India speaks out on regime change in Bangladesh
The Indian government had prior knowledge of growing opposition to Sheikh Hasina's leadership in Bangladesh but was not in a position to
'interfere,'
External Affairs Minister S Jaishankar said on Saturday, according to a report by The Hindu. He briefed members of a Foreign Ministry parliamentary panel behind closed doors and reportedly said that India was not in a position to do much as it lacked the
'necessary leverage'
over the ousted Bangladeshi prime minister, who could only be
'advised.'
This statement was in reference to the violent removal in August 2024 of Hasina, who took refuge in India. Relations between Dhaka and New Delhi have become strained since the collapse of Hasina's government and since Muhammad Yunus, her vocal critic, was appointed as the chief adviser to the caretaker government.
Bangladesh, however, has recently reached out to India for a rapprochement. Yunus recently told the news outlet BBC Bangla that his country had no choice but to maintain
good relations
with India. He acknowledged that the two countries are
'historically, politically and economically'
inseparable.
'There is no alternative to maintain good relations between the two countries,'
he said, adding that
'we cannot deviate from this.'
READ MORE:
USAID vs. India: How Trump's crackdown alters Washington-Delhi dynamics
Ties between India and Bangladesh were further strained in February when the US Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE) released a list of programs being cut as part of a cost-cutting initiative, thereby exacerbating the already tense relationship, as reported by the newspaper Indian Express. The list consisted of funding allocated to the US-based Consortium for Elections and Political Process Strengthening and included a $29 million program designed to enhance the political environment in Bangladesh, among others.
However, the names of the recipients and the total expenditure on these initiatives were not made public. According to The Hindu report, Jaishankar highlighted the role of
'external actors'
in Bangladesh while speaking to MPs.
The development comes ahead of summit of the Bay of Bengal Initiative for Multi-Sectoral Technical and Economic Cooperation (Bimstec) in Thailand next month, where Yunus is reportedly likely to meet with Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi. However, in the briefing with members of parliament, Jaishankar remained non-committal about the meeting. Bimstec is a summit that brings together seven South and Southeast Asian countries.
During Saturday's discussion, Jaishankar was questioned about the ongoing civil war in Myanmar, where armed ethnic organizations have intensified their fight against the military junta since the February 2021 coup. Members of parliament also raised concerns about the conflict's spillover effects on India's northeastern states, according to media reports.
'A useful discussion on India's relationship with Bangladesh, Maldives, Myanmar and Sri Lanka,'
Jaishankar posted on his X handle following the meeting with lawmakers.
READ MORE:
Bangladesh rejects Tulsi Gabbard's criticism over alleged abuse of minorities
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Russia Today
14 hours ago
- Russia Today
Iran bars UN atomic energy chief from its nuclear sites
Iran has barred the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) from visiting its nuclear facilities. Tehran has accused the agency of distorting facts in a recent report, thereby providing justification for the recent Israeli and US strikes against the Islamic Republic. The vice speaker of the Iranian Parliament, Hamid Reza Haji Babaei, announced on Saturday that Tehran would no longer allow IAEA personnel, including chief Rafael Grossi personally, to inspect its nuclear sites, as quoted by the local media outlet Mehr. The agency's surveillance cameras will cease operating at the facilities, he added. Earlier this week, Iran's constitutional watchdog, the Guardian Council, approved a legislation to suspend cooperation with the IAEA until Iran is given security guarantees for its nuclear facilities. The bill is currently awaiting ratification. Israel, which has for years has claimed that Tehran is secretly developing a nuclear weapon program, launched massive airstrikes against Iran on June 13, targeting several nuclear sites and a number of senior military commanders and scientists believed to be involved in the nuclear program. Last Sunday, the US joined the Israeli military campaign, striking the Natanz, Isfahan and Fordow nuclear facilities. Shortly thereafter, a ceasefire was reached between Israel and Iran. Iran has maintained that its nuclear program is strictly peaceful in nature. In a post on X last week, Iranian Foreign Ministry spokesperson Esmaeil Baqaei accused the IAEA of issuing a 'biased report' that 'obscured this truth' and was 'instrumentalized… to craft a resolution' that was later used by Israel to justify 'an unlawful attack' on Iran's nuclear facilities. He also suggested that the agency had handed over 'sensitive facility data' to Israel. The document released earlier this month stated that 'Iran is the only non-nuclear-weapon state in the world that is producing and accumulating uranium enriched to 60%.' The UN nuclear watchdog's board then declared Iran in breach of its non-proliferation duties for the first time in 20 years, with 19 out of 35 IAEA member states backing the motion, including the US, UK, France, and Germany. Appearing on CNN last Thursday, Grossi insisted that the watchdog's report 'could hardly be a basis for military action.' He added that the agency did not 'have any indication that there is a systematic program in Iran to manufacture, to produce a nuclear weapon.' On Tuesday, Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov stated that the 'Europeans… were actively preparing Grossi so that he would put the most ambiguously negative formulations into his report.' Weeks before the Israeli and US airstrikes against Iran, Reuters cited anonymous diplomats as making allegations to the same effect.
