib's life and also that of his family members. They could have thought that with Nath Babu around in Dacca, it would be difficult to execute their conspiracy to eliminate Mujib,' Mr. Ghosh writes.
Though Mr. Banerjee's death was officially attributed to a heart attack, the post-mortem report was never released.
'The officer in charge of the Ramna thana, who was the first among Bangladeshi officials to reach his hotel room, told reporters that he had been instructed by his higher ups that the cause of Nath Babu's death should not be discussed with any media representatives,' Mr. Ghosh writes. He adds that the National Security Intelligence (NSI) officials in Bangladesh 'remained tight-lipped and refused to entertain our phone calls.'
The author also hints at the possibility that the R&AW official may have died due to poisoning after consuming a meal during a meeting with a prominent leader from a minority community in Dhaka.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
The Hindu
14 minutes ago
- The Hindu
‘Super premium frequent flier PM' off on 5-nation jaunt: Congress jabs Modi ahead of visit
Taking a swipe at Prime Minister Narendra Modi ahead of his visit abroad, the Congress on Tuesday (July 1, 2025) said the "frequent flier PM" is off on a 5-nation "jaunt" and alleged that he is running away from four issues, including the Manipur situation and US President Donald Trump's claims about bringing about a ceasefire between India and Pakistan. Congress general secretary in-charge communications Jairam Ramesh also alleged that the Prime Minister is running away from the "revelations by defence officials that India suffered reverses in the first two days of Operation Sindoor because of the PM's decisions". Prime Minister Modi will embark on a five-nation tour beginning July 2 to participate in the BRICS Summit in Brazil and expand India's ties with several key nations of the Global South. When the going gets tough, the self-styled toughs get going. The Super Premium Frequent Flier PM is off on a 5-nation, 8-day jaunt. He is running away from at least 4 issues that are agitating the nation - 1. Manipur, which he has not visited ever since the double engine in… — Jairam Ramesh (@Jairam_Ramesh) July 1, 2025 "When the going gets tough, the self-styled toughs get going. The Super Premium Frequent Flier PM is off on a 5-nation, 8-day jaunt," Mr. Ramesh said in a post on X. He is running away from at least four issues that are agitating the nation, Mr. Ramesh said. Mr. Ramesh alleged that the PM is running away from Manipur, "which he has not visited ever since the double engine in the state got derailed and ever since normal life in the state has got totally destroyed". The Congress leader claimed that PM Modi is also running away from revelations by defence officials that India suffered reverses in the first two days of Operation Sindoor "because of the PM's decisions". His remarks were an apparent reference to the reported comments of India's defence attache to Indonesia. However, the Indian embassy in Indonesia, in a post on X on Sunday, had said that the defence attache's remarks have been "quoted out of context and the media reports are a misrepresentation of the intention and thrust of the presentation made by the speaker". Mr. Ramesh also claimed that the PM is running away from the continued claims by President Trump that he effected a ceasefire between India and Pakistan using the trade deal as a carrot and stick. He further alleged that the PM is running away from "the continued failure to bring the Pahalgam terrorists to justice even after 70 days". "The failure is all the more glaring given they may have been earlier involved in terror attacks in Poonch (Dec 2023) and Gagangir & Gulmarg (Oct 2024)," Mr. Ramesh said. Besides Brazil, Modi will visit Ghana, Trinidad and Tobago, Argentina, Brazil, and Namibia during the eight-day trip, according to the Ministry of External Affairs (MEA). In the first leg of the visit, Mr. Modi will undertake a visit to Ghana from July 2 to 3. From Ghana, Mr. Modi will travel to Trinidad and Tobago on a two-day visit from July 3 to 4. In the third leg of his visit, Mr. Modi will visit Argentina from July 4 to 5. In the fourth leg of his visit, Mr. Modi will travel to Brazil at the invitation of President Luiz Inacio Lula da Silva. The Prime Minister will visit Brazil from July 5 to 8 to attend the 17th BRICS Summit followed by a state visit. In the final leg of his visit, Mr. Modi will travel to Namibia.