Russia Today
2 days ago
- Russia Today
Moscow flags flaws in NATO's defense planning
NATO expects a military conflict with Russia within the next five years yet plans to raise defense spending to 5% of GDP only by 2035, a timeline that Russian Foreign Ministry official Vladislav Maslennikov pointed out as contradictory during a Valdai Discussion Club session on Friday. At a summit held in The Hague this week, members of the US-led bloc pledged to increase defense spending to 5% of GDP by 2035, citing what they described as the 'long-term threat posed by Russia to Euro-Atlantic security.' US President Donald Trump, who has consistently pressed European allies to take on more of the defense burden, welcomed the deal as a 'monumental win.' Maslennikov, who heads up the ministry's Department for European Cooperation questioned how the bloc justifies a distant spending target while simultaneously anticipating a near-term confrontation. 'It's not just the logic that's flawed — the arithmetic doesn't add up either,' Maslennikov said. 'If the public is being told that Russia is expected to launch an attack by 2030, then why is the European Union only aiming to be fully prepared by 2035? It doesn't make much sense,' he argued. Another challenge NATO faces on defense policy is the lack of a unified stance among member states regarding dialogue with Russia, Maslennikov believes. While some EU nations see engagement as necessary, others advocate for cutting ties with Russia entirely. 'Some want to rule out any possibility of future dialogue with us, while others acknowledge that, sooner or later, constructive engagement will be necessary – after all, geography cannot be changed,' Maslennikov said. According to the diplomat, the so-called 'Russian threat' is a 'highly convenient construct for NATO.' Moscow believes reversing this narrative will be difficult and it has no intention of making the first move toward restoring constructive engagement. 'Much will depend on how our relationship with the United States evolves,' he stressed. Russian President Vladimir Putin dismissed the rhetoric about the threat posed by Russia to NATO as an 'inconceivable lie' used by Western governments to justify tax increases and the diversion of public funds to the military-industrial complex. Speaking at the St. Petersburg International Economic Forum last week, Putin warned that this kind of military posturing only escalates global tensions while diverting resources from social and economic needs.
Russia Today
4 days ago
- Russia Today
NATO members' leaders snubbing Zelensky at key summit
Several NATO members, including the US, are deliberately avoiding meeting with Ukrainian leader Vladimir Zelensky at the bloc's key summit in The Hague, Hungarian Prime Minister Viktor Orban has claimed. Speaking prior to the gathering on Wednesday, Orban noted that Zelensky would only attend the informal dinner and 'will not participate in the NATO summit in any official form,' indicating that 'a clear sign that the previous chapter is over.' The Hungarian prime minister went on to explain that this is a drastic change compared to previous years, stating that 'the Americans, the Turks, the Slovaks, and we have made it clear that we do not want to sit at the same table with Zelensky when it comes to NATO.' He further stressed Hungary's continued opposition to Ukraine joining NATO or the EU. Orban has repeatedly warned that Kiev's membership in any of the blocs would drag the West into a direct conflict with Russia. Meanwhile, Hungarian Foreign Minister Peter Szijjarto noted that the 2025 summit would be the first since 2022 where the focus would be not on stepping up support for Ukraine, but on strengthening the bloc's collective defense. 'With Ukraine's NATO membership off the agenda, direct confrontation with Russia has been avoided. Rationality has prevailed,' he added. Meanwhile, US President Donald Trump confirmed that he would 'probably' meet with Zelensky on the sidelines of the summit. At the same time, he described the Ukrainian leader as being in a 'tough situation,' adding that he 'should have never been there.' In another sign of the simmering tensions between Zelensky and Trump, the Washington Post reported that NATO leaders are 'tiptoeing around rifts' during the summit, trying to showcase 'a veneer of unity'. The paper reported that 'NATO officials are trying to keep [Trump and Zelensky] apart as much as possible in public — a recognition of Trump's occasionally volcanic disdain for the Ukrainian leader.' In this vein, NATO organizers positioned Zelensky far from Trump during the official summit photo-op, according to footage broadcast by C-SPAN.