The Wire
15 minutes ago
- The Wire
Trump's Extortionary Demands Recall the East India Company's Modus Operandi
US President Donald Trump is aiming for a trade agreement which can safely be called extortionary. It resembles the East India Company's success in turning India into a permanent colony for more than 200 years. Whether India will acquiesce – like Canada, which removed its 3% digital services tax on major tech firms on June 30 to restart trade talks with Washington – remains to be seen. Though the US Code refers to 'trade agreement ' 341 times, trade executive agreements or mini trade rent-seeking deals under American trade law jurisprudence require a prior authorisation or approval from Congress through the trade promotion authority (TPA). Regardless of the form of agreement, Congress must authorise the conclusion of a binding agreement so to enable requisite changes requisite legal changes. Of course, the Indian Vishwaguru went ahead into talks with the Trump administration after prime minister Narendra Modi held discussions with Trump on February 13. The Indian government even boasted of signing a $ 500-billion agreement with little or no preparation. Later, India's much-hyped 'big, good, beautiful ' trade agreement with the United States seemingly made halting progress when it now appears to be teetering following a sudden realisation in New Delhi about the potentially damaging implications of Washington's regulatory and market access demands. Chief among them – allowing unfettered entry of American genetically modified (GM) agricultural products into the Indian market and removal all regulatory barriers, India, with a population of 1.4 billion and over 700 million smallholding farmers (with farms less than three hectares), is understandably sensitive to these pressures. Yet, this "wake-up call" comes despite longstanding knowledge that the US would push aggressively to pry open India's markets – especially for its heavily subsidised, GM-laden agricultural exports, which have already been rebuffed by nations like Australia, the European Union, and China. Worryingly, institutions like NITI Aayog and some of its key agricultural advisors appear to be endorsing the American GMO agenda. This, despite clear evidence that such products, through cross-pollination and cultivation, could irreversibly damage India's diverse agricultural sector. Mexico, one of America's largest trading partners, has persistently cautioned against the use and import of GMO crops, emphasising the long-term risks. The current finance minister, Nirmala Sitharaman, who as commerce minister in 2015 did not defend India's demand for a permanent solution to public stockholding at the WTO's 10th Ministerial Conference in Nairobi now seems to recognise that trade negotiations cannot be initiated on the back of non-tariff issues. Yet, the damage may already be underway. Successive commerce ministers in the BJP-led government have struggled to secure substantial gains in trade negotiations and have often appeared to concede ground under pressure. India is already facing a slew of US tariffs: a universal 10% basic tariff, 25% tariffs on steel, aluminium, automobiles, and auto-components, and an upcoming tariff on pharmaceutical exports which is particularly damaging, given India's strength as a global supplier of generics. If India fails to comply with US demands by the July 9 deadline, it may face an additional 26% reciprocal tariff. Trump has stated that countries failing to finalise trade deals will receive formal letters outlining tariff penalties. Some of the tariffs already put in place by the Trump administration could rob off export revenue worth tens of billions of dollars, even though India's overall trade surplus is just about $ 44 billion. The only figment of hope is that the US will turn India into a major supplier of several items while breaking the Chinese domination of supply chains. NTBs a monster American commerce secretary Howard Lutnick has repeatedly labeled India's non-tariff barriers a ' monster,' insisting that high tariffs are just one part of India's complex regulatory web. As the pressure mounts, India is realising that contemporary trade negotiations are being broadened to include sustainability clauses, carbon taxes, government procurement rules, gender and labour standards – areas traditionally excluded from trade pacts. 'We just can't walk into it,' a senior Indian official commented. 'India is an emerging economy with specific domestic needs.' We had repeatedly raised these alarm bells. Today, it seems the chickens are indeed coming home to roost. A group of former senior commerce ministry officials recently issued a memorandum cautioning that if the US demands excessive concessions on India's core interests, 'India should take equally hard positions and resist – even at the cost of not securing a deal.' The memorandum, signed by former cabinet secretary K.M. Chandrasekhar, ex-commerce secretary Gopal Pillai and Ujal Singh Bhatia, who is the former WTO appellate body chair, among others, argued that the short-term costs of navigating a high-tariff US market may be less damaging than the long-term fallout of an unequal agreement. The statement emphasised that these negotiations are occurring in the shadow of an aggressive and unpredictable US trade policy. Trump's second term has been marked by indiscriminate use of tariffs and a deliberate redrawing of the global trade architecture. In recent bilateral discussions held in New Delhi, negotiators claimed progress on market access for industrial goods and some agricultural products, according to a June 10 Reuters report. But reports soon emerged suggesting talks were faltering, owing to several red lines from both sides. Complicating matters are Trump's seemingly dubious geopolitical claims – such as linking an India-Pakistan ceasefire to trade negotiations – statements that were denied by Indian officials but never directly countered by Modi or his cabinet. India has yet to publicly disclose the full extent of US demands, raising fears of quiet concessions under diplomatic or corporate pressure, including rumoured influence from large business conglomerates. Learning from China India could have taken a cue from China's tough approach. When Trump announced reciprocal tariffs in April 2018, Beijing responded measure-for-measure, refusing to be bullied. This strategy eventually led the US to seek a tariff truce. Admittedly, China has economic leverage – particularly in critical raw materials – that India currently lacks. However, India still had the option to adopt a firm, no-nonsense posture instead of rushing to accommodate US demands. Even a beleaguered nation like Iran has demonstrated its ability to stand its ground against dominant nuclear powers, maintaining control over more than 400kg of enriched uranium at 60% despite intense pressure. Today, India finds itself cornered. If it exits talks, it risks punitive tariffs like those faced by Canada and the EU. But capitulating could mean signing away sovereign policy space and inviting irreversible damage to its economy and agriculture – echoing the colonial entrapment of the East India Company era.
The Hindu
20 minutes ago
- The Hindu
Gross oversimplification, misleading to make India-U.S. relations about China: Jaishankar
External Affairs Minister S. Jaishankar has said that it is a 'very gross oversimplification' and 'even misleading at times' to make the India-U.S. relationship about China. Mr. Jaishankar was responding to a question on how much of the India-U.S. relationship is defined by its stance on China. "I think it's a very gross oversimplification to make India-U.S. about China. In fact, it's not just an oversimplification. I think it's even misleading at times,' Mr. Jaishankar said on Monday (June 30, 2025) during a conversation with Newsweek CEO Dev Pragad at the publication's headquarters at One World Trade Centre near the 9/11 Memorial in Manhattan, New York. He said that the India-U.S. relationship is about 'so many other things,' noting the large Indian community, which contributes significantly to the U.S. 'I think it's been a game-changer. It has got nothing to do with China,' he said. Strong economic connect He stressed that Washington and Delhi have a very strong economic connect. 'Look at our trade numbers and look at the relevance of that trade to our respective economies. Look at our technology connect,' he said, adding that there is a tendency to point even the defence or security cooperation towards China, but 'I ask you to look at the other coast. We work to keep the Arabian Sea safe for global shipping. 'This is (an) age of oversimplification. I urge you not to fall into that. I think the world is much more nuanced. It's much more multi-causal. We have many more interests than just one country. I would certainly like to believe that the relationship is going well because there is great merit in me,' Mr. Jaishankar said. U.S.-China relations 'not what it used to be' He added that there are certain realities of the landscape, and one of them is that the relationship between the U.S. and China is not what it used to be, it has acquired a much sharper competitive edge. 'Frankly, where we are concerned, we look at these two countries, and each one of them has made up its mind about how it views the other. Obviously, there will be an element of tactics to it. There's a larger strategic view that they have of each other,' he said, adding that 'we would look quite honestly to see in what way are our interests furthered in this landscape. "I think in many ways, you can see that we have very strong convergences with the United States. At the same time, we are China's largest neighbour. We share a land boundary. We want stable relations with China,' he said, adding that Beijing is a very large trade partner as well, even though it is an imbalanced trade. 'So for us, how to sort of steady the China relationship, create an equilibrium that is fair to us (and) at the same time, how do you work the convergences with the United States and get the most out of it. I mean, that's, frankly, the way we would approach it,' he said.
